We throw around the term religious trauma but what exactly does the term actually mean?
On today’s show, my guest is Kathleen B. Shannon. Kathleen is a physiotherapist. She is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor in Washington state and a Listened Professional Counselor in North Carolina. I asked Kathleen to be on the show to talk about religious trauma from an expert’s perspective.
What does psychology have to say on the subject and what does she sees in her practice?
We discuss Kathleen’s experience at bible college, religious trauma, outrage exhaustion and what Kathleen calls equanimity.
Kathleen’s advice for those deconstructing:
Find a space that is safe to ask the questions, preferably one where they will not give you the answers.
I want to give Mandy Nicole (@ThatMandyNicole) credit for coining the term “Prayer Reflex.” Mandy coined the term after the recording of the show but it eloquently describes a feeling I was attempting to articulate in the episode.
Can we talk about the post-deconstruction Prayer Reflex for a moment?
The Prayer Reflex (a term I am pretty sure I made up) is the instinct an ex-Christian feels to reach out for deific assistance in times of crisis. It can have a jarring, re-traumatizing effect.
— Mandy Nicole, First of Her Name (@ThatMandyNicole) May 1, 2019
The intro points out that we recorded the conversation with today’s guest, Kathleen B. Shannon, before the passing of Rachel Held Evans on May 4th, 2019. The absence of mention of Rachel and her work would have felt awkward. So, I make a few statements about Rachel’s impact on the world of progressive Christianity and I read a statement from Kathleen about Rachel’s impact on her.
On today’s episode my guest is Kimberly Stover. Kimberly works in the space of losing religion recovery. She describes this process as having three phases:
Reflect, Recover then Rise
Kimberly and I discuss religious trauma syndrome, the #EmptyThePews movement, how narcissism relates to Evangelicalism and rising up out of recovery. On Kimberly’s site she has resources for those in the process of losing their religion. If you are in the process of losing your religion, you don’t have to do it alone. Reach out to Kimberly and the resources she has available.
On today’s episode I am finally getting the opportunity to discuss the topic I am most interested in: Humanism or what I call Secular Grace. It is ultimately about answering the question, “how do we live life well post deconversion?” Rather than looking backwards, it is looking forward to learning to thrive as a human being.
My guest today is Jim Palmer. Jim is an ordained minister, receiving his Master of Divinity degree from Trinity Divinity School in Chicago. After serving several years as the Senior Pastor of a non-denominational church, Jim left professional ministerial life on a quest for more authentic spirituality and has authored five books about his journey. In addition to writing, speaking and his spiritual direction practice, Jim is an adjunct professor in the areas of Ethics and Comparative Religion. He is the Co-Founder of the Nashville Humanist Association and is a certified Humanist Chaplain with the American Humanist Association.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are not spiritual beings having a human experience. We are human beings having a human experience. The human experience includes…
NOTE: This transcript is AI produced (otter.ai) and likely has many mistakes. It is provided as rough guide to the audio conversation.
David Ames 0:11
This is the graceful atheist podcast. Welcome, welcome. Welcome. My name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheist. I'm excited about today's episode, as I'm finally getting the opportunity to discuss the topic I'm most interested in, and that is humanism, or what I call secular grace. It is ultimately about answering the question, how do we live life well post deconversion. Rather than looking backward, it is looking forward to learning to thrive as a human being. Today's guest is Jim Palmer. Jim is an ordained minister receiving his master of divinity degree from Trinity Divinity School in Chicago. After serving several years as the senior pastor of a non denominational church. Jim left professional ministerial life on a quest for more authentic spirituality. And He has authored five books about this journey. In addition to writing speaking and his spiritual direction practice. Jim is an adjunct professor in the areas of ethics and comparative religion. He's the co founder of the Nashville Humanist Association, and is a certified humanist chaplain with the American Humanist Association. Jim's first five books chronicle his deconstruction and a search for an authentic spirituality. As I mentioned in the show, Jim is a humanist who's written an awful lot about Jesus. He's currently completing his sixth book, which will have a more secular humanist perspective. I'll have links in the show notes for Jim's online presence and his books. Jim has a way with words. Let me give you a couple of quotes from his perspective. Quote, many people tend to equate morality, ethics, spirituality, goodness, with religion or belief in God, while a humanist sees these as innate and inherent human characteristics and interests, and quote, quote, whereas atheism is more of a position, disbelief in the existence of God or gods, humanism is more of a practice living a meaningful, ethical, responsible, altruistic, spiritual life. My conversation with Jim is wide ranging and seems to cover a number of different topics. I have a plan going into these interviews, but I like to have that conversation unfold naturally. And that takes place here, as Jim and I think, really make a connection with one another. My only disappointment is that we did not get have more time to get into the history and philosophy of humanism. Maybe Jim will be willing to come back a second time. A couple of notes, Jim's mic was clipping a little bit. I haven't been able to completely fix that. So I apologize for the audio quality. And lastly, you might hear my dog jasmine in the background bark at one point. And ironically, that turned out to be Jehovah's Witnesses at my door. So irony wins the day. With that, give you Jim Palmer.
Jim Palmer, welcome to the graceful atheist podcast.
Jim Palmer 3:09
Hey, David. Really looking forward to our chat today.
David Ames 3:13
Yeah, fantastic. I you know, I've spent the last few days kind of going through your blog, and I think you have a really, really fascinating story. I'd like to get into that. And in fact, you know, the podcast is often about the people that are that are experiencing doubt or deconstructing their faith or, or D converting entirely. And, and so the focus I like to focus on is is faith transitions. And and oh, boy, does it sound like you went through a few of those. So I'd like to start with Can you just tell us about what you know where you came from religiously, spiritually, and, and where you are now and how you got to where you are now.
Jim Palmer 3:53
Okay, well rewind the story of my life to freshmen in college after growing up in a really traumatic, difficult volatile childhood and youth that went off to college. And in college in the Student Union Center. One day I happened to run into a guy who was a campus director of Campus Crusade for Christ. And I was not particularly religious person I grew up loosely Catholic. My mother was an alcoholic. My father left our family when I was young. But every now and then I went to Catholic mass until I had a choice not to go and quit because I just never saw really the relevance of, of God and church for my life. But I went off to college, I met this individual, the Campus Crusade for Christ director, we became friends, and I made the decision to become a Christian. I saw it as a possible way of finding meaning and purpose in my life, maybe healing from some of the chaos of my early childhood and got very involved in that organization. And that's kind of where it all started, I became a student, the student president of our campus ministry, I went overseas and did summer projects with Campus Crusade for Christ. I almost went on staff with the organization after graduating from college. But a gentleman moved into our college town and started a church and I got involved in that. And he the pastor, the guy who started the church, encouraged me to go to seminary, I went to seminary and moved to Chicago got an M div at Trinity Divinity School, while I was at, you know, one preaching awards, and I discovered along the way that I had some speaking and leadership gifts. And so I got all this affirmation and continue down this track. So I graduated from seminary. And while actually, before I actually graduated, I accepted a position as a pastor on what at the time was the largest Christian Church in North America. It was in the suburbs of Chicago. And that's where I got my hands on ministerial training, and then eventually left my position there to start and lead a non denominational Christian church in the Nashville area, which I did for several years, until I had my own crisis of faith.
David Ames 6:20
Right. Like, I like that I like that word crisis of faith. That's, that rings a bell at it. Yeah, go ahead.
Jim Palmer 6:28
The crisis of faith. For me this had to do with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from week after week, month after month, year after year teaching and preaching, outstanding bulletproof evangelical theology. And yet, noticing that the problems of people's lives, persistent unhappiness, depression, broken relationships, and other kinds of, you know, wounds and people's lives going on healed and a lot of brokenness and hurt and suffering in some
David Ames 7:12
events by the church. Right? Well, ladies,
Jim Palmer 7:17
for sure, it took me a while to realize that I was complicit in some of that suffering, or at least the inability to deal with it effectively. So I then took a look at my step back and looked at my own life. And it was also true in my own personal life, despite all that good theology and upstanding biblical teaching, there was brokenness, lack of peace and joy, and then inner suffering in my own life. So Right. to kind of make good all right long story shorter, I decided at that point that I wanted to leave my ministerial career and try to figure out what if any of this I still truly believed and wanted to hold on in my in my life. And so I resigned my position in the church. And at that point, made a break with my my Christian background, my Christian tradition. Okay. That's what I started writing. I started blogging a little bit about my journey out of religion and a publishing house contacted me, you person and editor at a publishing house, have read my blog and said, Have you ever thought about maybe writing a little bit of your story about leaving ministry and faith and what you discovered and so on and so forth? And then that's kind of what got it started in terms of me writing a little bit more about my journey.
David Ames 8:39
Okay. Do you think that it that there are more of us who were in ministry, who have since you know, found that it lacking in some way or another it seems to me like you just can't shake a stick without bumping into people who were, you know, pastors or preachers or missionaries or what have you? Is there something special about that? Is there something special about getting an MDF like yourself, that leads to deciding that it it's maybe not all true?
Jim Palmer 9:11
Well, there are after I wrote the first book, divine Nobodies, I was really one of the the biggest surprises were how many people contacted me who were actually still in ministry could identify with my own misgivings with what was happening within the church and in my my role in it and so on. And in a lot of us, we would say, Jim, I'm with you. But if I if I said any of this stuff, in my actual church, I would be fire I would be let go of it. And, and then later, I ended up speaking at an event and became a member of something called the clergy project. I don't know if you've ever heard of it.
David Ames 9:52
Yes. And in fact, that's has come up on the show a few times. I very much a distance supporter of it. it, I've never felt quite like I, you know, meet all the criteria to get in I was I was youth pastor for like two years very briefly and moved on, you know, and then D converted, you know, like 20 years later. So it just, you know, although I very much feel sympathetic, and I think they do great work. So yeah, tell tell us, please tell us about Well,
Jim Palmer 10:22
well, the clergy project is basically an online community, a private online community, for people who are currently in ministry, they hold a professional ministerial position, that have come to the point where they no longer hold on to the beliefs that they are responsible to represent as a clergyman in their church or their denomination, or their religious community, and the challenges and struggles of when that happens, and the transition out and things like that. And I do a lot of individual work, a lot of spiritual direction and personal development, coaching and so on with people who have been in ministry and left and then they kind of had to start over. Yeah, with what, what they want to do in life. You know, there's a lot of people out there with him. divs. Exactly. And, you know, Hey, okay, now what, you know, yeah. To answer your specific question about I don't know, I think, though, is that when it seems to me that a person with an M div, you know, they have, they've constructed a theological belief system that works for them, and what they're wanting to do with it, in life and in their career. But I think that what I've seen is, as they continue on in life, and they start to experience their own suffering, maybe they go through a divorce, maybe they have a tragic loss, you know, and so, everything that sounded right, when they were in seminary and seemed right, when they were teaching it as a, as a pastor or a church leader, the reality of life sometimes then, can can be what disrupts their confidence in the answers that they were were given. And in most seminaries, you know, theology isn't exactly generally an open minded pursuit of truth, right, you know, it's at least theology is usually has to do more with conduct, you know, developing your, your, your basis and your defense have an already determined position that you have. And when life starts poking holes, in that, you know, that belief system, yeah, and I, you know, I, when I, one of the things I did after ministry was I did some human rights work and traveled the world working cases of forced child prostitution and child slave labor, and those experiences definitely challenged, you know, a lot of my deeper theological beliefs about you know, God, the existence of God, in a whole slew of doctrines related to the existence of God
David Ames 13:38
is, you know, I don't know about your experience, but you know, if you travel especially, and you meet people from different cultures, with different religious cultural backgrounds, the the doctrine, the idea of this is the one and only way is maybe the first thing that goes away that you lose, right? So it seems to me that many of us, on this side of faith have, you know, took on universalism as a kind of a stepping stone. Before we before we maybe had a final faith transition. Is that was that the case for you?
Jim Palmer 14:12
Well, I think you're right, that whatever religious tradition a person has, generally, they're kind of born into it, you know, it's not rocket science. If you know, you're you're born in Tennessee, the the likelihood of you being a nominal cultural Christian is very high. If you're born in India, you're born in the Middle East, you know, so it's not like we choose we kind of almost far culture determines for the most part, our initial belief, belief system. And so I think for for myself, I went through a phase is, for lack of better, you know, interfaith the interfaith phase. Yeah,
David Ames 15:05
yeah. Yeah,
Jim Palmer 15:07
yeah, I did a lot of interfaith work in the city, I have a friend who's an imam at the Islamic Center in Nashville. I kind of reached across a lot of different religious traditions, friends with some of the leaders at the behind temple, here in Nashville. So I know I've spoken at times that the Universalist that you Unitarian Universalist Church here in our city, I know the woman who's the head minister there, she's very sharp individual and and so I went through some involvement in in that respect the interfaith but I didn't, I didn't really stay there. But there's a lot of, there's a lot of positive things that could be said, for people who take more of an inner faith approach to religion in the world, right? I mean, we can all be divided and hate each other and kill each other because we're represent different religious traditions, or we can try to identify the common denominators that we all agree on and try to create a world where we can coexist with peace, harmony and some constructive relationship, you know,
David Ames 16:24
right, right. And today, would you refer to yourself as a humanist?
Jim Palmer 16:29
I would add, and I think that, that what compels me about the idea of humanism, is that it, it identifies both the solutions, the problems and the solutions that we experience in our world, as human ones, and, and on the merits of being a human being with the skills, tools, capacities and abilities that we have, that that we're capable of creating a world that works for everyone. And it doesn't necessitate a, a any belief in God or divine intervention or supernatural means by which to achieve that, you know, and that's one of the things that I really see a lot with the damaging impact of religion is sometimes had in people's lives is that there's a tremendous diminishment of a love of prayer, human beings, natural skills and tools and abilities to live in ethical, meaningful, fulfilling, compassionate, productive life, you know, yeah.
David Ames 17:53
I think you just just recently tweeted the UN, I'm probably going to have you quoted, but you know, we are humans having a human experience, not, you know, not spiritual beings having a human experience, right. Talk to me about that. What does that mean to you know, our,
Jim Palmer 18:09
you know, there's these things that are, that are these phrases and axioms and so on, that are so common, and one of them is is that we're spiritual beings having a human experience, spiritual beings having a human experience, you know, and I think part of the idea is that the really, the, the, the extraordinary part of that, really, is that we're a spiritual being. Like, that's really the most important thing and you know, we happen to be having a human experience. And even if you reverse it around and say, Well, I'm a human being having a spiritual experience. I guess my point is that why have we even delineated, humaneness and spirituality is some twos Thea, you know, separate, and exclusive categories. So well, what about I'm just a human being having a human experience. And the human experience includes things like the experience of love, the expression of compassion, that living a life of meaning, being a person of virtue, experiencing the awe and wonder of a remarkable universe, filling yourself connected to all of life and in a deeply rich way, you know why? That's what it means to be a human being. So I don't think we need the added piece of either the supernatural. I mean, I get that usually in the general definition of spiritualism, it's the non material. So and I get that, but I think that sometimes the impact of religion here has to to deeply divided the sacred and the secular and divided up the world in this way. You know, the spiritual stuff? Yeah, the sacred spiritual stuff is you go to church, you you read scriptures, you participate in religious practices, and that this is really this spiritual and sacred stuff. And the secular things are like everything else.
David Ames 20:15
Right, right. Yeah. So you know, I. So again, one of the other reasons for the podcast is for me to get, get some education and become a little less ignorant. And I, you know, I think you've been doing this a while, you've got a lot of experience, you've written several books. One of the hardest things for me post deconversion, which happened in around 2015, for me, is just the language. So, you know, I think that it's a human need for, let's say, quote, unquote, spirituality. But that word spirituality is so misleading, right? And that words like Soul, and I can't think but, you know, these ideas that are that religion has tried to own for so long. And then we find ourselves with a more naturalistic perspective, let's say, you know, so how do you do you? Are you comfortable using those words? Do you redefine them some way? How do you how do you handle that?
Jim Palmer 21:18
I think that you're right, that language is a real challenge. When it comes to religion, spirituality, anything that's somewhat abstract, because thinking, you know, basically, human language is a social technology that we created in order to cooperate and function to function effectively together as a species. Yeah, so it works really well, if I refer to this thing I'm here I'm holding in my hand right now is a coffee cup, because I can say that this is a cup, and roughly anybody that hears that word, although they're going to envision a different kind of cup, we're, like, we basically know what we're talking about a cup or a chair or a table, but when you start using language, to describe more abstract things, is when it really becomes a bit problematic. Let me just take the word God. Yeah, you know, basically, there's one way you could look at it, which is to say, basically, God is a word, God is a word, it is mainly Gristick marker that we all agreed was going to indicate a an ultimate reality, that is beyond comprehension, and understanding, like, we're going to use the word God to refer to that thing. That is that falls into that category. And the problem is, to some extent, is it even though that, so we say that the word God is a marker in language to refer to an ultimate reality we can't really comprehend. But then people run in and they start defining what it is, you know, I mean, in a way, that doesn't make sense. You can ask any person, really religious person, tell me about God. And one of the first things you're gonna say, Well, you know, God is infinite. He's unfathomable. The human mind can't comprehend the magnitude of God, you know, the highest mind cannot. And yet, then we run out. And we create a theology and doctrine and creeds defining exactly what God is, you know, so. So it's, that's why I don't, I'm not particularly fond of the word God. And I'm not really fond of most spiritual religious language, because I've just learned that people already got a predetermined definition and an understanding. So what makes it more difficult is did I try to be more descriptive of the thing I'm trying to talk about without slapping like these religious words on it?
David Ames 23:56
Right. Right. Right. And I that's what I think the term God is the most dangerous term in existence, right? Because almost literally, every single person as they hear that word has a different conception, even within the same faith tradition of what it actually means. And so it's, it's the most misleading term that we can use. It is that then the
Jim Palmer 24:21
other terms we try to plug into it aren't all that great in the end there because even if we decide we're going to call God universe or source or all these things we come up with, you know, like, I think that the mind can't be trick it still knows you're talking about. It's, it's whatever one word we find to plug into. It's not perfect, because it's hard to get away from the conception that this thing that we're referring to is something that is transcendently separate and different from what I am. And so whenever we refer in to try to refer to something that's describing a transcendent reality, the words kind of evoked this idea of separation. I mean, because if I call something source, you know, like, okay, it's the Okay, then it's the source and I, unless I'm gonna call myself the source, if I'm calling the ultimate reality thing to source, then it's still somehow different or separated from who I am.
David Ames 25:35
Okay, and so do you have? So I hear you that you don't use that term, but do you have a, a, I just want to be clear where we're at? Like, do you have a conception of God that you do accept, like, an idea like you throw the term source around us? Or is there something that you do identify as, as external to yourself in some way?
Jim Palmer 26:01
Well, it with respect to God, you know, if you run through all the options, Okay, number one theism, okay, that's one option, you know, which I don't subscribe to. There's other options like deism pantheism pantheism. I mean, there's, there's a lot of different you know, God is everything or God is in everything or God, you know, there's the kind of just becomes over the spectrum of definitions or conceptions about God, you know, there are a whole lot of, of different options that one can choose from, I'm not really a fan of deism either because it's basically, okay, there is a God and that God is the first cause. And then he kind of stepped away whatever happens happens currently, right? So, I think that the reason why I was compelled by humanism is a humanist perspective doesn't really need or require any, you know, a, a, a definition or an interpretation to somehow squeeze something like a god into the picture.
Unknown Speaker 27:20
Right? You know,
Jim Palmer 27:21
like in the humanism approach, is that light, the meaning and the fullness of life doesn't necessitate the supernatural, the divine or a belief in God. Okay. So that's why I don't do okay. Now, but if you were to, but that's a little different from saying, if you were to ask, okay, I think William James has a very loose definition of religion. When one spot is talking about that, you know, to kind of paraphrase, there is a non material, transcendent reality or mystery that seems to be at the heart of things, and I don't know what it is or what to call it, but I find that when I align myself with that thing that I find, you know, harmony and we'll be
David Ames 28:11
okay, okay.
Jim Palmer 28:12
Okay. So then the question would be, well, what, what thing are you talking about? Exactly? Well, you know, this
comes back to, I think, the perspective of humanism, which is that, why why can't that thing be? Your, your ability to, to make your own meaning in life? Why isn't why isn't that thing, the embracing and practice of virtue? Why isn't that that thing, the ability to appreciate the non material aspects of life, love, beauty, well, being peace, compassion, solidarity, you know, these are all non material Abraham Maslow talked about that self actualization was on the top of his hierarchy of needs, and talked about peak moments and peak human experiences and the full actualization of your human possibilities and potentialities, I view all this as being an aspect of the human journey, the human experience.
David Ames 29:20
Exactly. You know, I so, I think that religion and you know, Christianity in particular has a kind of a negative view on it, you know, if you're a Calvinist it's a total depravity concept but like, you know, a negative view of of humanity and so when we come out of religion sometimes I think carry that with us and I'm one of the things I I personally appreciate about humanism is saying that this human experience my my connecting with you right now, this conversation that we're having, and we're recognizing and one another similar experiences and recognizing the humanity in one another, that is approved found deep and meaningful experience. That's the human experience and that my love for my family and my love for my friends that the or that I feel when I when I, you know, go hiking in the woods, all of those things are part of nature and and ourselves as human beings and that we don't need to make reference outside of that. So that's the way I think.
Jim Palmer 30:25
Yeah, I think that you're, you really put your finger on something that too often religion ends up disparaging the, the inherent value and worth of the human being, you know, so Okay, so there's a doctrine of original sin, right, that you're actually born into this world as someone with a sin nature, okay, so that's strike one, then you have people that you know, there's there's no all kinds of Biblical verses, it can be, you know, used to perpetuate a view of the of the weakness and the frailty of the human being you know, I'm How many times have I heard, the I am weak and he is strong, you know, the, that I'm not really capable within myself, to guide and lead my life forward in meaningful, you know, ethical fulfilling ways, you know, this is where, where God comes in, you know, or the, or the misused verse about how the heart is wickedly. deceitful, is is a verse, that's all the so I do see a lot of people who come out of religion who have are very underdeveloped. They've not developed the the human tools that are available to them, that they naturally have to create a life of meaning and purpose and fulfillment, and they have all kinds of self sabotage Oriole thoughts. And so a lot of times, I will, in some of the work I do with people that mean, you know, religion stirs people up on how they need to have a good relationship with God. I think when you're transitioning out of religion, the focus becomes how to cultivate a, a meaningful relationship with your self. Okay. self confidence, self reliance, self awareness, self acceptance, self love, I mean, there's all kinds of ways you have to pretty much start over in terms of how you relate to yourself, self trust. So I see that a lot, you know, when people are kind of going going through that phase, otherwise, you know, because you can easily switch your dependency on one thing to another, you know, without ever learning what's available to you purely on a human as a human being.
David Ames 33:14
Right? So we've touched on it briefly here, but you you kind of do coaching for people that maybe have come out of religion with some religious trauma, let's say, How would you describe that? Like, you know, what are the some of the key things that you often have to talk people through?
Jim Palmer 33:31
There's a definitely a, a spectrum. I do spiritual counseling with people who have been damaged or traumatized to their experience in religion, and there's a range of that the clinical term RTS, or religious trauma syndrome is the phrase that's been used more and more in clinical terms in terms of dressing people that have been psychologically and emotionally and spiritually damage to their involvement, you know, in religion, and I think that there is of course, there's toxic religious indoctrination. And we've talked about that a little bit already. The way a very shame and fear based approach to life is sometimes the way religion derails a human being. And it's very difficult to to get past that a, you know, like a lot of people that are have have kind of left their religious involvements, they still carry that fear, well, what if I'm wrong? What if when they have the wrong one, and so the shame and fear are two of the most damaging things that happen in people's lives who had that kind of religious experience? shame me Being that there's something incurably wrong with me. And, and fear is that that I always need to be afraid of what could happen. And so that when a person, when a person changes there, when they leave their religious beliefs, and they start deconstructing, and they leave churches, it destabilizes everything. For a lot of people. First, the D and D stabilizes your identity, right? Because a lot of a person's identity often is based on their religious belief system, their social network, was revolved around their religious subculture, their religious belief system, their closest relationship, marriage friendships, revolved around their religious belief system, all their answers to the big important existential questions, why am I here? Where am I going, what happens when I die? All that had nice answers attached to them. So once you, you know, start sailing away from that, then it's all destabilize. So it can be such a volume, it can be volatile, you know, marriage is what I do with my kids now, you know, the existential dread. And all of that kind of gets you loneliness for people who don't know who to talk to. And, and so it's something that is very volatile and difficult to work through, but you can, and there are steps to doing it, and you don't have to do it by yourself. And it's not gonna all happen at once. And, but it happens every day, you know, people work through it.
David Ames 36:49
Yeah. Man, yeah, I totally recognize recognize a lot of the things you've just described. But you know, the, or the just lost what you felt was your beauty or your best friend, your closest confidant, you know, this, this internal thing that was, you know, gave you an entire sense of being and purpose and, and, and, you know, comfort. And all of a sudden, you no longer think that that is something external. And at the same time, if you if you talk about this fact, you're going to lose, you know, the community around you possibly even friends and family, depending on how bad things are. So, yeah, I think,
Jim Palmer 37:29
well, and it just takes a while. I mean, eventually you realize that there actually are a lot of people that are right, where you're at who can appreciate and accept you where you're at, you know, it's the whole world isn't your, your previous Christian religious subculture, but it takes a while to start establishing new connections with other people. Like, for example, a lot of times when people were in this phase, I might encourage them to to Okay, look and see what meetup groups are in your city. Yeah, yes. Because a meetup group, you know, I mean, there are secular humanists, atheists, you know, agnostic, non spirit, I mean, there are a lot of groups that you can check out, to start maybe getting connected with people who are fine with where you're at, they're not gonna have a problem with what you believe or don't believe about God. The other thing too, though, is that I think that we are a little bit perhaps a victim of Western civilization who is insistent upon working everything out conceptually in our mind. So a lot of people will go through this incessant can, you know, I need a new and improved version of God, I need a new and improved version of this and they just roll it over in their mind and they're like, you know, the mind is a concept generating machine. And yeah, you know, I remember out of your saw the movie Forrest Gump, but there's that scene where he's run and run and run. And then finally, he just gets to this point where it's like, Okay, I'm done.
David Ames 39:01
I'm done running. I, you know, I just want to bring up I read your blog, it sounds like you're a runner, I'm a runner as well, I find, I find so much of, you know, I don't know, just quiet time when I'm running. And I feel so much better after I do that. And so every time I see Forrest Gump, and he says, I just felt like running, I start, I start weeping, because that means something so deep to me, and that the grief that he was experiencing, and that and that, you know, running gave him some peace for that. Yeah.
Jim Palmer 39:40
Yeah, I learned there times when I mean for me, so basically, I use that analogy to say, I came to a time where I was like conceptualizing, conceptualizing working over my mind. What's the new belief? What's the new thing to plug in? And then finally, which is like, I'm done. I can't do this anymore. I'm tired. Yeah, this constant you know, like And isn't necessarily like how much of this, you know, is just helping me love people more? Is this connecting me into the present moment? Is this allowing me to enjoy the world that I live in? Is this actually improving and bettering my life? Like who says I have to figure it out and come up with a nice, detailed belief system about something, you know? And I've read about this in one of my books, okay, like, if I go enjoy the sunset, am I is the experience of the sunset going to be heightened if I can explain it, or if I can develop a sunset theology? about it, it's not in fact, it's probably going to, but so I think that outside of religion, I found a lot of fulfillment and very human things. One of them was running, you know, I started marathons and ultra marathons along as one of runs on in 35 miles. I started in the art, I realized that I really enjoyed abstract art. Yeah. And enjoy being outside in nature and in and so I know that for a lot of people, because religion determined what they could or couldn't, couldn't do what they should or shouldn't, like, they don't even you know, like, when I in my life after religion course, one of the modules, I give the person a whole list of questions to help them determine, you know, what spirituality means for them. But the question is, like, what, what brings you joy, what centers you in yourself? What makes you come alive? And a whole slew of questions that are just, you know, designed, they're simple and practical questions, not these big, theological, right, or existential ones, it's the same thing with the meaning of life where you know, it. If I were to say that life is meaningless, some people would be get a bit upset and think that that's really dark. And it's hopeless, and it's not realistic and all this stuff. But, but the other way to look at that is that that's really entirely hopeful and inspiring, because what it means is that you have the freedom to cultivate the meaning that matters to you, you can determine what matters most to you in life, and then you can cultivate a life that reflects that, you know, there's not like someone telling you, it has to be this. Right? So saying that there's a meaningless life is meaningless. It's not saying that there's no meaning. It's just saying that you're the one who has the opportunity to create, determine and cultivate it, as opposed to religion telling you what it's supposed to be.
David Ames 42:44
Right. I like to say that the you know, the universe may be indifferent, that humanity is not right. We are the meaning makers, we make meaning.
Jim Palmer 42:55
Yes, and, and so I think that the, it takes time to make that transition out of religion, I think sometimes, it's it's more practical, daily, simple things, and less, you know, this kind of gnashing of the brain to come up with better answers to the existential questions of our origin and what happens when you die. And, you know, I just read a book by Becker called The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker. And one of the things he says in his book is that the affinity whereas Freud, saw sexuality as sort of the the, the fundamental problem that leads to so much neuroses, Becker says, no, no, it's really the terror of death. And what that represents, you know, the finality of it, you know, the, the becoming, facing the creature leanness, of our, of our existence as human beings. And so I think that one of the reasons why people are very attached to religion is for example, religion, supplies, answers to the things that people are most fearful of, or the things that they want to build their security around. Yeah,
David Ames 44:21
I've noticed lately I want to do an episode on grief. I plan on doing that, but the episode on grief, but even just our cultural touchstones, if you look at Netflix, and just count the number of movies that are about seeing a loved one after death in some way or another, right, somehow transcending that barrier of death. It's so much I feel like so much of religion is the psychological defense is a natural, normal human response to losing someone that you love so dearly that you can't fathom, not having them with you.
Jim Palmer 45:00
Yes, I'd think that what I see though that sometimes there are ways that religion lead can lead a person off the hook from embracing life fully. You know, if, if the downside of having this sort of certainty of an afterlife, it's kind of like the backup plan, whatever happens in this life, it's you know, I mean, how many Christian people have you heard say that? Well, you know, even the Bible verse about how the your struggles now are minuscule compared to the reward in heaven and this kind of thing, right? You know. So who was it was in Marx that said, the Religion is the opium of the people, the basic idea was that the proletariat or the working man could experience in just conditions in the world. And they, they would be tolerant of it, because on Sunday morning, the preacher would woo them into these dreams of a future heaven. And there was a passivity that would come to set in, you know, like, why, why can find my conditions now, when I can expect to have a reward in the future, if I will just tolerate these a little, a little further is the same thing with apocalyptical kind of teaching, you know, if I, if I believe basically, it's all going to go up in flames, then like, what do I really need to be all that worried about the Earth at the climate
David Ames 46:36
change?
Jim Palmer 46:39
It's all going to, you know, go through a nuclear meltdown in the end and start over,
David Ames 46:46
right? Yeah, no, I yeah, I think eschatology has really dangerous especially we're we're now seeing this in the United States political system, just the the kind of policy that gets generated based on some aspects illogical. Theology is terrible. Yeah. Hey, I do want to circle back just a little bit. So again, I think people that have gone through these faith transitions. First thing they do is they get online and they see just these terrible angry people. Yelling, yeah. So you know. So when I say 2015, I realized, man, I know that I no longer believe I don't, I don't believe what do I do now? Right. And so, you know, I started reading books, I started getting online. And really what I was looking for was community. But the first thing you see is everyone else going through the same kind of grief, anger phase that we all kind of go through, it's a real natural part to kind of lash out at our former faith. But what can we do as humanists to try to step into that gap? Right, so that the, the the baby not a theist, or however you want to describe them, but the, you know, early phases of that deconstruction deconversion that they can find, you know, a more positive community that's not just in that angry phase.
Jim Palmer 48:17
Yeah, I remember that. I wrote a blog post. It's been it's a long time ago, but I reposted every now and then which was something like, the the five mistakes I made during, in my deconstructing of religion, and I, but I introduced it by saying that mistake is probably the wrong word, because a lot of this just going to happen, it's even a necessary part of the process. But you have to also, it's something there's more on the other side of it, you know, as opposed to getting getting stuck in it. And one of the things one of the mistakes that I made is that I shifted one fundamentalism to another right, you know, like I was a Christian fundamentalist from the standpoint that I had absolute certainty about a certain Christian theology that I that I would argue tooth and nail over and, and and in that sense, I was a fundamentalist, but then I just switched sides and became a fundamentalist in a different way, which was, you know, having my absolute certainty and superiority and my combativeness against religion. So, you can make, it can be a religion, religion can be a religion, whether you're for it or against it, you know, like you can make a religion out of either and so, the, which as you said, it makes complete sense, okay, if you take a lot of the cases of people that, that, that I've been I work with, if you gave 1020 3040 years of your life to religion, and it dominated everything in your life, and you discovered that not only is it Not true. But it basically determine your trajectory in life and all kinds of ways that you now see your harmful, you're going to be pissed. Yes, you know. And it's, and you're in for time, you're, you're, I mean, it's likely you're not going to see one shred of, you know, goodness that has anything to do with religion. And your your only thought is that I can only hope that religion will be totally eradicated from the face of the earth. And as much as I can help that happen, and I'm all in. And that's completely understandable, you know, during a phase of the deed of deconstruction, you know? But then, for me, I guess just my own path. I started discovering Well, there's a few things first, my particular experience of religion isn't the same as everybody else's. Okay, so that's number one. I mean, there are some people who actually have been part of some religious community or religious tradition that was more accepting or loving more, you know, less. So not everybody had my experience, it wasn't as bad or fundamentalist. So I mean, take, for example, if you had gone to a Unitarian Universalist Church, your own life, you know, like, that's a religious community, religious tradition, or religious experience, but it's not gonna be the same in terms of perhaps it's, so I realized that, then I had realized, well, and I'm also like, you know, basically believe in the freedom of religion, right? So I can't really go around and like, insist that religion be completely eradicated from the face of the earth, because if people want to follow religion, then that's their choice to do that. And where I would draw the line, and this, what I do is I tell people, I'm not against religion, I'm against the misuse of religion. Now, even though I don't practice religion, I don't come out and say, did no other human being can or should, but I would I do stand up and confront religion where I think that it's doing harm in the world. Right. So I think that the shift between, it's almost like, I think part of the goal is to no longer make religion your reference point, either for it or against it, find another reference point and, and to me, humanism provided that reference point, or it's one reference point that I mean, it states that it doesn't hold to a belief in the supernatural as a way of defining itself, but other than that, then it sets off on a more positive course, to live a meaningful and ethical, fulfilling, productive life, you know, and I think that sometimes, you don't want to you, it's not a good trade off. For you to switch from years and years and years of a bad religious experience. And then the whole next stage of your life is nothing more than just being angry about it. Like either way religions still guide you, you know, yeah. So, you know, to sort of to come to a different place. That's why I started doing a lot of personal development with people one because I realized they didn't have the tools to do that, because of what religion did. And because I realized that people would often get stuck in the armpits that religion part of it. Yeah. And you're, and the thing is you're describing is true in general than in a lot of social media. You know, it's very easy to find people that are mad about something, right. Like, that's, you know, whether it's Twitter or Facebook, it's yet and can be a little more challenging to find groups of people who are learning to cultivate a new way of living their lives, you know, after religion, something a little more than just the victory all of of ating religion. Yeah,
David Ames 54:23
I find that, you know, I have to stop myself from that first reaction, right? There's a famous XKCD cartoon where the character saying, Oh, wait, I'll be there in a minute. Somebody has said something incorrect on the internet. There's this sense that we have, like, somebody said, something that's not exactly right. I have to correct them. And no, it's not your job. You don't have to do the letting go of that, I think is actually a huge part. And so the question I posed You go ahead. Great.
Jim Palmer 54:56
Well, let me just say real quick, a big part of what I think I do in terms of my social media presence is that I'm not.
I am. I will publicly take issue with a lot of things I come across in terms of religious mindsets, and, you know, so
it's bad, but it's only a part of how I understand who I am in the world. Right? No, it's, and that's one of the things that really attracted me to you. Is that my involvement in humanism, then, you know, I got in the secular community as a whole. I did find it sometimes the what what's commonly referred to and usually it's a pejorative reference isn't new Atheism, with you know, which tends to be the more combative and demeaning sort of approach towards religion, you know, like, like, for example, we're gonna Yeah, I mean, it can get pretty bad. Oh, yeah. You know, so
David Ames 56:09
no, and, in fact, a huge premise of why I want to do this podcast is, if you want the hardcore, anti atheist, you know, religious people are stupid, you can find that everywhere. Right? But the, what is missing is, if, if that isn't you, what would have what's what is there for us, that is, a huge portion of why I want to do this podcast is let's talk about, you know, it is a part of the human experience to have that religion is a human invention. And that is somewhat natural, you could say, right, and observe it and talk about it, we can describe our experiences of having been in it and coming out of it. And I love the theists in my life, right? That included my family, my very, very good friends, college, college friends, I love these people, why would I? Why would I be attacking them? And, and more importantly, I think there's a perspective of that religious people are stupid somehow. Well, I can't say that. Otherwise, I'd be saying that I was stupid. I'm the same person, I have the exact same intelligence as I did four years ago, than I do today. And so it's not about intelligence, right? It's so much more about culture, it's so much more about, you know, how, what your family was, like, all of those things,
Jim Palmer 57:31
your your, ya know, and all kinds of other underlying factors that would lead to a person being religious, even if they've got a PhD in astrophysics, or whatever, you know. Now, to be fair, I will sometimes switch on to religious channel on TV, just because, like, I have to, like, I don't know, it's some weird form of entertainment or something. Well, I think, to these people still believe this or like, this is actually happening. So that said, are ways that I take on religion Full Frontal sort of like, confrontation, where I believe that it's, you know, being toxic in people's in people's lives. But yeah, the reason why I thought a year is so important is that when I just seen the grace for eight years, I thought, okay, that's, you know, someone who's going to create spaces, where, where people can dialogue and converse, on honestly, and vulnerably. You know, but but, but not have to be a, a combative environment to, to explore and talk about, you know, these kinds of things, because I still think that the greatest defense do things Christians and atheists have in common is that the greatest defense for their, for their positions, in my mind, is their morality or their ethics or their goodness. I mean, the reason why we're so upset with Christians is because they're hypocrites. Okay. That's one of the reasons Sure, and why and what and so, I think it's the same thing with atheists. I mean, if you see an atheist out there being disrespectful, being an asshole, you know, like, being superior, demeaning and diminishing, other people like, that's the, you know, like, that's gonna end up being what discredits who they are in the world.
David Ames 59:31
Right. Right. You know, so, let me let me try to segue here. It brings up an interesting point for me. I think the thing that originally attracted me to Jesus, and this happened for me personally, in my late teens, was his sense of attacking self righteousness. Right? So he was he was going after the people of his day, the religious leaders of his day, who had the form of spirituality or whatever you want to call it. And, and yet, we're, we're practicing hypocrisy today. You know, I often say that the Evangelicals of modern day are really the Pharisees of that time. And I said that when I was a Christian, I say that. But now as an atheist, I see the exact same kind of mentality in atheism, right? There are times when, when it's, it's this certainty that I am absolutely right. And you are wrong, and I'm going to correct you. So the segue is this. So you are a humanist, but you're a humanist who writes about Jesus a fair amount. And I'd like to talk, I'd like you to talk a little bit about how you understand Jesus, maybe the New Testament now, is that something that you still find meaningful at all? And just let you go?
Jim Palmer 1:00:52
Yeah, I think that, um, well, there's a lot of layers to this one layer is that did as a matter of historical fact, was there Jesus. Okay. And, of course, there's some disagreement on it. But for just for the sake of the purpose of this podcast, let's say that the, the, the, it seems to tilt in the direction of the fact that there was a historical individual, who we identify as Jesus who actually lived. And, and after that, we virtually know almost nothing very little. Okay, so let's just say that just for the sake of this,
David Ames 1:01:34
I don't want to get down into the dark, dark hole.
Jim Palmer 1:01:40
Right, so then you'd have to say, Okay, well, then the only thing we really know about Jesus, mainly, I mean, except for the obscure thing here or there by one or two other church historians, is what it says in the gospels, which are roughly, you know, at least three of them roughly about the same story, you know, give and take a little bit, and then John, which is a spiritualize version of itself. You know, it's the reason why I think that there are times when I feel like that there's not that we can deal with Jesus, that we don't necessarily have to totally demolish and discredit Jesus, in the sense of one of the reasons why that you just said, is that Jesus seemed to provide a meaningful path of being an individual, he can look at a religious tradition and confront the things about that tradition, that are detrimental and affirm the things that are, you know, constructive and good. You know, Jesus was a Jew, and he took on his Judaism, that ultimately, you know, got killed. And, but he also affirmed it or explained it in more detail, you know, like the Sermon on the Mount, you say, Don't murder, I say, don't hate you. And so I see, then there's the whole religious or these, you know, archetypes that Jung had several and others have talked about this. So, to what extent is Jesus represent something that human beings almost universally, first, Jesus symbolizes something that human beings universally connect with? Is that possible? You know, I wrote a blog post. Also, there was like, you know, fifth, I think it was other like 15 ways that Jesus is relevant, regardless of what you're doing, whether you're a Christian or an atheist, here are 15 ways that Jesus is irrelevant. So like, for example, and this even gets into how you want to take the Bible so you can take the idea of, of Jesus, this idea of him being some mix between divinity and humanity, which actually historically, I think kind of got blown into out of proportion in a way that even Jesus would be surprised by but as a as a symbol of self actualization. For example, you know, a person coming into the full, the full awareness and full expression of of who they are, you know, a person who was compelled to stand in solidarity with the victimized with the marginalized. A person who spoke truth to power in this, you know, religion, to the political establishment of his day, you know what, so in that sense, I see that the Jesus can have non religious be viewed as meaningful in these ways that don't have anything to do with the religious context. In fact, you know, there's books, I read two of them by the same book title entitled Christianity without God, which are two books that were written by people who spoke of the fact that, like, even the Jesus himself didn't even believe in theism, the way that the Christian church is, has made it indeed, made it into and that so it's so I see Jesus in that sense, I see Jesus as somebody who represents and symbolizes something that human beings instinctually are inspired to or compelled by. And just like, I would see relevance in you know, whether it's Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi, or, you know, any, any, any, no, the Buddha, any number of people that the represents something meaningful meaningfully for human beings.
David Ames 1:06:25
Yeah, I think, you know, I think one of the things that I've learned, and with your educational background, you probably know, much better than I do. But is that these questions about how do I find meaning? How do I find happiness? Are all you know, I mean, this is not
Jim Palmer 1:06:44
nothing new under the sun. I haven't come
David Ames 1:06:47
up with one new idea, you know, to add to this conversation, either religiously, or from a naturalistic perspective, and that we have been trying as a species to answer these questions since the beginning of time, right? The Greeks, you know, with this idea of kind of a civic religion, or you know, that with ethics with having a you know, like the, the, the Chinese with Confucianism, you know, like, just, this has been around a long time,
Jim Palmer 1:07:17
including Jesus robbing, preferred, this isn't the first time somebody in history was sort of the Divine man savior. The, I mean, once you start poking around a person comes to realize that this story of the origins of the universe in the Bible aren't exactly unique to the Bible, that the idea of, of a god man, Messiah who saved the world isn't unique to the Christian belief system. So these are, you know, which is maybe why they represent these archetypes because they're reoccurring themes reoccurring people now suddenly get asked, but why do you think Jesus stuck the way he did? You know, like, I mean, it's hard to avoid the fact that out of all the, you know, billions and billions of human beings that that have lived, you know, how is it that Jesus has endured? You know, if you take 2000 years out of the totality of 200,000 that human beings have, and there's all kinds of reasons why we could talk about where a person might, you know, could explain that my view of the Bible is a little, I'm not sure that I'm like, this is something that I'm going I would, you know, go to the mat on in terms of my understanding the Bible, let me put it this way. I think that, that this, honestly could be giving the Bible more credit than it deserves. And I, and I acknowledge that. I'm not sure it is, but it could be. So what I what I can think of the Bible. Or maybe I'll put it this way, a, to me a high view of the value of the Bible. It's a non traditional kind of Orthodox Christian view would be good or something like this. The Bible tells a story about humankind's relationship with the transcendent humankind's relationship trying to navigate and be in relationship to or with that non material, transcendent dimension to life, that we ascribe the word God to. And, and the the value of the Bible is it tells this this story of that evolution and relationship. Part of that story is like really bad. Part of that story is people running around and rationalizing going into parts of the earth and completely exterminating you know, groups of people rationalize it somehow that God told me to do this, right. It's part of the story in the Bible. It's still the story, right? People still do this to happen and crusades happen in all kinds of ways where we still commit that error. So no, there is There's no god that told people to go into some country and wipe out people for His glory. There is no god that told him by smash baby against rocks, there is no God who killed the guy who slept when he was carrying, you know, the Ark of the Covenant, none of that stuff happen the way that it was explained it was explained the way it was for a useful purpose. But a what you did that's part of the storage humankind's relationship with God, all that kinds of stuff that we do, but the story can also be beautiful. Yeah. You know, like the book of Ruth, like, you know, the you know, Naomi loses everything. And with with no obligation, Ruth gives up about everything to help her right. And I had Hebrew by Dr. McGarry in seminary, and one of the things that I learned in that Hebrew class is that the Hebrew word there's a word that's used to describe Ruth and the only other time the word is used in the Bible is to describe God Himself. And it's the word hesed, which means loving kindness. Yeah. So, you know, that's a beautiful story. Sometimes we're like that sometimes we are willing to come alongside people in their suffering and sacrifice our own comfort and well being to stand in solidarity with another person and help them and in those moments, that is the best example of anything that we can point to in refer to his transcendent or ultimate reality or even God. Yeah. So I think the Bible is all of that, you know, it will, that it's not to be taken into a story. And it does put the onus on the individual to have some discernment. Yes.
David Ames 1:11:56
What is? Yeah, what's, what are the lessons we're supposed to learn from this? What maybe what not to do in many cases? But yeah,
Jim Palmer 1:12:03
you know, like, like Paul wrote, Mozu, you know, I mean, Paul wrote most of the letters in the New Testament, but you gotta say, Are they okay? He, Paul is writing letters to churches answering questions, trying to figure out how does it work to be a Christian in the context of our culture, but it was cultural, you know, like it had to work in their culture. Yeah. So, I mean, to see women wearing head coverings to church are taking seriously that they can't be pastors or that they need to submit to their men, or they're spiritually, you know, like, these are, in my mind cultural aspects of the evolution of understanding these truths, but they're not sacred.
David Ames 1:12:43
Right, right. Well, I think that's the that's the point, right? As a humanist, we can take in the stories of the Bible and derive some value from them, but without being obligated to do the apologetics, right? To make them literal, or to make them binding in some way that you know. So we can we can find that value in the same way that we can, in other historical writings and other Yeah. So that, so I'm cognizant of our time, and I want to give you a chance to just tell the listeners a little bit about your work, how they could reach out to you. You've written five books have maybe maybe briefly tell us about those and then tell us a little bit about your coaching and how people can engage with you.
Jim Palmer 1:13:28
Yeah, I. So I've written five books, divine nobodies is the book where I share my initial deconstruction of my faith, and what were the factors that led to my deciding to leave my ministerial career and my Christianity. And once I started getting letters, and noticing that people were getting stuck in the anti religion kind of mode, I made the decision that I needed to write a follow up book that was describing my initial attempts of figuring out what it meant for me to live a meaningful life after religion. So my next book wide open spaces, is a book where I tell the part of the story is I stumbled forward trying to figure out life and meaning outside of religion. My third book has been Jesus in Nashville. And that book was my so I deconstructed all my Christian theology, except I didn't know quite what to do with Jesus Himself. And so I devoted a year in my life to test a theory that I started to have about Jesus, which was there's absolutely no difference between Jesus and me that that the claim that Jesus was more than me is not true. And or that I'm more than I think I am. Either way, whatever Jesus was, I AM, okay. Okay. So I spent a year of my life kind of plowing into that which was, it was highly controversial. My publishing house which I published my first two books, cancel my book contract they accused me of, of heresy and and said they could not publish the book. So because I wrote the first my first book contract was written with a with a Christian publisher, and they were little, they were okay with divine nobody's ever getting kind of nervous with wide open spaces. And when being Jesus came out I was like we're done. So that was being Jesus in Nashville, then the next book after that was known some of the edge which was a book about my journey of address addressing the root cause of my own suffering, which I was not able to resolve in my previous religious framework. And in that book, also kind of disentangle what it is particularly about Christianity that prevents people from really resolving the root of their own suffering and living a life of fulfillment. And then, the very last book I wrote is called inner anarchy, which was my last attempt to give a alternative understanding of what Jesus meant outside the Christian religious framework and understanding. And I just finished my manuscript of my sixth book, which is how to have a great day without God. A, the subtitle is a non religious guide to living life. Well, that's probably the book that's maybe the more humanist non secular discussion. Okay. So, you go to Jim Palmer on Amazon, you can find any of those books, I have a website, Jim Palmer author.com. And I, like I said, I do I do a lot of spiritual direction and personal consulting with people who are deconstructing their faith going through a faith crisis, trying to figure out all this stuff we've talked about on the, you know, after religion, I've got a life after religion course that you can do, you know, also online, which is, walks people through the steps of addressing more the depths of our religious indoctrination in church. Religious damage, addressing that on a deeper level. And so you know, I'm on Twitter, I'm on Facebook, you know, I guess Jim Palmer author.com, you can find it pretty much about anything there. You know, it will give you the links to my Amazon or the course or anywhere else. I'm on very cool. Social
David Ames 1:17:33
media. So yes, excellent. That's fantastic. Yeah. And I, you know, I've, Jim, I've really appreciated this conversation. And I felt like, we could have done this for four more hours. Maybe if you'll consider it some other time, we'll have you back on. This was really, it's been a lot of fun. I appreciate you coming on the podcast,
Jim Palmer 1:17:53
you I'd be happy to come on anytime. I also appreciate you and who you are for other people in the world. And so you know, it's, I'm inspired and hopeful knowing that there are people like you that are you know, taking that approach of being the graceful atheists creating spaces where people can explore humanism and a secular approach to life, that without it just being a complete, you know, like, I hate religion parade.
David Ames 1:18:27
Exactly. Yeah, I'm trying I in fact, I started my podcast by saying, My name is David. And I'm trying to be the grace radius. Because it's aspirational, right, like I haven't gotten. I'm figuring it out like everybody else. So Well, Jim, thank you so much, and we will talk to you a bit later.
Jim Palmer 1:18:45
Okay. Thanks for
David Ames 1:18:54
some final thoughts on the episode. I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Jim Palmer as much as I did. We could have talked for hours. There was so much that I wanted to get into about humanism and Jim's faith transitions from deconstruction to becoming a secular humanist chaplain. I feel like there's lots more on the table there. Maybe we'll have Jim back at some point in time. There'll be lots more to say about humanism in future episodes as well. I do want to point out that Jim is a life coach specifically for people who have D converted for those people who have deconstructed their faith and find themselves in need of someone to be there along the way. So I highly recommend that you get in touch with Jim if you are looking for some support. I'll have links in the show notes for all of Jim's online presence. If you want to get in touch with Jim, you can find his website at Jim Palmer author.com. I'll also have links to his books on Amazon. In our interview, we do bring up the clergy project again. That seems to be a common theme. I'll have links to the clergy project. And I also want to bring up just one correction. In my previous episode, we mentioned the humanist celebrants and the American Humanist Association. And the American Humanist Association has corrected me to point out that their adjunct organization that endorses celebrants and chaplains is called the humanist society. And so I will have links to the humanist society. For anyone who is interested in exploring, becoming a humanist Chaplain themselves. I want to thank Jim for coming on the podcast and sharing his considerable insight. And I hope it helps you on your journey of discovery of what it means to be a human being having a human experience. Time for some footnotes. The song has a track called waves by mkhaya beats, please check out her music links will be in the show notes. If you'd like to help support the podcast, here are the ways you can go about that. First help promote it. Podcast audience grows by word of mouth. If you found it useful or just entertaining, please pass it on to your friends and family. post about it on social media so that others can find it. Please rate and review the podcast wherever you get your podcasts. This will help raise the visibility of our show. Join me on the podcast. Tell your story. Have you gone through a faith transition? You want to tell that to the world? Let me know and let's have you on? Do you know someone who needs to tell their story? Let them know. Do you have criticisms about atheism or humanism, but you're willing to have an honesty contest with me? Come on the show. If you have a book or a blog that you want to promote, I'd like to hear from you. Also, you can contribute technical support. If you are good at graphic design, sound engineering or marketing. Please let me know and I'll let you know how you can participate. And finally financial support. There will be a link on the show notes to allow contributions which would help defray the cost of producing the show. If you want to get in touch with me you can google graceful atheist or you can send email to graceful atheist@gmail.com You can tweet at me at graceful atheist or you can just check out my website at graceful atheists.wordpress.com Get in touch and let me know if you appreciate the podcast. Well this has been the graceful atheist podcast My name is David and I am trying to be the graceful atheists. Grab somebody you love and tell them how much they mean to you.
This has been the graceful atheist podcast
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
My name is David and I am trying to be the Graceful Atheist. I am a humanist. And I believe that human connection is the most profound experience one can have. It is this human connection that will be the focus of the podcast.
There are three main themes that I want to explore: Faith Transitions, Secular Grace and having an Honesty Contest.
Faith Transitions
The first theme is faith transitions from doubt to deconstruction to deconversion.
If you are anything like me, the process of deconversion feels lonely and one of the first things you want to do is tell your story. But who are you going to tell? It is possible that your friends and family are still believers and they will be unlikely to appreciate your story. Even the non-believers in your life may be non-pulsed if they have never gone through a deconversion experience. Telling your story is a cathartic part of the deconversion process. If you want to tell your story for the podcast, you can remain anonymous, use a pseudonym, or if you are out as a non-believer, you can tell the world.
The message of the podcast is that if you are going through a faith transition, you are not alone.
Secular Grace is a proactive acceptance, love and caring for our fellow human beings person to person. Think of it as humanism plus. Where humanism has tended to focus on the rational for ethics and human rights, Secular Grace focuses on human connection, belonging, awe and love. Rather than be defined by what I don’t believe. I want to be defined by what I do believe. I believe in people.Self Honesty
Honesty Contest
The final theme, brutal honesty, will be an aspirational goal and the ethos of the podcast. One of the plans I am most excited about for the podcast is a role reversal interview called “A Believer Interviews the Graceful Atheist.” In these episodes, I will have friends of mine who are believers who I trust interview me in an honesty contest. I’ll allow them to ask the hard questions and rather than try to argue with them I’ll see if I can get them to understand why I no longer believe. If, and only if, they are interested they can come back for a second episode where I will ask them some tough questions about their faith.
Join me
Please join me on this journey. If you want to tell your story about your faith transition, get in touch with me at gracefulatheist@gmail.com or @GracefulAtheist on Twitter.
Attribution
“Waves” track written and produced by Makaih Beats
Conversely inspired by presuppositional apologetics and continuing my Watershed Presuppositions series I thought it time to write down what my presuppositions are.
Presuppositions are truths you accept without justification. They are accepted a prori and may or may not have evidence to prove them. They are your starting point and the basis upon which everything you believe in is built.
It is important to note that everyone has presuppositions whether they are aware of them or not. Much of the difficulty in having a dialog with those you disagree with is the unstated incongruous presuppositions that you and your interlocutor hold.
My Presuppositions
Ontological and Epistemological
The universe exists and has patterns which are to varying degrees discoverable.
Conscious minds are a product of the patterns of the universe.
Logic and mathematics abstracted from the discoverable patterns of the universe by conscious minds are sound and reliable.
The scientific method which uses logic, mathematics and observation is a reliable method for discovering the patterns of the universe.
Truth is that which can be tested and verified to conform to reality.
Moral
Human beings have value and inalienable rights.
Human beings are fallible.
Human beings are meaning makers.
These are the truths that I hold axiomatically. Some, even most, can be justified, meaning they have evidence. But, for our purposes here, what are the implications of these statements when held true?
You may find yourself saying, “but I don’t believe one or more of these.” No problem. These are my presuppositions not yours. The reason they are useful is for you to understand how I come to certain conclusions and not others. If you can accept them purely for the sake of argument you can begin to understand my worldview. If you cannot accept them even solely for the sake of argument then we have nothing further to discuss.
The universe exists
This one seems pretty obvious. If it seems as obvious to you as it does to me, you have probably never hung out with philosophers.
The purpose of this axiom is to do away with the interesting yet tiresome arguments of solipsism, that the only thing that can be proven to exist is our consciousness. Do we live in a hologram or a matrix? Are we just brains in a vat? So boldly and arrogantly I assert, the universe exists!
Even more boldly I assert that at least to some extent it has patterns which are discoverable. These patters are observable and ultimately knowable to varying degrees of certainty. The old trite saying, “as surely as the sun will rise in the East and set in the West,” is an example of observing a pattern of the universe and gaining certainty that it is true.
Conscious minds are a product of the patterns of the universe
This one is more of an assertion. Fewer people may agree with me here. But I take this as a given. Consciousness is not made of a mysterious non-natural substance. We may not understand consciousness in its entirety … yet. Therefore, I assert consciousness is a product of the patterns of the universe we find ourselves conscious in.
This axiom is important to do away with the idea that consciousness is something other than natural. The idea of a soul dieshard.
Logic and mathematics are sound
Again, if you find this one obvious, you have not spent much time with either philosophers or presuppositional apologists.
Logic and mathematics are abstractions from the patterns of the universe by conscious minds. There are a few hidden assertions in here that I will point out.
Logic and mathematics do not exist in the platonic sense. We have discussed dualism in this series before it is a difficult one to escape. What I am saying here is logic and math do not have their own existence they are the product of human intellect based on observed patterns in the universe: abstractions. In philosophic language this is an epistemological claim not an ontological claim.
We as conscious human beings observe the patterns of the universe and we abstract “rules” that describe those patters. If I have two sheep and then I get two more I have four sheep. It does not matter if “sheep” are woolly mammals who chew the cud or blocks, or rocks, or anything. We have abstracted the rule 2 + 2 = 4 by observation and human intellect. From basic arithmetic to number theory we have abstracted rules from these patterns.
The most important assertion here is that logic and mathematics are sound and reliable. It is a feature of logical and mathematical proofs that each step taken relies on the proofs that came before it. If one of the foundational mathematics axioms were not true the proofs built upon it would not “work” as they do.
Don’t believe this one? Then throw out the magic device in your pocket that gives you access to the near sum total of human knowledge. That device, the network it uses and literally the information itself is all built on logic and mathematics.
Mathematics is the language of the universe.
— Neil Degrasse Tyson
The scientific method is a reliable method to gain knowledge
The scientific method is simply a process by which an idea is tested by gathering evidence. If there is strong evidence more credence is given to the idea, if there is little evidence credence goes down and if there is contradictory evidence the idea may be abandoned altogether.
My assertion here is that this is a reasonable and reliable epistemological method, a way to gain knowledge.
The scientific method leads toward truth in major part by discarding bad ideas. Finding true ideas is hard. Validating that an idea is true is just as hard. But by discarding false ideas the options are narrowed down toward true ones.
Science is self-correcting. If tomorrow credible evidence is discovered contracting any of the deeply held scientific theories credence in that theory would drop. Not only that the discoverer of the contradicting evidence would be lauded.
Science tends to assume naturalistic metaphysics. If that bothers you, then you need to account for science’s unreasonable, wild and fantastic success. The entirety of the modern age depends upon the successes of science from medicine to space exploration to binge watching your favorite TV series on demand.
Truth is that which can be tested and verified to conform to reality
Adding to the common definition of truth as that which conforms to reality and adding a bit of the scientific method. I assert that truth is that which can be tested and verified to conform to reality where reality is the product of the patterns of the universe. We should have more credence in something that has been tested and has evidence than something that has neither.
Evidence, testing and validation are important because these are the only tools to convince the skeptic. Einstein was famously not a fan of quantum theory in the early days. But he was won over by the evidence.
If I make a claim, you can believe me or not. But if I make a claim and tell you how to test for yourself and that test validates my claim it is harder to ignore.
I expect the accusations of scientism, materialism and empiricism. Fine. It is certainly true that there are vast areas where science just doesn’t know. And in fact this is a feature: to humbly acknowledge all that we don’t know.
Focusing on the gaps in knowledge misses the point, keep in mind all that we do know. Evolutionary theory explains the vast complexity of life on planet Earth. Theories within cosmology can model the universe back to fractions of a second after the big bang. Gravity waves just recently verified were predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity. The baffling quantum field theory explains nature’s behavior at the microscopic level which turns out to be deeply counter intuitive.
Even for those things which we cannot measure directly we use inference. We have inferred dark matter and dark energy. These two account for 96% of the material in the universe and yet we cannot detect them directly.
Human beings have value and inalienable rights
This is the basis of my morality: human beings have value and inalienable rights. I assert it thus, and then try to live out the implications. As sentient beings we recognize each other’s great value in the otherwise empty vastness of the universe we find ourselves in. We are not alone. We have each other.
I am a humanist as I have written before. This simply means that people are more important than ideologies of any kind. We ought to treat each other with Secular Grace.
I appreciate the need to expand this concept to conscious creatures. This has vast implications on how we treat animals and potential artificial intelligences. However, as recent political history has shown we are not very good at treating each other with respect and valuing each other’s rights. So human beings are my focus.
Human beings are fallible
Just as important as recognizing the value human beings pose we must also acknowledge human fallibility. Although, I reject the concept of sin it would be foolishness not to recognize people can be destructive to themselves and others.
Human beings are neither all good nor all bad. If those terms are too loaded, they are neither completely selfish nor completely altruistic. Our motivations are complex and varied and they very rarely reduce to simple identifiable sources.
We are very good at fooling ourselves. We are susceptible to a vast array of cognitive biases. In fact, much of the process of the scientific method is to avoid human fallibility and our ability to find what we want to be true.
However, just because human beings are fallible or imperfect does not mean we are not of great value. Sentience being an exceedingly rare commodity in the universe we find ourselves in, we need to love each other.
Human beings are meaning makers
We humans are the conscious observers who abstract the patterns of the universe. We experience awe and mystery and give them meaning. We define human morality I assert there may not be inherent meaning in the universe but we humans make meaning.
We are the universe aware of itself.
— Carl Sagan, Julian Huxley, Neil Degrasse Tyson all have said some variation on this quote.
I tend to agree with Hume that you cannot get an aught from an is. Rather than exhausting ourselves looking for external objective truth, morality and meaning we should take it upon ourselves to work together toward greater understanding of human truth, morality and meaning. Though all human moral systems are incomplete, taken together they point toward respect for human value.
Many months ago Neil Carter, Godless in Dixie, wrote an article about the Evangelical mind warping perspective on Philippians 4:13. (I particularly like the comment about his kids noticing the clock reading 4:13 as apposed to 4:20.) He also uses a cute analogy about Dumbo and the magic feather.
— Graceful Atheist (@GracefulAtheist) July 6, 2017
The reason Neil’s suggestion that religion might be helpful in the beginning struck me as true because that was my experience. Right at the time when I was most “lost” is when I became a Christian. That may actually be trite to say. Isn’t that true for everyone? This is going to sound like a religious testimony, but I have a point to make. So bear with me.
I grew up in a nominal Christian home. There were occasional references to God but he was never at the forefront of conversation. So much so, that I was curious about what the adults all seemed to know that I did not quite get. If I can quote Douglas Adams, my position on God as a kid went something like this:
Who is this God character, anyway?
The other pertinent piece of information is that I grew up in an alcohol and drug addicted family, specifically my mom. After years of broken promises and heartache when I was 17 my mom came to me and said, “Jesus told me to stop drinking.” “Sure, mom, whatever,” was my response. But she was clean and sober that day. And the next. And the next. She claimed God had given her a choice, “stop drinking or die,” and she chose to live.
This had a rather profound impact on me, as you can imagine. My mom did not push religion on me. After going to rehab and being clean and sober for a couple of months she bought me my first bible and gently suggested, if I was interested, to read one of the gospels. Which I did. Over the next year, I read it cover to cover.
With mom suddenly acting like an adult, this was my cue to fall apart. This was my junior year in high school. I had already had problems with school, mostly due to skipping class. But I was also dealing with what I now understand was depression and anxiety. I was panicked about projects where I had to speak in front of the class. So I did not go to school. Which made it harder to go the next day. Which made it harder still. The pressure and anxiety snowballed. I felt like I had a mountain of anxiety on my back every day.
So, I dropped out.
This is when I became a Christian. I had just watched my mother transform literally overnight. I had dropped out of high school. I was 17 years old, poor, with no prospects for the future. I had no idea what I was going to do with my life. All while I was reading the bible which was presented to me as having answers. And it claimed there was a God who cared. I needed help. Of course, I reached out to God.
Here is the point where my secular readers are jumping up and down at the manipulative nature of religion preying upon the vulnerable at there weakest. This is, of course, true, but not the main point I want to make. I need you to feel how lost I felt: on the cusp of adulthood, with no education and no plans on how to make a living, nor any hope for a meaningful life. Because the rest of the story gets to the point.
I had the odd experience of reading through the bible before I went to church. Which means that upon arrival at church I was constantly wondering, “Where did they get that idea?” I was 18 and the church had no idea what to do with me. So, the youth pastor asked me if I could help out with their youth group. Turns out not everyone in the church has read their bibles, so I was pretty good at preaching and teaching it very early on.
Here is the critical point in the story. One day the youth pastor says to me, “you should go to bible college.” Now, I was a high school drop out, I had gotten my GED and was playing about at community college with no particular plan. But suddenly, the idea of going to college was not out of reach. At least one person believed I could do it.
I wound up going to bible college and graduated Cum Laude. I met my future wife there. I briefly became a youth pastor. On at least a few occasions, I spoke and preached in front of thousands. This was the same kid who dropped out of high school because he was afraid of speaking in front of the class.
You know there is a rest to the story. This entire blog is the rest of the story. There were dark days for my mom. There were problems with bible college. There were certainly problems with ministry. And ultimately, my recognition that none of it was based on reality.
So what is my point?
I wouldn’t be here writing this today. I wouldn’t have my life. I wouldn’t have my career. I wouldn’t be married to the woman I love (I am still not in my wife’s league but I really wasn’t before college). None of these things would exist had I not been given that little bit of hope when I was at my lowest point.
I was dumbo. I was holding the magic feather of religion. And I could fly.
New perspective
One day, I discovered the magic feather was not actually magic. It was the people in my life who had lifted me up. But that does not mean the magic feather was not useful for a time.
Do I think God delivered my mother from drugs and alcohol? No, I do not. But the idea of God gave her hope to not drink that day. And the next. For ten years. Until it didn’t.
Do I think God took an anxious and scared kid and made him a public speaker? No, actually, I think it was the relationships with people in my life. That youth pastor who legitimately cared about me but just happened to be in the church. My grandparents who paid for half of my college. And even my mom who, despite all her flaws, let me know how much she believed in me. People believed in me, supported me and got me through very difficult times and allowed me to succeed.
Placebo Effect
The placebo effect in medicine is a well understood phenomenon. When people are given inactive sugar pills but they believe they are medicine they get better. The mind is a powerful thing and it has influence over the body (to an extent). The point is even though pills made of sugar have zero medicinal value people physically got better when they believed the sugar pills where going to heal them.
The point Neil makes above and the point I am extending here is that religion has a placebo effect. It can be helpful for some people some of the time. My mother’s belief in a deliverer (and not coincidentally one who watches over you and knows all) helped her overcome an addiction. My belief in the “Father to the fatherless” and a God who providentially guided me helped me overcome my anxiety and analysis paralysis and get on with my life.
Why in the world would would I (the Graceful Atheist) make the argument that religion could be helpful? A few reasons. But first let me clarify.
What I am not saying:
I am not saying that the magic feather of religion is actually magic. There are perfectly natural explanations for all of one’s religious experiences. In fact, that is the point, it is a placebo.
I am not saying that one should stay in religion. The point I am trying to make is a humanistic one: one’s own humanity and one’s relationships with other human beings are the magic. Not the religion.
I am not saying that religion is an unqualified good. It is more harmful than helpful because it isn’t true.
What I am saying:
What I am saying is that in some circumstances for some people some of the time religion can be a “crutch” or a talisman that helps a person get through difficulties.
Further, we in the secular community need to keep in mind that taking the magic feather away from someone by force leads to a crash. Placebos stop working when one becomes convinced that the pills are just sugar. But if someone else tries to externally convince, one is more likely to become defensive.
One of the reasons why I am not an anti-theist actively trying to disabuse the faithful of the magic of their feathers, is that this can be more harmful than good. When bubbles burst it can be painful. People self-delude sometimes for good reasons. Maybe they need that at the time. I tend to believe that when a person is ready they will start asking questions of their own volition.
We in the secular community should argue against bad ideas wherever they are found. Sometimes in public. But there is a tendency, particularly online, to see it as one’s mission to destroy religion at all costs. Not only do I think this is wrong, I think it is counter productive.
I have not actively tried to convince my believing family to give up their beliefs. Partly because, I perceive they are not ready. The magic feather is still keeping them in the air. Taking it away by force will just make them crash, not help them thrive as human beings.
We have to have something to give people to replace the magic feather. Something that will give them hope. Something that will carry them through dark times. As things stand today, I think this is the greatest failure of the secular community. Why would I yank the crutch out from underneath someone when I have nothing to offer but pure self-reliance? That just isn’t enough for many many people.
Avoiding the crash
After the deconversion process the single most important thing is finding community. Finding the relationships that keep one afloat. It is a secular community of caring people that needs to replace religious ones.
I consider myself a pathologically independent person. I decided at age 12 no one would be taking care of me but myself. The idea of a God who had my back was deeply attractive. It turned out I was still on my own. I tell you this to point out my greatest character flaw. I find it very difficult to ask for help even when I need it desperately.
A consequence of this is that when I deconverted, I did my thing. I did it alone. I read a pile of books. I got online and studied humanism, science and philosophy. I listened to hours of podcasts. I came to understand I was not alone. I was actually a part of a long line of history of doubters. I learned how to live life gracefully without God.
But here is the thing. Most people aren’t like that. Most people need more. If all we have to offer is “Good luck, you are on your own,” most people will reject that.
We need to do better at creating safe, welcoming and caring communities for the doubting, for the deconstructing and for the deconverting. We need to provide Secular Grace. We need to provide a replacement for the magic feather. It is we human beings who can do that.
What do you now see was a placebo?
I asked a few online secular communities I am a member of what they now thought of as placebo that they once believed was magic.
The overwhelming response reminded me (and you, dear reader) of the privileged position I have as a white(ish) cis-gendered heterosexual man in this society. Not everyone had positive experiences with religion. See the #ChurchToo. Some have experienced nothing positive at all.
I got pithy responses like: “All of it,” “None of it” and “Thoughts and prayers.”
There was a common theme of parents having transformed, angry fathers becoming loving caregivers and drug addicted mothers getting clean and sober.
Prayer was the big one people recognized as a placebo. Prayer feels like you are doing something when things are most out of your control. It is a tough one to get over post-deconversion.
In a mirror image of my argument for caring community, one person pointed out the false sense of community as placebo. They found out that the religious community who said they loved them and would always support them suddenly abandoned them as soon as they rejected the faith.
Also in juxtaposed from my experience of hope, one person talked about false hope. They talked about how devastating it was to feel hopeless when God did not come through for them.
I got strong push back from the spiritual but not religious who argued that the positive effects (“feel-good hormones) are not placebo but a direct result of spirituality.
What do you look back on now as a placebo that felt very real while you were in your faith?
Conclusion
There can be some positive effects from religion. It is OK to look back fondly on them post-deconversion even while you grow out of the need for magic feathers. Forcibly trying to dissuade believers is counter productive. Even if we could convince them we still need to do better at providing a safe and welcoming community for them to replace what they are losing.
Most importantly, you can be the magic part of a secular community that can replace the impotent feathers and pills filled with inactive sugar for the believers in your life.
One of the things I love most about books is that while reading you uncover the author’s thinking and sometimes you find that it matches your own. And as is often the case for me, the author is able to articulate that thinking in a much more precise and engaging way. Katherine Ozment’s Grace Without God: The Search For Meaning, Purpose, And Belonging In A Secular Age is just such a book. While reading it the experience was like recognizing a new friend who has thought through the same problems and come to very similar conclusions.
This is a great segue into describing the book. Grace Without God is about the human need for belonging. Just because we do not have a faith in a god does not mean we do not need to connect and belong with other human beings. Ozment describes her “spiritual”* journey from a nominal Christian upbringing; to leaving religion and faith behind; to an honest and heartfelt search for how secular people find meaning and connection. The subtitle describes it succinctly: The Search For Meaning, Purpose, And Belonging In A Secular Age.
Just because you have walked away from religion, does not mean you no longer need human connection and belonging.#Deconversion
The book is the result of her quest to answer her son’s simple question, “What are we?” At the time he was watching a Greek Orthodox Good Friday procession out the window.
“What are they doing?” my son asked. “It’s a ritual,” I said, thinking it must be their Good Friday. “Why don’t we do that?” he asked. “Because we’re not Greek Orthodox,” I said. “Then what are we?”
What an insightful, deep and difficult question. Her initial response: “Nothing.” The book traces her rigorous and heartfelt search for a better answer.
Voice of the Nones
With Grace Without God Ozment has tapped into something vital for our moment in history. She is expressing the voice of the Nones. As Pew research has pointed out the Nones are the fastest growing “religious” group in the United States. People are choosing not to affiliate with religious institutions for a variety of reasons. The Nones include a wide spectrum from “spiritual but not religious” to dyed in the wool atheists.
I too sense this is a vast group of people who are essentially “spritually”* homeless but who are honestly seeking meaning, purpose and belonging. Grace Without God is a response from one of our own describing a path forward.
Absolutely, I think you have tapped into something vital for our moment in history. You are expressing the voice of the Nones.
One surprise for me while reading the book, was how much I related to Ozment’s description of her nominal Christian upbringing. Although unlike Ozment, I went on to become an Evangelical for far too long before deconverting, I grew up in a nominal Christian environment. I remember the curiosity I felt hearing others describe some nebulous faith in God. A la Douglas Adams I would ask “who is this God character anyway?” and never got a sufficiently satisfying response. This too may be an expression of the Nones’ curiosity and need to answer the big questions.
Skeptical Chops
In the atheist community there is a natural distrust of anything that sounds too spiritual even up to and including humanism. So I suspect Grace Without God is not the first book on the atheist’s reading list. This is a shame as I think the book has much to offer those of us who identify as atheists. This post an argument for atheists to read the book.
I recently described to Steve Hilliker on the Voices Of Deconversion podcast the resistance I experience from my moniker Graceful Atheist. I chose the moniker because it reminds me that people matter. It is very easy to slip into believer bashing as an atheist pastime. I am also interested in “redeeming” the word grace from a its religious context. But the atheist part of the moniker is just as important. I don’t believe in god(s) and it is import to me to be open about this. Similarly, don’t miss the “Without God” bit by being distracted by the “Grace” bit. Ozment uses it in the truly secular sense.
I am a natural skeptic. I can’t help it. Even when I was a Christian I felt I was an internal critic. So when I read Grace Without God, even though I tended to agree with Ozment from the start, I did not leave my skeptic’s hat on the sidelines.
What struck me most about Grace Without God is how well researched it is. The book is full of interviews with professors, researchers and community leaders. The book can fairly be described as a research project but much more engaging. This is not a book of platitudes by some self described spiritual guru, but rather a skeptics attempt to ask the hard questions and grapple with the lack of answers. Ozment has skeptical chops.
Ozment is not prescribing anything. She certainly doesn’t come off as preachy. In fact, she poses more questions than she answers. In the book, Ozment is descriptive, giving account of how others in the secular community have attempted to solve the need for meaning and purpose.
A non-exhaustive list of topics she tackles:
Being good without God.
The failure of some secular communities to survive for the long haul and not having the same binding effects as traditional religion.
The need for ritual. (Yes, really, read the book)
Dealing with death from a secular perspective.
The new hotness, philosophical Buddhism. (This is the one I was most nervous about, but true to form it is descriptive not prescriptive)
Heart, Humanism and Secular Grace
Ultimately, I think Ozment would identify herself as a humanist. She describes taking the Beleif-O-Matic online quiz and getting 100% humanist. I also consider myself a humanist, which is probably why I identify so much with the book. After acknowledging lack of belief, humanism is an attempt to answer, “now what?” It is about “being for something” not just “against something.”
In my Why I Am A Humanist post I point out how difficult it is to avoid cloying platitudes when attempting to describe Humanism. Happily Grace Without God (dare I say) gracefully avoids this. Ozment acknowledges the real struggles to build secular community. The elements that bind religious communities together can sometimes be missing in secular communities. But secular communities are needed just the same.
Ozment visits Sunday Assemblies and humanist student groups. She visits secular parent groups and death cafes. She is reporting on the myriad ways secular people are attempting to recapture secular grace. But rather than coming across as dry or distant Ozment’s writing is full of heart and pops off the page. One cannot help but relate to her honest questioning and searching. She is telling my story … our story.
I appreciated, as well, that she expresses a lack of satisfaction in the answers. It is not that this or that solution is the right way or only way but rather that they are all pointing at something significant. And the continued search for that significance is the point.
I have written about Secular Grace and my attempts to use the term to describe the human need for connection. Ozment takes it one step further and tries to capture something deeper and for a lack of a better term “spiritual.”*
Ozment poses a provocative question:
I had felt a bit of what I thought of as grace—an abundance of gratitude for something freely given—that day gazing at my tulip and, later, at my family from across the street. But it wasn’t related to God. It was a wholly secular experience. What was it I was feeling? Could I train myself to recognize and prepare for such moments of secular grace—not to just wait for them to wash over me, but to create them myself?
Is it possible that rather than just passively waiting for moments of grace, we can actively seek grace out?
Conclusion
This is the type of book that I wish I were capable of writing. And to be clear, I am not. I recognize it as a is a bit of grace to come across a book and an author that articulates my thinking better than I can. My biggest problem with the book was not trying to highlight the whole thing. The hardest part of reviewing it is not plastering quote after quote.
The book is worth its price just for the epilogue, “A Letter To My Children.” In which Ozment describes her own 10 “commandments” of how to live life and seek out meaning.
Grace Without God is well worth a read.
* I am using the word spiritual here for lack of a better term. I don’t think I am alone in struggling with terminology in the secular community. I mean the term in the naturalistic sense of human beings need for meaning, purpose and belonging. No supernatural implications are intended, thus the scare quotes.
This blog has primarily been about what I do not believe and what I am not. The entire premise of the blog is about my deconversion and letting go of faith. But as has been said before by myself and others, saying “I am an atheist,” tells you almost nothing about me. In technical terms it tells you one and only one thing: I lack a belief in god(s). My recent (poorly named) series Communities of Unbelief has focused on ways I do not identify myself with titles like “Why I Am Not …”
This blog post, however, is about what I do believe in and how I do identify myself. I am a humanist. First and foremost, this means that people are more important than ideologies: religious, political or otherwise. It means the thing I believe in is quite down to Earth: people. I believe in humanity. I believe that human connection is the most precious commodity in the universe.
Confession
It is quite easy to slip into cloying platitudes when attempting to describe humanism. I’ll do my best to avoid this, but feel free to call me out if I fail in this endeavour.
How about this for a start, I have always said, even in my Christian days, that all moral or ethical discussions should begin with confession. So, I’ll start by saying, that I am not a very good humanist. I aspire to have the needs of others in mind. I aspire to empathy for those outside of my tribe. But I often fall short of these ideals. I can tend toward the misanthropic and the local. I relate, probably more than is healthy, with the character of the doctor in The Brothers Karamozov:
I would state it like this:
The problem with humanism? People.
People are difficult. People are fallible. People may break your heart. As a Christian professor of mine rightly used to say:
Love necessarily involves pain
How is that for cloying platitudes?
Basis for morality and ethics
Who on Earth would base their morals, ethics and source of meaning on human beings? We already do.
Humanism is not new. Humanism is actually the basis of all religious moral frameworks. The evolution of religious and moral philosophy can be traced back to evolution itself. There was some benefit to homo sapiens (and our ancestors) cooperating. Beginning with the small family unit. Just like modern families there were rules of behavior. As families grouped together into tribes, more behavioral rules needed to be established for the benefit of the whole group. This process continues growing and expanding as groups got bigger and bigger. The concept of an observer helped enforce the rules when group members were out of sight. God becomes an extremely effective concept to keep group members in line. Eventually we get formal religions. Over time religions add on dogma and doctrine to ensure no rules are broken. Leading ultimately to the complicated religious structures of today.
From this short description you can see a god and religion do not come into play until late in the game. We have developed our moral and ethical codes based on how we treat each other as humans. How we treat each other IS morality.
What religions do really well is facilitate community and a sense of belonging and the creation of a moral tribe. Is it the supernatural or the connection with other people that causes that sense of belonging and purpose? My argument is that it is the connection with people. This is what I call Secular Grace. The concept of Secular Grace acknowledges that there is nothing more valuable, moral or ethical than people loving and accepting one another.
The world is shrinking by the day. With modern communications borders are becoming weaker and weaker. We must learn to work with each other across national, cultural and religious boundaries. We must work with each other as people united in humanity.
If one of the most significance aspects of religion is morality, it is worth noting the utter failure of religious morality in the modern world. Attempting to apply the first century (and older) morality of the Judeo Christian scriptures is a futile effort. This form of morality has been on the wrong side of history time and time again.
There is a simple reason this is true. Any moral system that looks backward in history without evolving with the present environment will fail. We are not first century Aramaic speaking Jewish fishermen from a small town. We are a vast complex web of humanity that is coping with 21st century moral and ethical challenges.
Humanism recognizes this and focuses on human dignity. Regardless of one’s gender, sexual orientation, cultural background or nationality, one deserves respect, dignity and care just for being human. Inalienable rights are grounded on common humanity and not from a mythical god.
Humanism encompasses all the best of the social gospel without the supernatural and archaic moral baggage. Much of what attracted me to the Jesus of the New Testament was how he treated people. I am still attracted to that. If Jesus existed today, he would be a humanist.
We are meaning makers
Why are we here? The big question. We want desperately for there to be an external answer to that. There may not be one, in fact, if I am being honest, I do not think there is. But since we are here, maybe not the answer, but an answer is to be with each other.
There may be no meaning or purpose to the universe.
But my purpose is to make meaning and purpose.
That is the most human thing to do.
To be homo sapien is to make meaning. It may be the quintessential human activity. Rather than looking for meaning from an external source like a god, we must recognize the creation of meaning is the essence of humanity.
The Copernican principle has taught us that we are not the center of the universe. We live on an average planet, next to an average star, in an average arm of the spiral galaxy, in an average part of the universe.
Though this is true, it is also true that consciousness is exceedingly rare in the universe. As far as we know, we are the only conscious beings in the universe. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, “humanity is the cosmos aware of itself.”
Consciousness is so painfully rare that even if you were stuck on a deserted island thinking your thoughts in isolation your consciousness would be the most precious thing in the universe.
But most of us are not stranded on a deserted island. We have the great privilege to experience relationship with other conscious human beings. And that is meaningful.
Humanism’s focus on people allows us to derive meaning from each other. I do not know why we are here, but since we are here we should enjoy each other. We have everything we need for meaning, purpose and awe in nature and each other.
No supernatural confusion
Humanism rejects supernatural explanations for phenomenon. It embraces science and a naturalistic view of reality. Free from the need to justify belief without evidence humanism can focus on rationality, evidence and the scientific method. I have written about how freeing an epistemology based on evidence rather than faith can be.
I have also written in this series about why I am not a liberal Christian. To summarize that article, more of Christianity has to be thrown away than kept. Using terms like god that can be defined a thousand ways is more confusing than it is helpful.
The ABCs of secular “spirituality”
Awe, belonging, connection
It is much simpler to say I am a humanist. It conveys both that I care about people and that I reject the supernatural. I particularly love Jennifer Michael Hecht’s term, humanism is a “graceful life philosophy.”
What next?
For me, humanism was the answer to the question, “what next?” after I deconverted from Christianity and became an atheist. It gave me a way to ground my morality, ethics and purpose.
I have started the hashtag #HumanismIsPeople to highlight people who exemplify humanism. It is also a reminder that people do miracles not myths.
A few years after deconversion I am still asking what next? As in what can I do that is good for the world? I am currently obsessed with trying to figure out what unites us as a secular community. Many have died on this particular hill before me. Atheists, skeptics, free thinkers and humanists are not joiners by nature. It is like herding cats trying to get everyone in the same room, let alone on the same page.
However, just because you have walked away from religion, does not mean you no longer need human connection and belonging. These are fundamental hard wired human needs. These needs often were met in the past by religion and now need a replacement.
What would bring us together and unite us with a sense of belonging?
I am particularly concerned for those leading up to, going through and recently passed through the deconversion process. It can be incredibly isolating and lonely when you first realize you no longer believe. It may cost you your entire social support structure. What can we do as a community to ease that process and provide opportunities for all of us to have a sense of belonging?
I am interested in building community. I am considering ways to bring people together online. There is no substituent for in person connectivity, but for many that is not always possible. The secular community can be sparse in some areas of the country.
Face to face hangouts would be a possible substitute that would allow people to tell their stories and grow a support group of humanists. Let me know if you are interested by commenting or emailing me at gracefulatheist at gmail dot com.
The original title for this post was “Why I Am Not a New Atheist,” but I found there is so much confusion about that term and what it means that this was more misleading than helpful. I settled on “Why I Am Not An Anti-Theist,” as this gets to the point more directly without the confusion.
No more sacred cows
In fact, I am starting this post defending new atheism. By new atheism, I mean the kind of outspoken atheism represented by the “Four Horsemen”: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. These four have written books which were notable for their unabashed critiques of religion. There are many others who are what I would call professional atheists making a living writing, speaking and podcasting. For their unvarnished candor they have been vilified by the religious and ironically deified by atheists.
The problem is for some time it has been considered impolite to critique religious beliefs. In many Western societies, religious views are considered private and unassailable. The old adage “never bring up politics or religion in polite company,” exists for a reason. People hear critiques about their religious beliefs as attacks against them as a person. Suddenly in the mid 2000s here were atheists who did not keep their irreligious thoughts to themselves. They had the audacity to publicly call out the flaws in religious beliefs and point out their detrimental effect on society. How dare they!
Atheists present a challenge to the faithful. The reason there are so many false stereotypes taught about atheists is that our existence is a threat. The existence of people who have in fact heard the gospel, understood it and still reject it cuts at a core understanding of the world for the believer. This is one of the reasons believers often quote their sacred text to atheists, because they cannot fathom someone could understand it and yet not believe it. It must be a lack of knowledge. “If only they understood the real gospel.“
So, the reaction to new atheism was predictable. The apologists came out in droves to disprove their arguments. And by ad hominem attacks assure the faithful these angry apostates could be safely ignored. The term new atheist was originally derogatory (even from other atheists). Even though there is nothing particularly new about doubt, atheism or the critique of religion. What was new was the lack of deference to religion and a certain level of audacity.
Atheists have long been telling us that we can be good without God. The new atheism says that we can be better without God. — Victor Stenger
For being outspoken and giving cover for doubters everywhere to come out of the closet these new atheists are to be commended. The sacred cow of religious ideas being beyond reproach is dead.
Anti-theism
But (you knew there would be a but), if we are being honest sometimes they can be assholes. Sometimes they can attack the believer and not the belief and engage in their own ad hominem attacks. Sometimes they can come across as … well … religious in their fervor. In fact, these are the most often cited critiques against new atheism. Much ink has been spilt defending new atheists against these critiques and yet the critiques persist because of a kernel of truth in them.
Worse still, is the wave of followers who came after. To be clear, I consider myself one of these. Social media amplifies the most vocal obnoxious and angry voices amongst us. It is very easy to be hostile on social media and some have made a career of this. Negativity gets rewarded with shares, likes and retweets. I have certainly been guilty of this myself.
Twitter: Xians are idiots!: 👏👏👏 We ought to be good to each other as humanists: 🦗🦗🦗
This is what I would term anti-theism, which implies an active attempt to convince believers to abandon their faith. There is a tendency on social media for anti-theism to come to prominence which can start to look like trollling the trolls. It can start to look like an anti-evangelism.
Who is trolling whom?
Let me be very clear, as the position I am trying to convey is nuanced. I whole heartedly believe in secularism. Secularism protects the freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I also believe that religion has had many detrimental effects on society particularly when it gains political power. Religion should rightly be criticized.
However, believers themselves do not deserve our scorn. Most believers were born into it. It takes a tremendous amount of self reflection and honesty to overturn ones deeply held beliefs. If you feel like taking on the professional apologists, go for it. But leave the believers who have not asked for a fight alone.
If the goal is a more secular society
Are there times when believers troll atheists? Of course. I am not suggesting we not defend ourselves. I am arguing that ridiculing believers and calling them stupid is not the most effective way of convincing them.
Even when we use very cool rational logic and reason the backfire effect can stop the believer from hearing the evidence. Let me give you an example. I read Sam Harris’ The End of Faith in 2007 years before my deconversion. My motivated reasoning at the time went something like this:
He sounds angry. Atheists must all be angry. But I have peace.
It wasn’t until years later, I read Greta Christina’s blog about why atheists have a right to be angry, and realized I agreed with most of what she was saying. I just happened to be open to rational argument at the time.
If you add to the backfire effect, defensiveness from being insulted, the task for the believer to overcome their indoctrination is insurmountable. If we atheists, either out of exasperation or contempt, come across as mocking we are defeating our own purposes.
I am acutely aware that anti-theist arguments would not have worked on me when I was a believer. I am even more acutely aware that my many family members who are still believers would not respond to this style of argumentation. It takes investment in time, patience and, in all likelihood, the relationship, to provide a safe and comfortable space for the believers in our lives to express their doubts.
Why I Am Not an Asshole
Do I really need to expound on this? People deserve respect regardless of their beliefs. People are more important than belief or non-belief.
If you really want to change the world and change peoples’ minds, love people. I think I heard that from somewhere.
This post is a part of the series Communities of Unbelief. I’ll be writing more about communities of unbelief, some I choose not to be a member of, some I identify with and others I have yet to explore.
I have just finished Jennifer Michael Hecht‘s Doubt: A History. It has been around for some time but as I am new to atheism it is new to me. I would suggest this is an extremely important book for modern atheists to provide perspective on where we have come from and direction on where we are going. There is something wonderful about history. It places our ideas in context. It draws lines between what would appear to be disparate ideas. This book provides that context and draws those lines in a valuable way.
After my deconversion I had a number of ideas I was desperate to express. You will find them throughout this blog. Interestingly, however, I was mildly disappointed to find that none of my ideas were particularly original. Come to find out my experience of deconversoin was rather typical in fact. Average. I titled my first blog post “A very common message” after this realization.
After reading Hecht’s book I am even more disappointed to realize that my ideas are not only not original for today but not particularly original for 2600 years ago. It is quite a humbling experience. But it does provide a sense of unity with doubters throughout history. And for that I am grateful.
Hecht’s book is dense with quotes from doubters and moves at break-neck speed from 600 BCE to the turn of the millennium. Attempting to review the book in the traditional sense could never do it justice. If I were to start quoting this post would be as long as the book. (Take note meme creators, this book is a rich quarry of quotes). Instead, I will write about the reactions I had reading the book and how they apply to the modern doubter.
The book is not titled Atheism: a History and this is significant. For one thing, the original usage of the term meant something closer to heretic rather than the way we use the term today as a complete lack of belief in any god(s). In fact, a common theme in the book is the deep and profound doubt expressed throughout history that none the less defaulted to some distant conception of god, from Aristotle’s prime mover to Spinoza’s (and Einstein’s) pantheistic god and what feels like capitulation in Kierkegaard’s fideism. Those who took doubt to its logical conclusion of true atheism were few and far between until the time of the enlightenment. And even those who did were wary of releasing this truth upon the masses for fear of the collapse of social norms.
The book could easily be titled Skepticism: a History. In many ways it is philosophical skepticism that is the line one can draw through the history of doubt. The Epicureans and the skeptics really began to rigorously question theism. Questioning everything especially that which comes from authority is a common theme. Decendants of these philosophies often refer back to the ancient Greeks in solidarity during their own times. Including our own time, we owe a debt to the skeptics.
However the book is titled Doubt: a History. There is something deeply moving about the word doubt. It implies one cares enough to question. Doubters have skin in the game. Doubters question not purely for the sake of questioning but for the sake of knowledge and truth.
Taking one’s place in the line of history
I am a doubter and I am proud to be a part of its history. After getting over my disappointment in the lack of originality of my ideas, I found great comfort in having historical precedent.
Reading Hecht’s book one can see thecumulative effect of the writings of doubt through history. Each generation is emboldened by the writings of their predecessors. The fear of expressing one’s opinions which are contrary to popular belief is widdled away bit by bit. There is a wonderful scene described in the book when Hume sits down in a room with 15 other atheists for the first time. That is what you call a historic moment.
The freedom we in the West experience to express our doubt up to and including atheism is due not only to the enlightenment philosophers but all those who went before them as well. Today we are dazzled with Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and the inimitable Hitchens. But there would not be four horsemen today if not for Diogenes, Epicurus, Cicero and Lucretius.
The doubter’s perspective
Hecht spends a fair amount of time reading between the lines of history to find doubt’s story. By this I mean there were time periods and cultures which attempted to repress doubters. As is often noted history is written by the victors. But wonderfully we have doubter’s stories as imprints in the counter-arguments of the prevailing ideologies. Like a cast mold the negative space of doubt can be inferred (or directly quoted) by the diligent ways it is argued against by the true believers.
I personally enjoyed reading the stories I am familiar with from my own prior faith tradition delightfully told upside down from the doubter’s perspective.
The Jewish flirtation with Greek culture and the reaction as told in Maccabees and the story of Hanukkah. This is the pull of cultural assimilation and the conservative reaction against it.
I have always appreciated the book of Job for its brutal honesty. Job accuses God of being unjust. Hecht points out God makes a “heap” argument to Job for faith. Meaning, how can Job account for all of creation without appealing to God. Interesting take. Job’s wife steals the scene by encouraging Job to “Curse God and die” and may be the true hero of the story.
I have also always loved Ecclesiastes. But relieved of the burden to make pious sentiments from this wisdom one can hear the bitter exhaustion and resignation for what it is.
“Might as well have a good time because the universe is unjust and uncaring.”
Others have pointed out the doubt of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane but Hecht portrays Jesus as a world class doubter. He seems to be reliant on his followers’ belief in him and is practically begging them to do believe in him. He has moments where he seems unsure of himself and the Father. This all culminates on the cross with
“Why have you forsaken me.”
The key insight of the book is that Christianity, particularly as described and defined by Paul, forever makes doubt a feature not a bug by requiring faith alone. Not just faith but faith without evidence.
“Blessed are those who believe but have not seen.”
Hope and discouragement
My favorite term in the book is graceful-life philosophies. As you may know I have a particular regard for the word grace in a secular setting. This wonderful term describes the philosophies of Socrates to Epicurus. And it means seeking the answer to the question:
How does one live well?
This question seems particularly poignant to our times. We must seek a secular pluralistic society as the world grows smaller and smaller. Rather than beating the dead horse of if one can be good without god, we should be asking how can we thrive and work with each other. We need graceful-life philosophies to unite us in this task.
In reading the history of doubt there is hope that even in oppressive environments rational voices remain. Regardless of the culture or particular religion there are those who express their doubt giving encouragement to future travelers.
The flip side of this coin is that humans have a tendency toward superstition and religion. People do not like feeling out of control so they fabricate stories which explain the phenomenon around them. Again we can see this by reading between the lines in the negative image of the prevailing ideologies. In the Old Testament all the idolatry that gets systematically stamped out is an indication of people not only seeking gods but very localized micro-cultural gods. In the early Catholic church the attempts to rid itself of heresy eventually get worn down and the use of votive candles and individual saints indicate the same phenomenon.
Ultimately, the hardest take away from the book is that forward progress toward reason is not a given. The hard-fought for knowledge of reason, logic, mathematics and the beginnings of science collected by the Greeks and represented in the library in Alexandria can and was burned down figuratively and literally. Though the flame of reason moved to the Muslim world rather than going out during the “dark” ages there is still a sense of opportunity cost. Where would the world be if the pursuit of science had been unbroken from the time of the Greeks until now?
This too is especially poignant for our times. As I write this in the US at the begining of 2017, there is a sense of loss of forward progress for the voice of reason. We have a responsibility to protect this forward progress and stand up for truth.
We have been having the same arguments for millennia
I started out this post by acknowledging my ideas about my new-found atheism are not new. That is the understatement of the century. While reading the history of doubt one comes to the inescapable conclusion that there is “nothing new under the sun.” The arguments for and against theism have been hashed and rehashed over and over again.
What was exciting to discover is that these debates have occurred in many cultures throughout history. They are not unique to the Abrahamic religions in any way.
What is a little depressing to discover is that we are still having the same arguments. As science has moved the gaps in knowledge literally to tiny fractions of a second after the big bang, apologetic arguments have moved further into the abstract.
As a relatively young atheist what I am struck by is the evasiveness of apologetic arguments against doubt. Apologists always have an answer. Those answers rarely deal with the questions straight on and at least in my experience are never satisfying.
All apologetic arguments tend to reduce to god-of-the-gaps (what we do not yet know) arguments or the epistemological black holes (how can we know anything without God?) of the Cynics. This feels like a thoroughly beaten dead horse. Doubt has won. The history has been written.
What is next?
The question I have been asking myself from minutes after acknowledging my own doubt and becoming an atheist and the question I find myself contemplating after reading this history of doubt is “what is next?” What do we do with the hard-fought for knowledge? Keep beating a dead horse?
I’ll be writing about that in the coming months. In the meantime, thank you to Jennifer Hecht for a comprehensive look back at where have come from and how we got here.
gracefulatheist.com 