31 – Sofia 31

At our 1997 Conference we heard that consideration was to be given to how our network might be developed into a body capable of exerting more influence. One important aspect of this must be the choice of a new, more informative name.

It must be appreciated by all of us that there are members who are much attached — almost sentimentally and very strongly — to our present name, for perfectly understandable reasons with which we can all have much sympathy. They will find a change hard to accept and courage will be needed by all of us if we are to make one. We must avoid any name which may conflict with the network’s statement of intent — to explore and promote religious faith as a human creation. We need a name which supports this notion. While we must avoid any name which is not compatible with the wider range of positions acceptable in our Network, we must surely be able to agree that a central unifying factor of our position is that we hold all religion to be of human origin and to have no other origin.

POSTBAG I believe we must eliminate the word “faith” from our name, not because it is inherently unsuitable but because it is liable to be read with meanings we do not ourselves attach to it. Apart from those whose interpretation of “faith” is the schoolboy’s (howler?) “believing what we know isn’t true”, there are other interpretations in which “faith” inevitably implies supernatural revelation. Thus it was that a friend, intelligent and well-informed on many aspects of present-day traditional religion, and aware of my position vis-a-vis such religion, felt obliged to express surprise at my being involved with anything concerning “faith”. Other, less well-informed persons have been tempted to make remarks about “people adrift on the Sea of Faith”.

We need a name which conveys some information about us — perhaps one with implications of rational human religion. Which words are fit to be used in it? Perhaps some of the following: human (but not Humanist), modern, radical, anthropogenic (by analogy with iatrogenic), credible, rational, purified, non-supernatural, self-created, non-revealed...? More probably some far better ones, still to emerge.

This matter has already been brought before a meeting of the Steering Committee, which intends to give it further consideration. I hope members of the Network will also give careful thought to it, either as individuals or in small groups who happen to meet one another, or in regional groups. I shall be very pleased to hear the results of any such deliberations (at the address below), especially if an emerging consensus appears to be suggesting a good way forward. It is most important, if a change of name is to be made, that we do all we can to get it right.

— Bernard Spurgin, Leasingham, Lincolnshire

Now and again, and occasionally with keen missionary zeal, something very like an SoF “creed of unbelief’ seems to surface. Should it? Some of the assertions on page 2 of the Autumn 1997 issue, for instance, are no more susceptible of incontrovertible proof than are their cold-shouldered opposites. A fully paid-up transcendentalist could well recognise that all transcendence becomes human at the point of delivery. In the last resort perhaps, as George Steiner suggested in his book Real Presences, it’s a matter of what we wager on — and, as he holds of aesthetic experience, with quite as much (in his view, more) reason for putting our money on the “reflection of transcendence” possibility as on the “nothing but human” stance.

Might not a sensitively acknowledged agnosticism be the appropriate general stance here for genuinely open believers, whilst we each get on with the practical implications of our own particular wager? They may not greatly differ. And who’ knows what we'll discover in the process?

— William Spray, Marlborough, Wiltshire

William Spray Windhover, Manton Down Lane, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1RP Evangelical nonrealism I was very much in sympathy with Anne Padley’s article (Sea of Faith, Autumn 1997).

Like her, I am (I think) a nonrealist and unable to participate in orthodox Christian worship, looking for a “religious” group where the myths could be valued and our better aspirations affirmed. Don Cupitt also calls for a demonstration that religious existence is still possible even today; but this is much more difficult without a group to nurture it.

I would like to join Anne’s call for a workshop or conference where these ideas could be explored.

— David Woodford

David Woodford (address not supplied) Creating the faith I have trouble with the last word in your oft-repeated “religion as a human creation” phrase. “Creation” implies something emanating from choice, conscious, willing, voluntary action or thought, and I don’t think that is really the case. It seems to me that human beings are religious originally for deeper, more innate, psychological reasons, according to the kind of mind biology and evolution has produced in them.

The awareness of the numinous (the beautiful sunset, the perfect flower), the need for security and love, the need for purpose and meaning are some of the hidden spurs. It is out of these that religion emerges, not so much as an unsolicited creation, but as natural, consequential development of the search to answer those needs. Any attempt then to offer an alternative form of religion, if it is to have any lasting validity, must pay attention to these antecedent capacities in us and be prepared ever to increase its knowledge of them in the attempt to understand more fully — both what motivates men to religious ideas, and what will therefore most likely have chance to answer to their needs.

Since these issues seem to get no mention at all in your literature I feel SoF is missing out on something vital to proper understanding. I do not know whether SoF is unaware of the more “psychological” approach, — whether it is aware but thinks there’s little relevance in it all, or whether it is aware but considers it not part of the SoF field. But I do know that, if I joined fully into SoF, I would be continually perturbed by what I see as a serious omission or misunderstanding.

— Brian Marsden, Storth, Milnthorpe, Cumbria

Brian Marsden Rising Way, Heathwaite Close, Storth, Milnthorpe, Cumbria, LA7 7JS Real life I was interested to read in Seafarer’s “Postscripts” in the Autumn issue that a number of people had objected to the article by a Quaker who was a supporter of the Irish Republican POSTBAG cause. They felt the article had no relevance to the Network.

Personally I found it very helpful.

What gives me concern are articles written by intellectuals and academics, but which appear to lack contact with the real world of everyday life. In my experience the most powerful articles are those that link to people’s personal lives. If our beliefs do not intimately affect the way we walk though life, then for me they are of no value, a fact that Jesus himself seemed well aware of.

In Robin Percival’s article we were faced by the real dilemmas of living out our faith and our beliefs, rather than merely talking about them. That was one of the major reasons why I left the safe option of the Church of England for the Quakers, who have a strong commitment to the value of the testimony of people’s actual lives, in reflecting their faith.

— Richard Eddleston, Chilwell, Nottingham

Richard Eddleston 17 Harlech Rise, Chilwell, Nottingham, NG9 5PD Drowning, not waving Some random thoughts from a struggling SoF-er: 1. We seem to be more destructive than constructive; we are not putting anything in the place of traditional belief. Result — for one fairly normal, un-intellectual member anyway — a vacuum! 2. With a membership of so many diverse views and backgrounds, no consensus will ever be possible; better to seek change within an organisation which already exists — ie the Church. 3. Rather than banging on about realism/non-realism, can’t we get down to some of the nitty-gritty ? (eg resurrection — did He or didn’t He, do we or don’t we?) 4. How to pray if there’s no God of some sort ? 5. Any chance of regional conferences in addition to the annual bonanza?

— Sylvia Batley, Leintwardine, Shropshire

Sylvia Batley 5 Watling Street, Leintwardine, Craven Arms, Shropshire, SY7 OLW Altizer’s Vision Tom Altizer’s address at SoF conference was a graphic account of the death of the biblical God. It was a vision of total destruction, I felt, a hopeless vision. I wondered why, if we accept religion as a human creation, he felt driven to hammer it home.

Or did I miss something? Was he saying that the loss of God means the loss of ultimate power, final, definitive judgement, absolute standards, someone to “put it all right”? In various ways and in different ages and cultures reliance on the authority of God has involved violence (to placate God, to smite the enemy, to bring about redemption to name but three). The monotheistic faiths posited round the Old Testament God have brought into their cultures ecclesiastical law which sanctions a level of controlled violence in its meting out of justice. Because of this there has been an acceptance until recently of the use of violence (against children and family members) to obtain compliance and to chastise for transgression — originally justified by the end of saving their souls.

Is this loss of final authority the source of the sense of impotence and doom so strongly put over by Tom?

Certainly two contradictory strands support this. Firstly the temptation to run for cover to political and religious extremes where authority seems certain.

Secondly, the mushrooming of all forms of conflict management, mediation, negotiation and assertiveness skills, all teaching us how to cope when the authority of a “final arbiter” has vanished.

Sea of Faith belongs to the second strand, helping us to develop ways of sustaining religious faith and supporting others, drawing on our own collective personal and traditional resources. If extremists come to see that we can maintain a vital sense of religion and spirituality their sense of doom may lessen too.

— Jane, Little Waltham, Essex