A Vision to Offer David Paterson looks back on the history of SOF Network and thinks about the future. There’s an energetic dialogue going on now. Antireligious atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others usually get mentioned) are news. And surely we should be out there too in that debate.
There are many things we might be saying. That the Church should listen to its critics. That theist religion must plead guilty to the charges against it.
We might acknowledge the harm ethical monotheism has done. And we might suggest that the atheists listen to what Hindu, Pagan, Buddhist and many other faiths have been saying and living for centuries, very different from the stereotype of ‘religion’ (= dogmatic ethical monotheism) which they rightly oppose. And we might seek to demonstrate how much of human thought, emotion and behaviour is not rational. Our minds do lots more than think. So although the scientific method is a marvellous tool for explaining things, making models, finding new understanding, inventing ever-growing new techniques, that’s not all that we humans do with our lives. Wonder, love and hope are perhaps more central. Science c can – I don’t doubt – e explain these, and the explanation may well be very important; but people also l live them, they gossip about them, write stories, paint pictures, play music and take part in rituals about them. The world is an inspiring place for us. Explaining it all can make it even more exciting, but we mustn’t let explanation replace or destroy our experience of this treasury of delights.
In itself, the cosmos is meaningless. Meaning is a human creation, a human concept, a human need which we must provide. This need has evolved in our huge brains. Science, the arts and the religions have also evolved – they weren’t created – and they are still evolving. In biological evolution a large gene pool is vital for healthy flourishing and development. It’s the same with religion. In embracing new ways of celebrating the cosmos, there’s no need to throw away the old ones. You never know when an ancient insight from the other side of the world may come in useful.
There is no final answer, and all human systems of understanding have deep flaws, contradictions and inadequacies in them, often unseen without a historical perspective. We need to be able to stand outside the ideas of our own place and time, our culture, assumptions and obsessions. The ‘search for truth’ is always contingent, provisional and plural.
The Sea of Faith Network – in my view – has ways of addressing the issues which should place it at the heart of these debates. Its specific contribution is to provide a basis – namely, that all religions, including one’s own, are human creations – that might enable atheists, humanists, secularists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, Pagans and many others to listen to one another’s insights, value them, challenge them, learn from them and be constantly developing new insights from the encounter. The Network is nowhere near that yet; but, in my view, that should be our aim.
I don’t think any religion need be ashamed of its origins. The same applies to the Sea of Faith Network.
It was originally formed to support new thinking in the Anglican Church (though for me at any rate a wider understanding of world religions was always important). Matthew Arnold’s poem Dover Beach, from which our name comes (via Don’s TV series) is beautiful and sad. It doesn’t argue anything, but observes and reflects on the human plight, responds emotionally and purposefully. The Network over the years has evolved many totally different ways of using the metaphor – sailing on the Sea of Faith, exploring its vastness, risking its dangers, plumbing its depths, surfing its waves, and many more. It would be a pity to lose such a rich source of metaphor. It still calls itself a Network. I don’t think anyone has used that as a metaphor for catching fish (probably just as well!), but ‘Mercy and Truth have met together, Justice and Peace have kissed each other.’– EVELYN DE MORGAN. c. 1900 rather for linking together very diverse people and movements who share a concern for the future evolution of human ideas; and that remains apposite.
If we decide to change our name, it should – if possible – be to one with a similar emphasis on immensity, variety, uncertainty and depth.
On the other hand, maybe we should drop ‘faith’ because it’s a concept compromised by its common usage to mean truth-claims and dependence on irrational methods of thought. But maybe our message requires that we redeem the word, insisting on other meanings which celebrate the complexity of the cosmos. Sea of Faith is an awkward name, but I wouldn’t like to change it until we agree on something more rather than less evocative.
But, to conclude: It would be easy to say that the Sea of Faith Network no longer has a rôle; to accept that its time has past and it should die. But I see a continually-evolving rôle for it. We should be asserting our ideas in the public debate, concentrating perhaps on university students, helping to shape the terms of the discussion. We should be finding common ground with those who are exploring issues of philosophy and religion; seeking to influence the way R.E. is taught in schools (there are lots of opportunities there); getting involved in interfaith dialogue, exploring with all faiths the implications of understanding faith as a human creation; promoting, as essential to democracy, a secularism which would value the insights of all faiths, while allowing none to dominate or become powerful.
We should insist that humanist values (or, better, the values of respect for a all life) should be the test of validity for any religion.
I would like to see us as deeply involved as we can be in our own religions, and in atheist, humanist and secular societies, specially among students through AHS ( the nationwide Association of Atheist, Humanist and Secular student societies) and the Student Christian Movement. We should be using the electronic communication systems – our own web and blog sites, the e-newsletters of many organisations, Twitter, Facebook et al. In fact, any modern ways of networking.
We should be confident that we have a great deal to offer in helping to shape the future of humanity, and in that confidence we should be listening to all that is going on in human understanding – scientific, philosophical and religious.
David Paterson is a founder member and former Chair of SOF. At present he runs the Oxford SOF Group and sits on SOF Board of Trustees. SOF Annual Conference Brain, Belief and Behaviour Leicester University 22nd – 24th July 2011 This year we approach religion as a human creation from the perspectives of neuroscience, practical theology and behavioural psychology. Our principal speakers will be: x Colin Blakemore x Gwen Griffith-Dixon x Alan Allport For more details and booking forms see insert fliers or contact: