Oranges and minor miracles
Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
daThis evening I paid a visit to see ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lovecraftienne, persephoneplace, and joymoose, and to drop off some oranges as a thank-you for watching Rover a week ago.
One reason among many I like these folks is that they ask wonderful questions. So we were talking about the Quaker gathering I was at withmelted_snowball this weekend, and the question came up, how is being an atheist Quaker different from being a Quaker who believes in God?
To begin with, I do think there are differences. In the Quaker experience, people learn to do verbal translations all the time. A Christian Quaker might say "the Inner Christ", another Quaker will understand that to mean "that of God within," a third might translate the same as "the Inner Light". This translation process is fundamental, since Quakerism is Experiential (that is, one is not called to believe any doctrine that doesn't stand up to being tested against one's deepest soul/heart). When I'm translating, some things get left aside, the parts that don't speak to me at that time. In Quaker Meeting, we're trying to recognize and speak to the Eternal within each other; understanding the words is only part but it's an essential part.
An irreverent description I've heard for the process is "listening in tongues".
Going back to atheist Friends: there are translations I don't know how to make, going from theistic Quaker speech to atheist Quaker speech. The two I thought of in the discussion were miracles and blessings, things I can't explain in rational language without invoking the placebo effect. So, sure, it's possible that random events can seem like signs when you're paying attention to them. And a strictly rational person can say that the subconscious mind makes connections that the conscious mind cannot, so intuitive choices can feel like one was guided by something outside one's consciousness.
But by definition, faith goes further than rational explanation. As I was reminded a number of times this weekend, having faith to take a step when there's no evidence that the step should hold can be tremendously rewarding. Not necessarily at first; part of the faith is to keep going, and the claim (which, in all truth, I've not tested completely myself) is that the faith will be enough to keep you going so long as you follow what God wants you to do and continue to have faith. So there it is. A little work, plus faith, turns into the God Perpetual Motion Machine. How irrational is that? How can an atheist internalize this and use it? It is a miracle (if indeed miracles exist), and I believe it is one of the fundamental things that Friends ask for, say, when we gather to make decisions (which are meant to be coming to Unity with God's wishes for the collected body; instead of unity with each other).
So, that's my inconclusive thoughts about Atheist Quakers.
I'd welcome comments and other opinions on this; I feel like I'm oversimplifying the strong atheist position.
lovecraftienne, persephoneplace, and joymoose, and to drop off some oranges as a thank-you for watching Rover a week ago. One reason among many I like these folks is that they ask wonderful questions. So we were talking about the Quaker gathering I was at with
melted_snowball this weekend, and the question came up, how is being an atheist Quaker different from being a Quaker who believes in God?To begin with, I do think there are differences. In the Quaker experience, people learn to do verbal translations all the time. A Christian Quaker might say "the Inner Christ", another Quaker will understand that to mean "that of God within," a third might translate the same as "the Inner Light". This translation process is fundamental, since Quakerism is Experiential (that is, one is not called to believe any doctrine that doesn't stand up to being tested against one's deepest soul/heart). When I'm translating, some things get left aside, the parts that don't speak to me at that time. In Quaker Meeting, we're trying to recognize and speak to the Eternal within each other; understanding the words is only part but it's an essential part.
An irreverent description I've heard for the process is "listening in tongues".
Going back to atheist Friends: there are translations I don't know how to make, going from theistic Quaker speech to atheist Quaker speech. The two I thought of in the discussion were miracles and blessings, things I can't explain in rational language without invoking the placebo effect. So, sure, it's possible that random events can seem like signs when you're paying attention to them. And a strictly rational person can say that the subconscious mind makes connections that the conscious mind cannot, so intuitive choices can feel like one was guided by something outside one's consciousness.
But by definition, faith goes further than rational explanation. As I was reminded a number of times this weekend, having faith to take a step when there's no evidence that the step should hold can be tremendously rewarding. Not necessarily at first; part of the faith is to keep going, and the claim (which, in all truth, I've not tested completely myself) is that the faith will be enough to keep you going so long as you follow what God wants you to do and continue to have faith. So there it is. A little work, plus faith, turns into the God Perpetual Motion Machine. How irrational is that? How can an atheist internalize this and use it? It is a miracle (if indeed miracles exist), and I believe it is one of the fundamental things that Friends ask for, say, when we gather to make decisions (which are meant to be coming to Unity with God's wishes for the collected body; instead of unity with each other).
So, that's my inconclusive thoughts about Atheist Quakers.
I'd welcome comments and other opinions on this; I feel like I'm oversimplifying the strong atheist position.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 22 February 2006 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Wednesday, 22 February 2006 06:41 pm (UTC)Another unsatisfying answer is: "nothing more than consensus".
However, a third argument could be: Suppose there is an Inner Light accessable to all people, if they are willing to reach for it. Certainly Quakers don't require particular labels for this Inner Light; if somebody is using their deepest heart in the Meeting for Worship, who am I (or who is anyone) to say it is (or isn't) the divine, if it is indeed their deepest heart? Perhaps atheist Quakers in Business Meeting are able to make the translation, whether or not they, or anyone else, can rationally explain it.
On the balance this doesn't sound as bad to me as it did when I first considered it. It requires additional Faith from theist Friends that their nontheist cohorts are reaching the same Light. It requires acceptance from the nontheists that the theists are translating their ineffible innermost selves into beliefs that they don't believe in (and not be turned off by that; which isn't so weird if you consider the possible unity between Christian and non-Christian Friends). And also it requires the nontheists to do a lot of searching (I was going to say soul-searching) to make the truths of theists fit something in their experience, instead of just discarding them. Because if a nontheist Friend is going to go cherry-picking beliefs, they're probably not doing what we'd like them to do in Business Meeting.
Being a theist Friend, I suppose one last thing it requires is for this state of affairs to be the will of God; and this overall argument at least satisfies my internal tests for what I would consider reasonable.
It's certainly worth thinking about some more.