We come here today to worship, to raise our consciousness out of the mire of distress and illusions that we may have accumulated during the week, and into an awareness of the mystery and miracle of life; the scientific fact and the religious insight that we are all connected, connected in web of existence, connected through the origin of the species, connected to the planets and stars in the outer most reaches, connected on a pilgrimage of spiritual growth within a tradition of religious tolerance and freedom, and last but not least connected to each other in this congregation, a community existing for the blessing and service of life.
Let us worship together.
"Earth my body, water my blood, air my breath and fire my spirit"
story "Startull" by Connie Barlow http://www.thegreatstory.org
One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orang-utan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's The Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books"?
"Well," said the orang-utang, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."
In a recent conversation, a friend pointed out that I often use the phrase "I don't fully understand this but,.. when I am about to try to give some deep and comprehensive treatise. "I don't fully understand this, but, ..." I believe that this attitude and posture is very UU. And mentally the comment took me right to the intersection of science and our religion. "There is my sermon." I thought. So here we go.
In our religious tradition we operate without the assumption that we possess the ultimate truth. From my first encounters of our liberal religion, I appreciated this approach. Yet I sometimes I saw us through lenses that implied we couldn't measure up to those other truth telling religions out there.
Fortunately, the fact that we don't claim to have the truth, that we don't claim to deliver it on a silver platter, doesn't mean that what we serve up is any less nourishing. It's not like we get together and say, "we are clueless, and the other religions are wrong but at least there is good company here. ...Well maybe some of us think that, I don't know. ...But with regard to the greatest and most important concerns that religions address, we are by no means clueless. We simply begin with a degree of humility regarding Truth. Our religion is based upon a humility in relation to the meaning of existence, "the God's honest truth" if you will, the truth about what is sacred.
We have to begin with a degree of humility, with some acknowledgment and reminder that "We don't claim to be able to state the only way of understanding this matter, but we have found some truths to be self evident. We don't claim to possess "the truth" but we do claim to have found some principles that guide us to an enrichment of our faith and our life. It is a humble stance. We have to begin with this humility, because God knows once we Unitarians begin sharing our educated and thoughtful views it's hard for us to hold on to humility.
Our attempt at humility, our acknowledgment of our relation to truth, especially in matters of faith is something that is sacred to us. To begin from a framework that we can't claim to know it all (even if we sometimes may speak as if we do) is about as close as we come collectively to kneeling before God. Figuratively, we kneel before the god of truth. This is an essential aspect of our free and responsible search for truth and meaning.
Perhaps it is in this sense that we are most like science. Science and our religion both operate without assumption of a final truth alleged to have been revealed in the past. Science and our religious tradition both operate on an assumption that with appropriate efforts, greater understanding of life can be gained.
It's such a simple thing but so significantly different from the way most of us were taught to think, especially about religion, that its easy to miss. We may conceive of religion and science as two completely different and separate things, that we can not imagine how they could fit together. We don't think of science as being religious or religiously significant, and we don't think that religion can be scientific.
However, the need for congruence between science and religion has been a fundamental aspect of our religious tradition. From the time Unitarians came to American shores, scientists have been leaders in our movement. Ben Franklin and Joseph Priestly, Thomas Jefferson were some of the better known, and ever since then our movement has for attracted a good number of scientists.
The scientific method involves questioning, researching, creating a hypothesis, testing it by trying to disprove it, and then either adjusting the hypothesis or making further predictions to be tested. Our religion rarely relies upon the scientific method in a formal sense. However, the same expectation of questioning, testing and reviewing characterizes our movement.
Science and our religion assume that truth is something we do not fully grasp but that through disciplined efforts our understanding of that which is true can improve continually. There is order in the world and it behooves us to learn about it. Similarly we can continue to learn and gain a greater ability to find meaning and purpose in existence.
The idea here is not that all beliefs are equal or that it doesn't matter what you believe. Quite to the contrary, we know that what a person believes is of great consequence. Therefore we wish to examine and test our assumptions and beliefs. We have faith that through trial and error, our insight will grow. It will grow in general and in particular with regard to matters of greatest consequence to the quality of our existence; namely the discovery of what is sacred and how that shapes our understanding of the meaning and purpose of our living. This pursuit is sacred to us collectively and we have faith that we will be able to continue as long as we are willing to learn.
Our movement recognizes our kinship with science. We revere the upward trend and the faith that the scientific method can bring humanity to an every greater understanding. As today's story for all ages demonstrated, we increasingly bring science into our religious lives and celebrate the power of the revelations of science to influence our understanding of ourselves in relation to something vastly if not infinitely greater than ourselves.
Like science, our religious tradition grants no scriptural authority. Thanks to Mark and Stephanie Walls, we have a weekly bible study here, and critical examination is welcomed there. When we discover something meaningful in scripture or from any other venerated source, its value is really only determined when we take the hypothesis and test it in the experiment of our life.
Individual religious liberals may have a bible or other source that we turn to for guidance on the most essential matters of life. But we allow for the possibility that God has revealed truth to other people through other scriptures and that important insights about life continue to be discovered through experience and nonreligious traditions.
Many people new to our movement say things like you can believe whatever you want here. And even long timers like me joke that our church is the place to go to get your answers questioned. Some conclude that we have nothing to say about God or ultimate reality, but leave it all up to the individual. People erroneously assume that we have no collective body of knowledge or wisdom. After all, if we have no creed and we have atheists, humanists, theists, pantheists and agnostics in our ranks, how could we possibly have a set of teachings that set us apart from other religions?
Even for a person whose first encounter of Unitarian Universalism leads to a sense of belonging, our approach to religion can be difficult to grasp. We tend to want to make this religious tradition fit into our concept of what a religion must do. To be a UU and religious, our definition of religious must shift.
The focus of most religious traditions is a deity that is the source of all truth and revelation. These traditions assert that the most important task in life is to gain knowledge of God, and to follow God's commandments. For good reason, many people point out that blind following of a deity, a scripture or a tradition has resulted in great evil historically. Because of a rigid following of a book or tradition, people have ignored or dismissed important revelations of truth from science. Religion has fostered superstitions. Worst of all religion has led people to ignore the suffering of others, wage wars and even torture others in the name of God.
This is one reason that many people in America are concerned with the political organizing and influence of right wing religious radicals. One area of their influence is control of the textbooks and therefore the material that is and isn't taught in our public schools. In Texas 50% of the members of the state board of education are said to be in the fundamentalist camp. Because of the size and population of Texas, decisions here affect what will be taught throughout the country.
The influence of the radical right-wing religious Republicans has already significantly downgraded the quality of sex education offered in this country, and the quality of science education is now in peril. Their one track agenda of promoting their religious beliefs led them to the goal of bringing "Creationism" and so called "Intelligent Design" into the schools as if these were science. To accomplish this goal they have been willing to overthrow standards of academic review.
Unfortunately, a reaction to these reactionaries has caused polarization. People have lined up into camps of pro religion or pro-science. Religion bashing has flourished with authors from Richard Dawkins to comedians such as Bill Maher. Often the attacks equate being religious with being narrow-minded and intentionally ignorant. I have watched sadly as progressive political movements have become increasingly anti-religious. Given the religious character of the majority of this country, this has caused progressive forces to lose much of their influence. Fortunately, after the reelection of Bush in 04, many progressives realized this political reality, and began courting religious progressives once again.
There can be no question that the anti religious sentiment amongst progressives has alienated a great number of religious progressives, progressives needed to counterbalance the political power of politically reactionary religious fundamentalists. For example, organizers of resistance to the influence of the religious radical right-wing republicans contrast themselves with faith based groups by calling themselves the reality based camp.
This strikes me as incredibly arrogant and politically unwise. It is important to draw attention to the religious right's pattern of abandoning science in favor of their fundamentalism. However, the notion that one side has reality, that it is the purveyor of the truth strikes me as highly unscientific. It's sadly funny how polar opposite groups can be so much like each other.
These days the public is willing to debate. However, most people hesitate challenging the positions touted as scientific. This prejudice has been exploited regularly by for-profit industries. Does America get anything close to an accurate picture of truths discovered through scientific exploration? For-profit industries have great influence in determining what gets reported and how it gets reported. And how much do industries skew the amount and the kind of the reporting of research. How is truth distorted before it reaches the public?
One example of this is the way that industries influence the dissemination of the science of nutrition. There is a wealth of published materials designed to increase sales which claim to be scientific. Even if you limit yourself to information from reputable academic institutions, there is a good chance you will be confused by the spectrum of claims and philosophies. There can also be no question that the interest of profit of large corporations has consistently determined what the public sees.
Information given to the public by the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex is another strong example of how claims to science are used to squelch a true spirit of scientific inquiry. If you believe that the information that is given to us by the mental health industry is reliable and scientific, go back 20, 40, 80 and 200 years in history. You will read of standards of practice now held as ludicrous if not barbaric were all perpetuated by claims of scientific authority.
The public may believe the industry claim that it is evidenced based. Unbiased scrutiny reveals that it is anything but. If you are interested in this subject, I recommend you visit the online bookstore at Mindfreedom.org I recommend the book "Mad in America," written by Boston Globe investigative reporter Robert Whitaker. Other books at Mindfreedom capture the industry's history of squelching real investigation, examination and reasoned review. Others demonstrate how prejudicial opinions and discrimination are protected by claims to scientific authority.
Much like the religious right, this industry has gained power by its ability to frame the debate. If we were to discuss reasons that large numbers of people experience debilitating anxiety, depression, what causes rises in rates of youth violence, domestic violence or homelessness, many citizens would join the debate. However when we frame discussions as concerned with individual medical concerns, alleged chemical imbalances, and neurotransmitters, most people step back from the debate.
Whether or not you share my concern about the food or mental health industries, I hope you will critically examine the way that corporations gain influence through false claims to science. It is a mirror image of the idolatry that is regularly promoted by religious fundamentalists.
I have suggested two religious fanatical attitudes toward science. The first fails to recognize science's potential to contribute to human faith and spirituality. This attitude is expressed by fundamentalists who also need to make science conform to their religion. The second mistake is to idolize science and fail to scrutinize reports which claim to be scientific. This comes from those who treat science as if it were religion, a scripture like repository of truth.
It is the way of true science and of our religion to maintain a healthy skepticism toward claims to absolute truth.
Perhaps the fundamental difference between science and religion or spirituality is its relation to the Ultimate reality. Science seeks to uncover all that is measurable, doing so without bias. Religion and spirituality seek to develop a consciousness of an unmeasurable relationship between self and the infinite, eternal or divine.
In matters of measurement, objectivity is essential. However in matters of relationship objectivity or neutrality is not the ultimate goal or ideal. Neutrality is not what we want most from our friends. We want them to be on our side. Similarly when exploring or developing a relationship with this thing called life, neutrality may not be the ideal. Faith is about approaching life with an attitude that there is reason for trust. It approaches life with an assumption that there is or can be great purpose and meaning.
As religious liberals we shall apply the scientific method, a healthy skepticism of claims to absolute truth. We shall discover and uncover means to faith, fulfillment and meaning. We shall do so with an awareness that ours is not the only true or valid way to understand life. We shall do so with a willingness to test, experiment and revise our beliefs. We shall do so with a humility that there is something greater than we have yet imagined. We shall do so with a willingness to receive correction. We shall do so with an appreciation of learning and a humility before the Great Mystery that is before us.
Source of life, Web of life, help us to find meaning in you. Bless us with fulfillment in our search for truth. Help us to know your beauty in all that we do.
Amen