She responded that she was a humanist. I was thrilled. Another one encountered in the wild. But without taking a breath she continued, “actually I do not know what a ‘humanist’ is. I do know that I don’t call myself a feminist because I believe in the equality of men and women.”

She asked me to explain what humanism is, since she calls herself one but doesn’t actually know what the term means. I started to explain about how humanism is an ethical tradition, but she interrupted me to continue: “I believe in the equality of all people. I extend that equality to plants and animals. We need to recognize the spirit of all living things and their equality.”

I was starting to like this woman, though thinking that it wouldn’t hurt her to interrupt less and listen more. I liked where she was coming from. I also believe in the equality of all people. I wouldn’t use the word “spirit,” but I also believe animals and plants need to be valued. We need to recognize our symbiotic relationship before it is too late. But I’m getting off topic. After decreeing the equality of all living things, my newly discovered humanist abruptly took us in an unexpected and unsettling direction.

“I think atheism is the biggest evil facing our society today. Atheists are grotesque.”

Where did that come from?

I am not going to relay the details of how our conversation ended. I will say I did not reveal that she was talking to an atheist. She didn’t really give me an opportunity. But there are a few aspects of this exchange worth talking about.

To begin with, this is not the first time the “humanist” label has been used by someone who doesn’t understand the history and current usage of the world. Just last week, Joseph Gordon Levitt made waves when he tweeted about how he learned about the definition of humanism. I do wonder how this woman would feel if she knew that what the label embraced describes a movement of consciousness presently chock full of self-described atheists.

I do regret not relieving her of her ignorance. But I’m not sure if, with the opportunity to do it over again, I would do anything differently.

On reflection, I believe the reason I didn’t say anything was because of her use of the words “evil” and “grotesque.” I think I was worried that someone who used such words to describe a group of people could conceivably turn violent if made aware that she was unwittingly aligning herself with such a group. Combine that with the simultaneous knowledge that she was speaking to such an evil, grotesque person, and I had no idea how extreme her reaction would be. This is a situation every atheist faces when choosing when, whether, and to whom to reveal their beliefs. And not always do you have such a clear understanding of the other’s position on atheism before opening (or not opening) your mouth.

But even that fear and misunderstanding of atheism isn’t what most concerns me about this conversation. What most concerns me, is that this is a woman who claims boldly that she believes in the inherent equality of all people—who even includes plants and animals in this equality. Yet, atheists are grotesque “things” off the equality spectrum that she assigns to the entire universe. How can these two convictions exist together in one person? How can a person who stridently advocates for recognizing the equality of all—including non-human life—viciously and categorically leave out a vast and growing group of people?

I hope this woman met the humanist contingent at the climate march, because I believe the climate march is exactly the kind of space where her hateful beliefs might begin to change. Ideally she met a humanist and commiserated about the state of environmental justice and hatched plans to make it right. Ideally they bonded over their concern for the environment (if only because of its impact on us humans). Ideally then, and only then, did she ask what humanism was. Because getting the answer then maybe startled her enough to reevaluate her beliefs even the tiniest bit.

This opportunity, albeit fantasy in this case, is why I want to talk about the climate march. Much has been said of the march itself and I don’t need to add my voice to that chorus except to say that I support its goals and hope it is the beginning of some real change in policy and attitude when it comes to making and keeping our planet healthy. I do want to talk about what the march represents beyond climate change.

At the march there were likely representatives of almost every incarnation of the human experience. 400,000people of every race, age, gender, religion, and even politics marched in NYC and thousands more marched in at least 166 parallel demonstrations around the world. Immigrant rights groups came. So did labor unions. Student groups, seniors, artists, scientists, native communities, and, yes, faith groups. Conservatives marched too, though they may have kept a low profile.

The humanists did assemble and marched among a larger group of interbelief participants. That means there were humanists marching alongside Muslims who were marching alongside Sikhs who were marching alongside Jews who were marching alongside Mennonites. And it doesn’t end there. Everyone in the interbelief contingent was marching alongside the other groups assembled because of their commitment to environmental justice.

For me, humanism is about equality. The core challenge humanists face is realizing that equality. The increasing support for the environmental justice movement, demonstrated by the turnout and coverage of the People’s Climate March excites me for that realization. Environmental justice is a worthy and important cause on its own merits and that conversation should be held loudly and with immediacy. But the conversation also provides an important opportunity for realizing human equality.

We all live on this planet together. We all experience the effects of climate change and environmental ravishing differently, unique to our own circumstances, but we all face the same problem. So we all have a role to play in the solution. The conversation we all must have about the solutions for environmental justice is an opportunity for even more. It is an opportunity for people who are different—who have different ideas, different life experiences, different beliefs—to meet each other through their similarities. When we meet because of a shared problem our differences become an afterthought. The differences are still there, and they can be discussed later, but our relationships will form before our differences have a chance to drive us apart. And with those relationships formed, we have a real chance to realize equality.

This was originally posted with State of Formation.

At Humanist Haven she discussed tips from science about how to live a better life, specifically in the face of our irrationalities. Her tips included choosing to spend time and money on experiences rather than things, giving experiences to others, and using adjectives to effect your subjective experience.

I sat down with her to discuss what science has to teach humanists.

Wendy Webber: You started your talk at Humanist Haven by stating that the fundamental question of humanism is “Why are humans so special?” Can you explain your understanding of “humanism” and then why this question is fundamental to it?

Laurie Santos: I guess I would say it is a fundamental question rather than thefundamental question. Humans are this weird species, one that thinks about our ownmortality and is meta-aware of our own existence. So while thinking about human uniqueness may not be the fundamental question of humanism, I think it relates to what we are trying to do in humanism a lot of the time, which is trying to figure out our place in the world. How can we answer who we are from a more naturalistic point-of-view? The only reason we are asking these questions is because our species is so weird

WW: What do animals have to teach us about the questions that humanism is asking?

LS: There are a couple things animals can teach us. One is that they can give us insight into what makes us special, what makes us human to ask these humanist questions in a way that no other species does

More practically, I think other species can give us a glimpse into how organisms should behave in the absence of a theistic worldview. There are lots of other species who do compassionate, nice things for one another, who care about one another, who act altruistically towards one another, not because of some belief in a god or an all-powerful being who is watching them. They do it just because they do. Greg Epstein wrote Good Without God and I think some non-human animals provide an existence proof because they probably don’t believe in God and they are nice to each other in lots of different ways.

WW: Your talk at Humanist Haven could have been titled “Scientific Tips for Happiness.” Is that a fair title?

LS: I think the caveat would be that I was giving the free, not-a-lot-of-work, everyone-could-implement-tonight sort of tips for being happier. Cognitive science would have a lot to say about richer, more nuanced things that we need to do be happier— like having fulfillment at work and achieving gratitude and those kinds of things,— but those sorts of interventions require a lot more than simply using some more adjectives.

WW: How important do you think happiness is to the human experience?

LS: I think it’s is super important. But it also depends a lot on how you define happiness. A lot of the content I was talking in my Humanist Haven talk could best be described as improving one’s hedonic happiness as opposed to one’s broader happiness, such as whether or not someone experiences her life as meaningful and fulfilled. The bigger parts of happiness are also very important for living a good life, but I didn’t have time to get into those bigger issues.

WW: At the end of your TED Talk, in which you talk about your research into how capuchin monkeys use money in ways that mirror our own rational and irrational behavior, you talk about how recognizing our limitations is the only way we can overcome them. You say, “that might be the only way that we will really be able to achieve our own human potential and really become the nobel species we hope to all be.”

My question is how do we irrationally act in ways that harm ourselves and others?

LS: There is lots of work nowadays in experimental economics tracking these kinds of situations—public goods games in which people are tempted to cheat even though they would ultimately be better off if they behaved nicely. In these situations, people have the urge to do the selfish thing that hurts everybody. Many researchers have begun studying the heuristics that people use to solve these sorts of public goods problems. The good news is that at least some of this research seems to suggest that people tend towards being nice in these situations—that our very fast or heuristic reactions are  ones that would promote kindness or compassion. David Rand, who is a faculty member here at Yale, has shown in his research that people’s fastest reaction in these games is to cooperate, to be nice to others, and to punish on behalf of others,. Our gut reaction is to do all things that reduce harm to other people. Unfortunately, we tend to switch our strategy to being selfish if given more time to think about the decision, or when we are told to act rationally. Dave’s idea is that—at least in many cultures—people developed fast instincts to do the nice thing, but that these fast instincts can be overridden. So I think the big question for researchers now is: why don’t our heuristics to lead us to behave nicely all the time. But this is a domain in which the irrational, fast thing to do is actually to be nice

There’s also work in cognitive science that people really don’t like taking physical actions that harm others, that this is another domain where our instinct is to be nice. Researchers like Fiery Cushman, who is a faculty member at Harvard, have found that people really don’t like to behave in ways that seem harmful even if rationally they know they are not. Fiery has a cute study where he ask people to smash his leg with a hammer, but he explains to people that he has replaced his real leg with a plastic replica Fiery finds that even though people rationally know that smashing the leg with a hammer will not cause harm, the fact that it seems like it is harmful is too much for people. People still don’t want to perform that action. I think that this is another example where our fast instincts make us acting nicely and stop us from engaging in harmful acts, In many situations, it takes a lot of cognitive work to get people to be jerks.

WW: The mission statement of Applied Sentience is “to find beauty in the world and explore how to live in it.” So, where do you find beauty in the world?

LS: One way I try to do it is to naturally to pay more attention to things, to be more in the moment. For me, being in the moment tends to correlate with experiencing more gratitude and noticing things more.

I personally experience a lot of happiness and get a sense of beauty from being out in nature and being around other people. So part of the way I like to structure my research and my daily life to allow for more of that. That’s were I get my awe from.

That said, I think finding awe is particularly tricky for humanists and nontheists. Folks who participate in religious traditions are part of cultural structures that allow them to experience awe all the time. They often get that sort of stuff for free. Every Sunday they participate in an experience that has been culturally shaped over many, many years to give people awe, to give people a sense of meaning and beauty. And we humanists who lack that and have to do it for ourselves. We don’t have zillions of years of religious tradition built up to help us with that. Nor do we often have that spaces where we can share that beauty with others.

I think that’s the beauty of things like Humanist Haven where people come together to try to achieve those things. Psychologically, we know that shared spaces really help to us achieve shared experiences. I think this is one strength of many religious traditions that humanist communities would be well served to take on.

This was originally posted at Applied Sentience.

It pains me that this was my answer, because it’s not true. It was a cute, snappy answer to a question that was, I felt at the time, too big to answer. I didn’t realize the implications of my words as I said them, but I see now that they reek of “voluntourism.”

It is true that it has been a dream of mine to see Angkor Wat since I heard of it’s existence from my traveling companions in India while visiting ancient cultural sites there. I was drawn to Angkor Wat because of its rich religious history. But it stuck my imagination because the jungle is retaking the area, growing around and over and even through the ruins. As it turned out, Pathfinders provided me an opportunity to visit the temples within a few weeks abroad, since our first project was at the Bridge of Life School in Cambodia. I was excited to bring a dream to fruition.

Beyond the cultural and historical sites that I anticipated visiting, I had an unstated reason that likely colored my conversation about Pathfinders in ways I wasn’t even aware of. Anyone who knows me well knows that I covet my passport for the stamps within it. And my mom and I have a friendly competition over who has visited the most countries.

I am fortunate to be affluent enough to even have such a competition with my mom. I have access to books, documentaries, and the Internet, which allow me to be familiar with distant cultures and their significant sites. I have leisure time to contemplate a voyage to the Antarctic tundra for no better reason than to see a few penguins. The very opportunity to participate in an undertaking such as Pathfinders is a privilege, and one I didn’t, and don’t, take lightly.

Pre-Pathfinders, I was aware of the concept of volunteering as an excuse to travel, even though I hadn’t heard the label “voluntourism” applied to it. The idea disgusted me. It felt exploitative. It felt hypocritical. It felt superficial. I’m embarrassed that I unwittingly associated Pathfinders with that kind of service, even if briefly.

Using the most basic definition, Pathfinders is voluntourism. We traveled to do service. But voluntourism also connotes insincerity. The reason voluntourism is a bad word is that the picture it paints is of westerners paying an organization a fee, one that, granted, helps the organization serve its community, in exchange for an “authentic” volunteering experience. The kind of projects one does on a voluntourism trip can seem invented for the purpose of giving the volunteers something to do rather than projects that grow organically out of the challenges faced by the community. It is the kind of volunteering that gets in the way as much as it helps.

Pathfinders specifically sought out organizations that were, if not founded, then run by locals. We took on projects that were community directed. Who else knows what a community needs? We offered what resources we could, but approached each community by asking, “How do you want us to help?” I can’t say we were 100% successful at avoiding the pitfalls of voluntourism, but we did all we could to avoid them.

I was excited about the sites that we would see, but more excited about the circumstances that Pathfinders would create—a neutral place where interfaith encounters could happen organically.

We didn’t announce our humanism when we started a new project, though it would come up on it’s own almost without fail. It was never right away, always happening after we’d already worked, laughed, and ate with the members of the organization and the community we served. We met as people first, and we talked about our beliefs later. It’s easier to talk to a flesh and blood person about our differing beliefs than it is to talk to a representative atheist or Christian or Jew.

Through Pathfinders, we were able to create natural conversations with people we met about the experiences we shared. Some of these people had never met an “out” atheist before, and I hope some preconceived notions about the goodness or evil of atheists were adjusted. The service itself had nothing to do with our individual beliefs, but through it we formed connections across religious differences. The director of the organization we worked with in Ghana, for example, was a devout Christian. In the office, during our down time, we talked. We talked about women’s rights and US relations with African nations and, yes, God. We didn’t agree on everything, but we departed friends each with a better understand of how and why the other lives.

In this way, traveling was only a means to important ends—people communicating with people and sharing beliefs, strangers breaking bread together and becoming friends, and human beings from diverse backgrounds exchanging ideas about cultures, beliefs, and lifestyles. That is what Pathfinders is all about.

This piece was originally published with NonProphet Status. You can read it here.

The Outdated Question of Our Survival

Well, statistically we are. I’m sure many of you have raised a wagging finger, “But what about the millions of poor–starving and dying of malaria–or the constant wars broadcast 24 hours on cable news?” I’m certainly not ignoring this. I’ve seen starvation with my own eyes in Uganda where a boiled egg was a treat for the students of our school when the school chickens produced enough eggs. I saw it with my own eyes in Guatemala where people dig through the city dump looking for items to recycle and leftovers to eat. I’ve seen it in the US where soup kitchens have lines around the corner.

But there can be no doubt we are making progress on these fronts. Even in the poorest areas of the world, life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last century. Countries with the worst life expectancy now, have higher life expectancy than countries with the highest did decades ago. Since we have solved the problem of producing enough food for everyone, the question we face now is how to distribute that food justly. The fact of the matter is violence has declined. Don’t believe me? Ask Steven Pinker. The situation is improving, but we are, unquestionably, still dealing with violence and hunger and disease.

The problem is that species survival does not require survival of every individual. A certain amount of individual selfishness by the strong regarding resources benefits the species as a whole because it ensures that at least some will survive. This tendency, even if unconscious, makes sense in an age where humanity’s survival was not certain. But we no longer live in that age. Yet we act as if we do. That is why a too many of the resources are being squandered by the powerful, when they could easily be shared.

Species Survival to Individual Happiness

From a species perspective, we’ve come to a point in history when it is no longer necessary to struggle to survive. But at an individual level, so many do struggle. Too many don’t survive.

How do we address this discrepancy? If species survival is no longer our main objective, how do we refocus our survival energy? Shouldn’t that energy now go to the survival and happiness of all members of our species–to addressing systematic violence, hunger, and preventable disease. None of these problems are going to be solved if we remain in individual survival mode. We can and should reorientate ourselves from survival of the species to survival and happiness of the individual.

Human Rights: A Cornerstone of Humanism

This is fundamental to humanism. When people ask me what humanism is, and I get asked a lot, I tell them that fundamentally humanism is about happiness. Humanism tells us that we, every one of us, has the right to be happy and to pursue what makes us happy, assuming of course, that that pursuit does not impede the happiness of others. Beyond our own happiness, it is our responsibility to aid others in pursuing their happiness.

Currently, there is catch. The catch is, it’s hard to pursue happiness when you are too busy pursuing clean water, nutritious food, and adequate shelter. Securing basic survival needs is fundamental to fostering happiness. So our first step as humanists is to secure basic human rights for every member of our species. Then we have the foundation for happiness for every member.

This a call to reorient ourselves–from pursuing survival to pursing happiness, for every single human on this planet. This is by no means a call to requiring people take up the label “humanist”. I am not proselytizing. The idea to reorient to survival of all comes to me from my humanist foundations, but it is not exclusively humanist. Nor should it be. But I do want people to switch off survival of the species mode.

Survival is outdated. We have survived. It is time to thrive.

The more people who reorient to survival of all the easier it will become. The obstacles that hinder global clean water initiatives and systems to get food to the people that need it will become less steep.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not think this is an easy utopia. It will be difficult. It might be impossible. But there no chance unless a few of the brave embrace the switch in the beginning. Then others will not be so afraid in the future.

This piece was originally published with Applied Sentience. You can read it here.

Earlier this month, three State of Formation Contributing Scholars were invited to attend and present at the North American Interfaith Network annual conference. Responding to the conference’s opening plenary lecture, Ellie Anders, Wendy Webber, and Esther Boyd collaborated on this piece in an attempt to bring some of the conference’s discussion of honest communication and the risk of offending others to the rest of the State of Formation community.

Esther Boyd: The opening plenary lecture given by Reverend Dan Buttry offered an excellent framework for the rest of the weekend – specifically when he described “First Date Interfaith Dialogue”, using as an example the first time he went out with his wife Sharon. He had been too timid and self-conscious to tell her that he did not like popcorn, rather than risk offending her, he ate an entire bowl, leading her to believe for the next several years that he loved the stuff. His story of awkward young love is a great metaphor for dialogue. When we engage in interbelief conversation, we often act timid. We are afraid to offend those around us and afraid to express a vulnerability that might leave us offended, even if it might have long term ramifications later. We were challenged to move beyond that self-consciousness and fear of offending someone for the sake of honest and fruitful communication. I thought it was a great metaphor, and a useful analogy for entering dialogue spaces for the first time.

Wendy Webber: I find the first date metaphor to be incredibly useful and plan to adopt it as a kind of shorthand in the future. The call to move past “first date” conversations in interbelief work illustrates the new interbelief landscape. In the past, simply getting members of different traditions together in one room was something to be celebrated. It still is in many contexts. And in those contexts should still be embraced. But in contexts where interbelief is already embraced by the participants, it is spinning wheels to simply celebrate our coming together. Those of us who have already forged belief-crossing relationships are ready to put those relationships to work. We are ready to ask the hard questions that only intimate friends (or to follow the metaphor more closely, partners) can ask, because the relationship is a solid foundation for a rocky conversation. I hope it is clear that I don’t mean that these old and dear friendships are literal. They are an understanding that we interbelief activists can share as strangers because we all agree on the importance of the cause.

EB: I continued to think about the first date metaphor later in the conference, especially when one of the speakers said that we don’t need to build more bridges – we need to use the ones we have. If we are going to actually be effective peacemakers, educators, world-changers, it can’t be enough to smile at each other in the same room. We have to roll up our sleeves and wade into some of the muck together, and that requires a level of honesty and communication that can be tough to cultivate when people are nervous about offending one another or saying the wrong thing.

Ellie Anders: The first date metaphor played out for me standing in the Dunkin’ Donuts line Monday morning, talking about this past Ramadan. I explained to Noorin, another attendee, that this year I participated in a way completely new for me. I decided to fast along with my Muslim friends and when we went to break the fast, I was given a yogurt drink. Normally, I love yogurt, but this was unsweetened and watered down. I did not enjoy it at all. In spite of strong objections by my taste buds, I continued to drink. Noorin chided me as I recounted the evening: “Move past first date mentality.” She was right, I completely missed out on the opportunity to talk about why the drink was significant. Or to learn that it really had no significance at all, and I wouldn’t be insulting anyone by passing for water.

WW: The first date metaphor was also tested for me at the conference. I was excited that so many people at the conference did take the call to move past first date conversations. One woman asked me why “secular” is often put before “humanist.” If there can be religious humanists, she asked, how is there a cohesive humanist community? But, it wasn’t just about belief issues. One person asked me how I, a white woman, reacted to a black speaker forcefully discussing white privilege. Neither conversation was easy.  They weren’t easy because they weren’t superficial, which allowed both to lead to deeper and more concrete relationships.

I did not always successfully move past “first date” dialogue. When I found myself sitting next to a Scientologist at a meal I had a hundred questions I wanted to ask, but refrained from fear of insulting him with my lack of knowledge. (I don’t know if his questions and comments were kept superficial from a similar motivation.) As a result our conversation remained superficial and I failed to learn much about him and failed to share much of me.

EA: Often people want to engage with the “other” but they are afraid of being offensive. My answer to that objection is always yes, yes you will probably offend someone. And when you do, or I do, we talk about why it was offensive, and we confront our own stereotypes. Then hopefully we learn to have those difficult conversations and come out on the other side with a much deeper relationship having faced a challenge together and overcome it. We must give ourselves permission to be offended, be offensive, and build relationships based on those dialogues.

WW: Part of our early conversations with “others” should acknowledge that this will happen and discuss what we are going to do when it happens. The first date metaphor provides some language to do this.

EA: It can be helpful to agree to safe space rules before you begin, such as the “OUCH!, OOPS!, AHHA!” rule. When someone in the room hears something that is offensive they stop the conversations by saying “Ouch!” The person who was speaking immediately responds “Oops!” The conversation then turns so the two parties can honestly discuss the offense and model this process for the group. At the end we hope for the “Ahha!” moment. Sometime this will happen, sometimes it won’t, but it is always worth the time spent. Similar rules help set the tone for deepening relationships.

EB: There is great potential value in being offended. It’s important that we learn to move past offense and discomfort in ways that are open and affirming, and not close ourselves off or shut out others. We have to learn how to grow from intentional, often awkward recovery. I heard a few offensive statements during the conference, and when they were particularly problematic I addressed them. Those conversations weren’t comfortable, but I think (I hope) that we both came away having learned something we wouldn’t have if I kept my mouth shut.

WW: Esther, I was offended a few times, too. Part of what it made me consider is what my role is as a participant in interbelief work. Just as I need to recognize that I will offend, I need to recognize that I will be offended at some point–something that should be considered ahead of time so that one’s reaction is not coming from the emotion of being offended. The conversations you had with people about words or actions that offended you were better to have than keeping silent. But keeping quiet in reaction to an offensive statement can be as important as speaking up. The real trick is to know when to speak and when not to. There are many many issues that need to be addressed in these kinds of settings. “Yes, this specific issue hits home for me. But maybe it is best for me to let this one slide because there is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed by someone else. I can be heard next time.”

EB: Wendy – that is an excellent point. If we got up and hollered every time we were offended we wouldn’t get anywhere. Many times what offends us are matters of language and limitation and simplicity – not malevolence or ignorance. While we can often let the former slide, it can be necessary to address the latter.

WW: The challenge is to recognize the difference.

EA: Addressing those in public will often turn people away. Doing so in private tends to make people much less defensive and willing to engage in self reflection later.

EB: When we feel defensive we become reactive instead of reflective. There isn’t trust, and there can’t be vulnerability, which makes it so hard for us to share parts of ourselves with others in meaningful ways. This is especially important for me when working with students. Not to say that college students are any more clumsy than the rest of us (they are not), but for many of them, college interfaith communities are their first encounter not only with intentional dialogue across differences, but real community building with folks of different religious backgrounds, and it’s where they learn to be offended and move forward.

WW: Being on the defensive puts us in a fog. It’s sometimes hard to really hear what the other is saying because you are too busy formulating a response.

EB: Balancing honest communication with the risk of offense can be a challenge. We must be careful about our language. It helps to know when we need to table something for later, and when we are in situations where we can take a break if needed.

WW: And having the conversation about how we will handle offense up front is important. We are very used to doing this in large groups that have specifically come together for discussion. But we rarely do it in individual encounters and relationships. When we are relying on friendship it is easy to assume that friendship itself will be able to absorb the offense. But it is not always so easy. Having the conversation one-on-ones is a good, often overlooked, practice.

EA: Honesty is the best policy. If something is really that offensive and hurtful you should definitely tell them because if it was offensive to us, we can almost guarantee it is going to hurt someone else later. So the question for us is really how willing we are to be honest and vulnerable. Others will mirror our response and when we react with compassion, the offender often mirrors our emotional response.

WW: It sounds hokey, but a challenge we can give ourselves is to really put yourself in the other’s shoes. My students in my religious education class in Uganda were struggling with the idea that there are polytheists in the world. It was just too far from their experience to comprehend. We had discussed empathy the day before, so we did an exercise where we imagined we were polytheists who believed in reincarnation and discussed the consequences of such beliefs on how one would live their lives. After, the students were better able to accept the idea of polytheism and we were able to have a respectful discussion. Rather than trying to understand the other from our own perspective, try understanding them from their own.

Another challenge we can give ourselves is to recognize the things in your own tradition that are points of contention and come up with ways to discuss them in advance. I am currently trying to come up with responses to the “you are going to hell” line. This is a possible flashpoint that so often comes up because of my tradition. If I am prepared for it, if I am ready to discuss it, I can better control my offense. And if I can mitigate my anger than I can effect the tone of the conversation and hopefully avert escalation.

EB: That is a great point, and definitely worth further discussion.

Oddly, science and religion, using their broadest notions, have been pitted against each other in a war over certainty. For many anti-theists, religion dupes the faithful with easy answers to unanswerable questions. In other words, for creating false certainty. By those religious people who see science as an adversary, science is criticized for not having all the answers. In other words, for accepting, even embracing, uncertainty. I am not trying to suggest that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible–that a person cannot be a scientist and a theist. I am merely exploring how the two disciplines deal with certainty and uncertainty.

In the US, we live in a culture where changing one’s mind is unacceptable, even in the face of new evidence or changing circumstances. (Writing for Applied Sentience, Aaron Gertler explores this phenomenon in more depth.) A cursory survey of accusations of politically flip-flopping in election rhetoric proves that point. We live in a world where questioning long held assumptions is met with derision even when the evidence falls against a popular belief. The debates over vaccines and global warming make that point.

Despite science’s foundation of questioning and acceptance of the inevitability of error, for most people, science does come with a sense of certainty. How many times was I told in college by my science major friends that they preferred science to humanities because in science there were right and wrong answers? Yes, college science majors. Maybe that was the case on their exams, but science in no way promises certainty.

Science does promise greater and greater understanding. Science is a path to ever increasing clarity. But it is the nature of that path that attracts the greatest criticism–constant questioning, continuous reassessment, and continual willingness to change. Willingness to admit new theories in the face of greater evidence is science’s greatest characteristic.

Perhaps I am confused by humanity’s hunger for certainty because for me uncertainty is much more comforting. This may be my mother’s fault. As long as I can remember she’s told me, “when you stop learning you die.” What is there to learn if we already know the answers–both to the big questions and the small? Knowing that there are always ideas and phenomena to explore gives life meaning.

The magician Penn Gillette, who makes his living not by not revealing mysteries,said, “One of the most rewarding feelings in life is the ‘aha.’” This is a pleasure uncertainty offers the world. The reward of the “aha” is not the erasure of uncertainty. Though, of course, in any specific case uncertainty has been largely erased, all the other mysteries still exist. The “aha” is so sweet because such hard work was required to create it (most of the time).

But this is not the main comfort uncertainty provides me. Knowing there are things that are unknowable, at least for me, at least in my lifetime, makes me feel like part of something bigger–this complex, infinite universe with new wonders at every turn.

I don’t know the comfort of certainty that some religions provide with supernatural explanations. So it is impossible for me to compare that comfort to mine. But for me, not knowing makes the world a miraculous place. I want to live in a miraculous, awe-inspiring world. But supernatural explanations of miracles do not induce awe. Their certainty does not inspire. The vast array of wonder in this world excites me often because of their mystery. The never-ending search for natural explanations fuel me. My world is full of unexplained miracles. And I like that. It is not the uncertainty that makes them miracles. It is the journey of discovery that makes them miraculous.

This piece was originally published with Applied Sentience. Read the original here.

]]> http://interbelief.com/why-i-love-being-uncertain/feed/ 0 http://interbelief.com/monthofmeaning/ http://interbelief.com/monthofmeaning/#comments Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:00:03 +0000 http://interbelief.com/?p=418 [Read more...]]]> Pathfinders is over. It’s was a life changing year. I fear I cannot begin to relate the hundreds of encounters, experiences, and moments that contributed to that change. But I can relate the lessons I learned from them. And I will. I will spend years elaborating on the lessons I have learned.

#monthofmeaning is a start.

It is the last month of @PthfndrsPrjct. Like @conor_robinson I’ll be tweeting something each day that I learned this year. #monthofmeaning

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) May 30, 2014

#monthofmeaning day 1: There are many gradients of cold that can make a cold shower. Turns out none of them are not that bad. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) May 30, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 2: You will sometimes be laughed at (especially as a foreigner) and often won’t know why. And that’s okay. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) May 30, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 3: Sleeping the night before an early flight is not necessary.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 1, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 4: Local markets are consistently my favorite place to wander and explore in a new place.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 1, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 5: The best adventures come from overcoming obstacles. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 2, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 6: I can happily live with what I can carry on my back and not want for more (at least not much more). — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 3, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 7: The fastest way to make friends with kids is with your camera. It also makes enemies of adults pic.twitter.com/LR9iNNMYrp

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 5, 2014

I missed a day! One #monthofmeaning owed.

#monthofmeaning Day 9: Street food is the best food. Almost without exception. (Yum. Street meat.)

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 6, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 10: You have to acknowledge and embrace your shortcomings before even attempting to address them. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 7, 2014

 
  Another lesson learned: I can’t count. Two day 10s. No day 11. 

#monthofmeaning Day 10: Global equality of women and men will involve teaching women of women’s rights and equality too. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 9, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 12: Kids are kids. They all just want to play and laugh and smile.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 9, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 13: Sometimes you just have to start a project. And figure out how along the way.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 10, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 14: Barring physical inability, there is absolutely no good excuse to not exercise. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 11, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 15: More people legitimately believe in witchcraft than I ever imagined possible. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 13, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 16: You can’t do everything. You can only make your difference.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 13, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 17: A month without vegetables does not a happy body make.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 14, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 18: Empathy is not always possible. Sometimes you can only accept the truth of another’s experience as they relate it. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 16, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 19: Learning a language is not easy. Without a concentrated effort, nothing will happen. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 17, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 20: Say yes. The worst that can happen is an adventure.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 18, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 21: If what you’re writing isn’t working, ditch it, start over. You’ll waste more time trying to fix unworkable writing.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 19, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 22: Getting up early in the morning is easier if you do it everyday rather than every once in a while. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 20, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 23: Not a new lesson, but one that was confirmed and strengthened with @PthfndrsPrjct. pic.twitter.com/uz56D8MPxV — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 20, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 24: Whatever size luggage you bring you will fill it. Bring a small bag.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 21, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 25: “I study religion” is an ice breaker that always breaches the taboo of discussing religion in mixed company.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 23, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 26: It is vital to surround yourself with people who challenge you, support you, and, above all, make you happy. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 23, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 27: There are always reasons not to do something. Find the reason to do it. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 24, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 28: Expectations of what you will experience, lessons you will learn, and who you will be hinders honest engagement.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 25, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 29: Personal relationships are all we have, when all is said and done. Nurture them. Don’t take them for granted.

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 27, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 30: Volunteer without ego. Volunteering means doing what is best for another person. Ask how and if you can help. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 27, 2014

#monthofmeaning Day 31: Goodbyes do not get easier with practice. — Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) June 28, 2014

And because I missed a day…

#monthofmeaning Day 8: You can plan. You can be meticulous. But mistakes will happen. Expect to spend time fixing. #betterlatethannever

— Wendy Webber (@JACofallfaiths) July 6, 2014

Mostly what I heard was not surprising. Most of the people present had been raised in families of various degrees of religious adherence. Several people came from extremely religious families. Their stories were of not fitting in. Their family’s religion didn’t make sense to them. They felt like frauds participating in religious rituals. Finally telling their families of their true beliefs resulted in strained relationships or, in at least one case, total abandonment by their families. Finding communities of like minded people, like this one, was life saving.

Other stories were of less religious upbringings. These were households that only went to church when the grandparents were in town. They only attended temple during the high holidays. Of course they believed in God, but that belief didn’t have much impact on day to day lives. When they realized they actually did not believe, the biggest change was their perspective on their life. How they lived it remained much the same.

There was one other person who, like me, was not raised in a religious family. Like me, this person’s extended family was religious, but their immediate family was not. There was some tension among her extended family about their beliefs, but by and large they were not an issue.

What surprised me was that when several people “came out” to their religious family members, some family members revealed their atheistic beliefs in turn. One woman discovered that her mother, father, and only sibling were all also atheists. Her entire nuclear family had all been acting for the sake of the others for decades. The parents, though atheists when their children where born, did not want to indoctrinate their children. They took their children to a church in the denomination of their extended family. They allowed, indeed encouraged, their children to attend churches of other denominations with their friends. When they wanted to go to church camp they did. The two sisters both explored several religions but ultimately decided none of them made sense for them. But they continued to feign Christianity when the family was together.

Why am I telling this story to an interfaith community? Because despite the evidence from their childhood that their parents were open to any number of religious traditions, both sisters were afraid to tell their parents that they were atheists. Atheist beliefs are viewed, even subconsciously, as something fundamentally different than theist beliefs. I don’t know how many times I have witnessed interfaith discussions that concludes with “at least we all believe in God.”

I was dismayed at this atheist meeting by how quickly my comments about my work with religious people were dismissed. I was told that the work I wanted to do was losing battle. The only worthwhile work in this area was to protect nonbeliever’s rights as religious people are constantly working to take them away. I, of course, stood my ground explaining why interbelief engagement is both necessary and worthwhile.

Not everyone spoke against my work. Some quietly applauded it. But those who spoke up spoke loudly. These were the people who had been hurt by religion and religious people. They want nothing to do with religious people. Not ever.

After the meeting I got to thinking about the presence of these two kinds of atheism: secret atheists and anti-theists. It reminded me that interbelief work is not only about the big picture, as it is most often portrayed. Usually when interbelief moments are reported it’s when rabbis are invited to the Vatican. It’s when interfaith services are held in the wake of a tragedy. It’s when a church donates it’s space to a Muslim community that does not yet have it’s own building. These are wonderful moments. I support them. It’s hard enough getting positive stories into the news.

Hearing these stories made me remember that while interbelief work at the community, national, and international level is important, it is ultimately about the personal level. It’s about keeping families together. If we can’t keep families together, what hope is there for bring communities separated by race, religion, and nationality together?

This post was originally published with State of Formation. Read it here.

Growing Up

Looking back, there were moments. At Hanukah one year the rabbi’s wife told me I was going to hell when she discovered that I didn’t know how to play dreidel. Before one meal with my stepfamily my stepcousin, who was about eight at the time, chastised me for having my eyes open during grace. I explained to her that the only way she could know that was if her eyes were also open. I was surprised at my cousin’s Bat Mitzvah when all the cousins were asked to come to the front to read a passage. I walked nervously to the front wondering if my family remembered that I had not had a Bat Mitzvah and could not read Hebrew.

San Albino Church Mesilla, a Catholic Church near my hometown of Las Cruces, New Mexico

As an adult I have learned that there was strife behind the scenes. My Catholic grandparents were worried about the influence of my Jewish mother and wanted to pay for Catholic boarding school to save my soul. I am probably responsible for shortening my grandmother’s life. When she handed me a rosary at my grandfather’s funeral when I was ten years old I asked what it was.

It is probably clear by now, one side of my family is Jewish and one side is Catholic. On both sides my relatives range from devout to high holiday adherents to atheists. My stepfamily is nondenominationally Christian. My mom would probably call herself culturally Jewish. My dad calls himself a devoutly fallen away Catholic. Religion was a nonissue in my house. God was not discussed, but the subject wasn’t avoided either. It just didn’t come up. Just like in the rest of my life.

A Different Narrative

I’m not just previewing the first chapter of my memoirs. I tell you all this to explain that I am not nor was I ever an angry atheist. I am not a recovering theist. I never had to “come out” to my family. My decision to pursue a Masters in Religion was probably a bigger shock.

Yet I have been reluctant to join the atheist community. I only recently started accepting the atheist label. And I still prefer humanist. My reluctance was not because of the stigma and prejudice, but largely because I don’t like to be defined by a negative, in this case a lack of belief. I prefer to be defined by what I do believe in: the innate equality of all humans and right to have and to pursue happiness.

Now that I have accepted the atheist label, I am still reluctant to participate in the community. Why? Because a large part of the conversation is about why or how to leave religion. I didn’t realize how deep my reluctance was until I was asked to participate in the second annual International Day of Doubt. On June 1st atheists around the world posted on Facebook an invitation to religious people who were doubting their beliefs to message them. It was an opportunity to find a community and talk to people who had gone through a similar struggle. I should explain that I am in no way knocking people and organizations that provide support and guidance for those who have realized their beliefs are different from the religious beliefs of their family, friends, or community. I have infinite sympathy for the difficulty of that situation. But I struggled with the decision to participate in Day of Doubt or not. Ultimately I decided not to. My reasoning, right or wrong, was that since I had never been religious I was not the right person to talk to about the struggle of leaving religion if someone did contact me. I am still not sure I made the right decision.

Building Bridges

I’m not just previewing the first chapter of my memoirs. I tell you all this to explain that I am not nor was I ever an angry atheist. I am not a recovering theist. I never had to “come out” to my family. My decision to pursue a Masters in Religion was probably a bigger shock.

Yet I have been reluctant to join the atheist community. I only recently started accepting the atheist label. And I still prefer humanist. My reluctance was not because of the stigma and prejudice, but largely because I don’t like to be defined by a negative, in this case a lack of belief. I prefer to be defined by what I do believe in: the innate equality of all humans and right to have and to pursue happiness.

Now that I have accepted the atheist label, I am still reluctant to participate in the community. Why? Because a large part of the conversation is about why or how to leave religion. I didn’t realize how deep my reluctance was until I was asked to participate in the second annual International Day of Doubt. On June 1st atheists around the world posted on Facebook an invitation to religious people who were doubting their beliefs to message them. It was an opportunity to find a community and talk to people who had gone through a similar struggle. I should explain that I am in no way knocking people and organizations that provide support and guidance for those who have realized their beliefs are different from the religious beliefs of their family, friends, or community. I have infinite sympathy for the difficulty of that situation. But I struggled with the decision to participate in Day of Doubt or not. Ultimately I decided not to. My reasoning, right or wrong, was that since I had never been religious I was not the right person to talk to about the struggle of leaving religion if someone did contact me. I am still not sure I made the right decision.

For those who have experienced serious problems with their families and loved ones, Recovering from Religion may be able to help.

These phrases coming from the atheist community are not nearly as bad, but they, and similar language and actions, are not helping either. There is no doubt that these kinds of phrases are helpful for those embracing atheistic beliefs, especially if doing so means breaking or straining relations with family and friends. But they also contribute to the prejudiced atmosphere between theists and atheists. They grate against the ears of those who still hold religious beliefs. To them they are attacks.

How is it possible to build a bridge when both sides are attacking each other? It’s not. Attacks on the religious community do not make it easier for atheists to leave them or remain in them but live openly. Attacks affirm some religious people’s prejudice that atheists are not worthwhile people. Theists who refuse to associate with atheists see only the label and not the person. These phrases coming from the atheist side do the same thing. One side must start building the bridge. Hopefully the other side will see construction and will be inspired to start building from their side as well.

It is, of course, unfair to lump all atheists together as attackers. Just as it is unfair to claim that all religious people think atheists are evil. But as long as atheism is strongly associated with anti-theism I will resist association myself. My resistance is not because of the prejudice atheists face from the religious, but because of the intolerance atheists aim at the religious.

This week’s blog is at Applied Sentience. You can read it here.

A Humanist School in a Fundamentalist Country

“Praise Jesus Shop”

Before I relate the position I took, I should explain the nature of the situation in Uganda. I was volunteering with KHPS as part of Pathfinders Project, an international humanist service year. KHPS is a humanist school in a coercively religious nation. On national exams students must answer questions like “Who created you?”. The US Christian right has been instrumental in the passing of the so-called “Kill the Gays” bill. Businesses have names like “God’s Mercy Dairy.” And Joseph Kony’s LRA, of Kony 2012, fame stands for “The Lord’s Resistance Army” which, at least officially, fights to make Uganda a theocracy. In this climate, KHPS must balance teaching humanist ideals which challenge this foundation and not alienating the community that relies on them.

How does humanism manifest at KHPS? For one thing, they hold weekly humanism seminars. I can’t comment on what goes on normally during these seminars, but the Pathfinders lead several while we were there and we had sessions about cooperation, empathy, the platinum rule, critical thinking, and the scientific method. More generally, the school emphasizes science classes. There are signs all over campus with sayings like “educate your children through science for a better future,” “do not believe in superstition”, and “science is the best way to live.” Their motto is “With Science We Can Progress.”

“God Provides Boutique” and “God’s Mercy Dairy”

Many of the students, but certainly not all or even a majority, call themselves humanists. I don’t know what their regular religion classes previously focused on, but while I taught them we emphasized studying comparative religions. The students had never heard of any traditions other than Christianity and Islam. While I made it clear thatthe purpose of studying different religions was to understand and empathize with others, a humanist tenet, the students made comments questioning the scientific validity of polytheism, meditation, or prophecy.

Cultural Perceptions of “Science”

It was clear that humanism, and its associate science, had been presented as an alternative to Christianity and Islam. Which of course it often is, though not necessarily. At another humanist school we volunteered at in Uganda (there are three), the teachers who called themselves humanists also identified as Muslim or Christian. Their humanism was not instead of religion, but in addition to it.

In the KHPS climate,

“With Science Everything is Possible”

I fully expected the identified humanist, and most vocal, teachers to be strong advocates for science in the debate. But before I unveil some of their positions I should mention one other thing. While these were formal debates, the students were not encouraged to argue a side for the sake of argument. Students and teachers alike argued from their conscience only. For my part, I decided to play devil’s advocate and argue for why science and technology has done harm in Uganda. Being the second person to make a case following another Pathfinder, I did not know that I was actually adding to the chorus of agreement with the proposition.

What I had not yet realized was how science was tied to colonialism in the Ugandan’s minds. Science and technology was brought by colonial powers. I need to make clear that I am using the word “science” because they did, but really they were talking more about technology than the scientific method or a particular theory.

“Do Not Believe in Superstition”

And a narrow definition of technology that includes modern machines and western medicine but excludes traditional tools.

The fruits of scientific labor in Uganda largely remain the domain of outsiders. Many of the technologies that have come to Uganda function to better strip the land of its natural resources to be exported to the West. Not only is this striping the land of its beauty, but Ugandans are seeing little profit from it. Can it really be surprising that these so-called advances are viewed unfavorably by the Ugandans?

Humanism and Colonialism

In and of itself, this rejection of modern technology is not surprising, expected even. But coupled with the school’s intensive promotion of science as a tenet of humanism the rejection not only surprised me, it seemed hypocritical. Following the debate I began to think about humanism not just in relation to Christianity and Islam, but in relation to colonial Christianity and Islam. Then it started to make sense.

In my experience encountering humanism, mostly in the US, it is framed as a moral structure for nonbelievers. Good without god.

“Your Brain is Your Blessing”

This is not an automatic dichotomy, but it is often presented as such. When I arrived in Uganda I brought this assumption that humanism would also be set up as opposition to theistic religions. From talking to the teachers at the humanist school my assumptions were confirmed, mostly.

There were a few things that confused me as our time marched forward at KHPS. One of the teachers was evangelically humanist and very vocally anti-religion. Yet at lunch he prayed and told us he was talking to “the one who knows.” He told me a story about the mountain god – the god of his tribe (the word he himself used). When the god was angry his tribe suffered from droughts. When the god was happy it rained. How was this behavior coming from a man who is an avowed humanist scientist? How are these beliefs coming from a man who is constantly asking his students, “Where does God live? Have you ever seen him?”

Following the debate I realized I’d forgotten the colonial history of the area. I cannot be sure how this teacher would describe his beliefs about his tribe’s mountain god, but I don’t think he’d call it religion. Just as he embraces science at the same time that he rejects western medicine (during the debate he explained how western medicine takes your money and only kills you while herbal medicines are natural and work), this teacher also embraces his mountain god at the same time that he rejects religion.

“A Humanist is a Happy Person”

He embraces science when it rejects colonial religion and rejects science when it rejects African independence or indigenous power. It’s not about science at all. Nor about religion. It’s about colonialism and reestablishing autonomy.

For these teachers, science is part of the problem as it continues to perpetuate the legacy of colonialism. But at the same time they are able to embrace science as a way of rejecting colonial-imposed religion.

There is no reason to argue that their rationale for embracing humanism is any less valid than anyone else’s. KHPS very existence is a rebellion against forced religious belonging. They are teaching their students to meet the world with a critical eye. Their humanism might not encompass the same beliefs about science and technology as mine does, but their humanism manifests with the same desire to instill critical thinking and generate justice. I can only hope our influence led them to more emphasize compassion and empathy for others in their humanism studies.

This piece was originally published with Applied Sentience. You can read this week’s post here. Do check it out for more photos.

My relatives were persecuted.  We are pretty sure all my family members who did not immigrate to the United States when my great-grandparents did, before the war, perished during the war. As far as I am concerned, the fact of their murder is not relevant to my reaction at the museum. I cried for every unjust act committed during the Holocaust. I do not want to malign the strong and just reaction that anyone would have when their loved ones and their people are persecuted and killed.  But do I have to be related to care so much?

Prayers for the victims of the Cambodian genocide.

Then I spent last August in Cambodia, which is healing from its own genocide.  The wounds are still fresh.  Millions of people perished, yet before I began preparing for this trip the genocide was barely in my consciousness.  I knew that it had happened, but not much more.  I now know much more.  And I cried for every unjust act committed in Cambodia.

But why didn’t I know about it?

I didn’t know about the Rwandan genocide until an Academy Award winning film about it was released.  I should have known.  I am interested in the world.  I am a student of war and peace and violence and nonviolence.  But, I did not learn about these genocides in school.  I never saw a documentary or read a book about them.  They were not discussed at home.  I think I didn’t know about these atrocities because the victims were too dissimilar from myself.  Just as the Israeli woman assumed my tears were for relatives, Cambodians and Rwandans were too distant from myself–nationally, politically, racially, religiously–to get true attention.

There was an assumption in Israel that my tears were for the my relatives who died in the Holocaust.  The assumption included a larger assumption that I am more likely to shed tears for the victims of the Holocaust because I am of Jewish decent than someone who is not Jewish.  The flip side of this is that I am not of Cambodian or Buddhist decent, so I would naturally care less for their genocide as for the genocide of the Jews.  Even if that were true, rarely does someone suggest I should shed equal tears for the victims in Rwanda who were not targeted because of their religion but where in fact largely Catholic. I am also of Catholic decent. They are as much my people as the Jews who died in the Holocaust are.

At S-21, the school-turned-torture-prison in Phnom Penh that is now a museum, there are rooms full of pictures of the victims of the place.  There are hundreds of photos, row after row, room after room.  Some of the faces show defeat, some show defiance, some show a haunting bit of a smile.  One room is dedicated to the, mostly Western, foreigners that were also taken to S-21.  Their photos are displayed along with their histories and the accusations that brought them to the prison.  Why were all the foreigners’ stories shared while the nationals’ stories remained largely untold?  Because the foreigners’ stories provide a point of connection for the museum visitors who are mostly Western tourists.

For me the most important section of the Holocaust museum was a room dedicated to heroes of the Holocaust who attempted and often succeeded at helping the persecuted groups of the Holocaust.  We have all heard tales of people who, at great personal risk, hide victims of persecution in their homes, sign illegal visas so persecuted people can escape the country, or smuggle supplies into ghettos to relieve the suffering.  We hear these stories and we love these stories.  I believe that as least part of the appeal is that these are people helping each other not because they are related, not because they share a religious or philosophical position, and not because they have anything to gain, but because it is the right thing to do.  Period.

This post is also published at State of Formation.

Witchcraft accusations are very real. And very destructive.

I am not alone in my ignorance. Most of the people I’ve talked to about my experience visiting Kukuo—one of several camps for alleged witches in northern Ghana—reacted just about the same as I did: “There are still witchcraft accusations? That many? In the 21st century? Accusations that are taken seriously?”

Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes.

In Ghana, these very real witchcraft accusations are founded on, what is to me, very shaky evidence. An accuser need only say they saw the person in a dream and that is enough for an accusation to be taken seriously. Later there might be a test where a chicken is slaughtered and the position the chicken takes when it dies reveals the truth or falsity of the accusations. Such trials are not mandatory and happen infrequently.

A witch’s hut in Kukuo.

Dream evidence is especially problematic because of malaria. Malaria is a huge problem in Ghana and in northern Ghana it is largely misunderstood. Many residents only know that an illness is occurring, not the cause. The illness is not associated with mosquitos at all. The illness is often attributed to witchcraft. Witchcraft accusations increase during malaria season. It does not help that a symptom of malaria is vivid dreams.

Women—they are almost always women—are in constant danger of being accused. Especially if they don’t have a man to speak for them. Especially if they cannot produce children, due to age or biology. Especially if they have a little economic power. In other words, if they don’t conform to the gender role Ghanaian society requires they conform to.

For example, if a woman, especially a widow or single woman, runs a successful business, she might choose to help her community by giving loans. I spoke to several alleged witches in Kukuo. Most of their accusers were people who owed them money. For me the interpretation is obvious. This person did not want to pay. It is easier to accuse and have the debt wiped out than find the money to make good on it. This is a personal grudge. But there is a broader issue.

Wealthy men, even single wealthy men, who lend money to members of their community are rarely, if ever, accused of witchcraft by their debtors. Why? Why are women vulnerable when similarly situated men are not? Because these single, successful women are threats to the system. Not only does the individual accuser benefit when their debt is wiped out, but the community status quo is preserved when the woman is banished and her business redistributed.

An accusation leading to banishment means leaving with only the clothes on one’s back. But it often also means beatings—beatings in the woman’s home community and in every community she encounters on her way to one of the refugee camps for alleged witches. The camps are safe places, but not easy ones. In the camps the women still struggle to acquire basic necessities. From Kukuo, water is several miles away. Many of the women are reliant on what food is donated to them or what they can find in fields after harvest. Their roofs leak when it rains so they cannot sleep. Most of these women are in their 70s or older.

Their existence is not widely known and the fact of their existence is unbelievable to many, but these camps are real. I have seen them. These are difficult places to live, but they are, at least, places to live. Alleged witches are regularly killed in Nigeria and other west African nations that do not have camps.

I encountered these camps as part of a humanist service trip called Pathfinders Project. As humanists, from our perspective, there is no supernatural power at play. For every evidence of witchcraft we encountered we saw a natural, not supernatural, explanation. Malaria, dysentery, common childbirth complications. For every accusation of witchcraft we saw human, not spiritual, motivations. Jealousy, greed, power.

We met many alleged witches in Kukuo. I do not believe I met a single witch.

I do not believe witchcraft is real. I do believe these people do. (I should point out that while every alleged witch we talked to denied her guilt, every one affirmed the existence of witchcraft.) I also believe that witchcraft allegations are often used as a pretext to advance despicable personal agendas.

These women need help. But how? Addressing the situation in the camps themselves is easy. Okay, not easy, but easier. Easier than addressing the underlying problem. Clean water is manageable with time, money, and helping hands. So are the food, shelter, and other challenges are challenges poor communities around the globe face. But addressing these issues does not nothing toward ending the need for these camps, which must be the ultimate goal.

As a devotee of interbelief dialogue and cooperation, I do not believe it is respectful to address this situation by attacking the belief in witchcraft. Not only is it not respectful, it’s not practical.

So, how does one address this human rights abuse without attacking the core beliefs that are, if not causing, perpetuating it?

Education would help. Education, about malaria, for example. In the capital, Accra, in southern Ghana, there are very few accusations. Yet, the belief in witchcraft is still widespread. The lack of accusations cannot completely be explained by an understanding of malaria, but I believe it must be part—a large part. Why don’t the residents of Accra levy witchcraft accusations when they fall ill with malaria? It’s not because they don’t believe in witchcraft. It’s because they recognize the symptoms and causes of malaria. There is an alternative explanation that makes more sense. Witchcraft activity is delegated to another realm and Accra’s women are safe. Safer.

The hardest interbelief moments are the ones where the beliefs of each side are directly at odds. In this case there is no talking around our differences. There is little common ground to stand on together. Yet, I utterly believe that a Ghanaian alleged witch and an American humanist can work together. And not only on the common ground problems, but on the difficult, belief influenced problems too. The problems are human problems and humans can work together to solve them.

But in Kukuo it’s not just a humanist and an alleged witch who can work together beyond beliefs. The mullah in Kukuo—whose beliefs do not align with the alleged witch or the humanist—is committed to closing the camp by eradicating the need for one. Here is an opportunity for true interbelief cooperation that can make a real difference in the lives of hundreds women, if not more. I am excited to see it come to fruition.

This was originally published at State of Formation.

After all my clothes were hanging to dry, I rinsed my sweat off in the shower.  I poured myself a glass of water from a 3.5 liter bottle or water that we keep stocked in the fridge.  Then I realized, again, the miracle that drinkable water is available from almost any tap in the United States.

Clean, drinkable water is only available from bottles on Isla Puná.  Bottles that are carried by boat from the mainland.  Bottles that are too expensive for many of the residents to afford.  On Puná, if you can’t afford bottled water, you probably can’t afford the fuel to boil the water you take from the contaminated wells either.  Ailments from contaminated water is one of the most pressing healthcare issues on the island.  That is why the Pathfinders  have come to Puná, to help provide drinkable water that is purified and filtered right here on Puná.

The most well known well in Puná. But it is surrounded by poorly constructed septic tanks and animal roam freely near the open top. Testing has showed high levels of bacterial contamination.

Our goal is drinkable water.  That can only be accomplished for the community by the community.  But we can help.

Two days ago I had a conversation on the street with a local shop owner about the clean water situation on Puná and what we, working with Water Ecuador,  were doing about it.  This shop owner had stopped me on the street before asking me about the water.  Unfortunately, my Spanish is not advanced enough to tell him more than the most basic facts about our scheme.  This time was different though.  This time I had someone with me who speaks much better Spanish than I.

After we explained the water center we are constructing, he asked me why I was here.  I understood this question in two ways.  One, why am I working on water?  Two, why am I in Puná working on water?  So I had two answers.

Why am I working on water?  Because water is life.  I know that is corny, but it is true.  Where I grew up in southern New Mexico.  We have a water problem too.  We have drinkable water coming from our taps, but we don’t have enough.  We are a desert in a decades long draught.  Our river is drying up and our water table is dropping.  As different as the issues are, I believe Puná’s water problem is New Mexico’s and New Mexico’s is Puná’s.  Water is water.  And water is finite.

Water is an issue that will unite us beyond our differences–locally and internationally.  I am working on water because water is a human issue.  And I am human.

In response, the shop owner gave me an adage: “Si uno no vive para servir, no sirve para vivir.” (“If you don’t live to serve, you don’t serve to live.”)  He gets it.

Why am I in Puná working on water?  Because I was invited to.  Simple as that.  When Pathfinders Project was being organized dozens of organizations around the world were contacted to see who would be interested in our help.  It was important that the proposed relationship was clear.  We were coming to help local organizations with local problems that they’ve identified.  We are helping hands, not saviors coming in with the “answers.”

We explained, we are not here with agenda.  Not a political agenda.  Not a religious one.  We are only here to help and connect with people.

“Who, then, will run the center after you leave?” the shop owner asked.

“You,” we said.  Well, you the community.  We are helping to build the water center, but it will take the community to make it work.  His excitement was apparent.  He believes in the power of community.  Change only happens at the community level.  Any bigger and there is too much politics.  Too many egos.  Too much bureaucracy.  Ok, these last ideas are my interpretation of what he means by community being the only level that has the power to effect change.  But I agree that communities working together are powerful.

In my conversations with other Puná citizens, it is clear that clean water is exciting.  The fact that the water is coming from and purified in Puná is more exciting.

That’s why this project is going to work.

Last month in Haiti I joined a rural community coming together to build twenty latrines for twenty individual families.  All members of the community contributed to the completion of each and every latrine.

Not one latrine would have been completed without the involvement of all of us in community.  Community is essential to surviving in such remote, underdeveloped circumstances—but it didn’t feel like mere survival.  It felt like real unity.

In December I witnessed a community in northern Ghana that welcomes strangers banished from their home communities because of witchcraft accusations.  This community invites alleged witches to become part of the community even though giving refuge will be a burden.  The struggle of these individual outsiders becomes the struggle of the community as a whole.  And the solutions for the refugees become solutions for the community.

Before that I worked at a school in Uganda struggling for recognition and legitimate placement in the larger community.  Kasese Humanist Primary School is one of three humanists schools in a nation that requires students to answer questions like, “Who is your Lord and savior?” in order to graduate from school.  Yet, at our going away party, a member of the board of education told us and the gathered crowd of faculty, students, and parents that he welcomed the school and its contribution to the welfare of the community.  The chief of the village similarly thanked us for coming and supporting a school that has done so much for the children of his community.

Communities such as these are novel in my life. I have never experienced such community in the States.  That’s not to say they don’t exist in the States.  I know they exist, just not in my experience.

To me, community means something more than a group of people with common interests or goals.  Community is more even than a support system.  A healthy community supports and uplifts every member.  A sick community leaves individual members to fend for themselves.  Yes, some of the fittest individuals will survive, but no individual can thrive as an island.

Living in an authentic, healthy community means every member is equal in the community.  It means meeting each person and saying, “It’s not just your problem.  It’s our problem—my problem.  We will work on it together.”  It means asking of every person, “What do you need to be happy?”  That’s what authentic faith communities do.  In my opinion, faith communities have traditionally been the primary communities serving in this function.

So, in that sense, it is unfortunate that institutionalized religions are losing numbers. Raised in a nonreligious household—one of the growing numbers of families dropping out of institutionalized religious communities—I’m sure has contributed to why I lacked the sense of an authentic community as a child.  Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe my experience is an anomaly.  I would like to think so.  But I don’t think so.  I think we in the States are largely losing authentic community.  And the communities we do have are often created from the inside out by a process of exclusion.  The lines of who is in are defined by who is out.  In terms of community, how authentic is that?

What we need today are not fundamentally exclusive communities, but authentic communities that participate in forging authentic community with others.  Christians with Hindus.  Jews with Muslims.  Religious with atheist. Inclusive not exclusive. I’m not suggesting that we erase the lines that makes individual communities unique.  I’m not arguing for one homogeneous community.  That is impractical and disrespectful to individual dignity.  I’m not even recommending that communities stop their private activities.  I’m suggesting that disparate communities meet each other as they meet themselves—as equals struggling in the same fight for happiness.

My point is not that we need to boost institutionalized religious numbers.  That is not my place nor prerogative.  Healthy faith communities create and grow authentic community.  But they are not the only healthy communities—and there are certainly faith communities that are anything but healthy.  Regardless of faith, healthy, authentic communities heal a violent world—especially communities that unite disparate people.  The extinction of healthy communities would entail the extinction of humanity.  Humanity might survive and thrive by expanding the scope of authentic community—from supporting and uplifting just us to supporting and uplifting all of us.

This post was originally posted on State of Formation.