Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto

Religion: Don’t End It, Mend It

Hershey Julien
August 12, 2007
Palo Alto, CA

“As [one] thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7 A.V.)

I take this text, because the ideas you hold in your head shape your life.

Three popular current books attempt to persuade readers to abandon religion: The End of Faith by Sam Harris, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett. All three of them look at religion in the same way, agreeing with the definition given by Daniel Dennett: “I propose to define religion as Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.” Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the religions whose amendment I propose to discuss today, agree in belief in a supernatural agent called God. This theological position is theism, and I contend that equating religion and theism is a mistake, because one can have a religion without a theistic God. Classical Buddhism does, and so do many Unitarian Universalists and the humanists who consider themselves to be religious humanists. I think, for example of Hilton Brown in the Palo Alto Humanist Community, who has written an essay in which he says, “Humanism is my religion.” So I adopt the definition of religion given by the Italian philosopher, Carlo Della Casa: “Religion is a total mode of the interpreting and living of life.” Under this definition one can abandon supernaturalism and still be devoted to a way of life that is essentially religious.

Today, with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in view, I propose mending religion in three areas: First, abandon the concept of an immortal soul, separate and distinct from the body; second, abandon faith in an authoritative book: Bible or Koran; third, either abandon or revise the concept of God.

First, soul. The concept of one having an immortal soul that leaves the body at death came into Christianity and Islam from Greek philosophy. It is foreign to biblical Judaism. In the Hebrew scriptures the word, nephesh, is usually translated as soul. Its first occurrence is in Genesis 2:7. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The Hebrew concept is not that a human has a soul but is a soul. Nephesh in Hebrew has in view the whole person, especially one’s appetites, desires, and emotions. For example, in Deuteronomy 14:26, a passage about celebrating the three annual festivals in Jerusalem, celebrants traveling from a distance are advised to convert their tithes of grain, wine, oil, and cattle to money and in the celebration to “bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice … .” In the King James version nephesh is sometimes translated as person, so Joshua 20:3 & 9, dealing with accidental killing, what we call manslaughter, speaks of killing a person (nephesh). Thus for Hebrews a soul was not immortal, it could be killed. In the matter of consciousness after death, Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, “the dead know not anything”; and in Psalm 6:4 & 5 the writer prays, “Return O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies’ sake. For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?”

Not until the time of the Maccabean wars did the Jews develop a concept of life after death; and then it was not through immortality of a soul having left the body, but through resurrection: God reconstituting a person after death. The Jews developed this doctrine, because they felt that a just God would have to reward the heroes who had died defending their religion in war against Syria by bringing them back to life in resurrection. The Greeks, however, thought of life after death as the continuing existence of a disembodied soul. Their concept can be illustrated by the figure of a bird in a cage in which the cage represents a person’s body and the bird is the soul. At death the cage door is opened, the bird flies away, and the cage is discarded. Christianity maintained the new Jewish doctrine of resurrection and combined it with the Platonic concept of a soul that could separate from the body, ending up with the idea that at death one’s soul goes to heaven and is later reunited with a reconstituted body at resurrection: awkward to say the least and clearly contrived by human imagination.

Modern neuroscience sees no basis for consciousness, thought, or feeling apart from one’s brain. There is no evidence for the existence of an immaterial entity such as a soul or spirit. Physicists find no immaterial phenomenon in nature apart from a physical object that has mass. It is true that light waves, radio waves, and x-rays have no mass, but they originate in something with mass, such as the sun, a substance burning, or a transmitter generating waves: no transmitter, no waves. Likewise: no functioning brain, no consciousness, thought, or feeling.

Amending religion by abandoning the concept of an immortal soul produces good results. Among Muslims it would undercut the motive for suicide bombers who think that after death they will go to rewards in heaven. Among Christians, it would enhance the importance of the present life. When life on earth is one’s only life, then that life is supremely important and it behooves one to make the most of it. Furthermore, it eliminates the foolishness of speculation as to when a human embryo is “ensouled.” If stem cells that have no souls are going to be discarded, there is no reason for not using them in research that may produce remedies for physical defects.

Second. I turn to amending religion by abandoning belief in infallible holy books, such as the Bible and the Koran: a reform urgently needed. An infallible book would have no internal contradictions and no errors of historical fact. Is this true of the Bible and the Koran? To find out, we study the texts critically and compare the historical parts of the texts with secular historical records and evidence provided by archaeology. I do not know to what extent the Koran has been analyzed in this way, so I limit my discussion here to the Bible.

Critical study of the Bible text began in the late 18^th century, increased in the 19^th century, and continues today in such investigations as those of the Jesus Seminar. This research shows that the Torah — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the first five books of the Bible — are an edited combination of what were originally four distinct documents, called by scholars J, E, P, and D. Document J is so named, because it usually uses Yahweh (spelled in German with a “J”) for the name of God; document E is so named for usually calling God Elohim; P has stories and instruction dealing primarily with priests and their duties; Deuteronomy was called “D”. They often contradict one another. For example, Genesis has both J and E accounts of creation, inconsistent with one another. Genesis 37 combines the J and E stories of Joseph and his brothers. J calls traders in the story Ishmaelites; E calls them Midianites.

Another kind of contradiction in Hebrew scriptures is a historian contradicted by a prophet. For example, the author of 2 Kings 10:30 reports the LORD commending Jehu for the slaughter of Ahab’s children, but Hosea 1:4 condemns that slaughter.

The Hebrew scriptures show in Israel’s history a developing concept of God. Early Hebrews were not monotheists. They were henotheists. That is, they worshipped one God, Yahweh, without denying the real existence of the gods of other nations. Later prophets, like the Second Isaiah, were monotheists, as reflected in such a passage as Isaiah 45:5: “I am the LORD, and there is no other; beside me there is no god.” A changing concept of God in Israel is also shown by a change in the view of animal sacrifice. Torah commands sacrifice, but Hosea, writing in the eighth century B.C.E., rejects it altogether. He quotes God as saying, “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6). What is the knowledge of God, what is it to know the God of Israel? Hear Jeremiah on this subject as he addresses King Jehoiakim, son of Josiah: “Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? Says the LORD” (Jeremiah 22:15 & 16).

Here is another example of a changing concept of God in Israel’s history. Deuteronomy 28 threatens Israelites with dire consequences if they disobey the LORD’S commandments. Among the punishments will be drought: “The sky over your head shall be bronze, and the earth under you iron. The LORD will change the rain of your land into powder, and only dust shall come down upon you from the sky until you are destroyed” (Deuteronomy 28:23 7 24). But a later Jewish teacher, Jesus, said, “Your Father … makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45).

Evidence from archaeology shows that the story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, wandering in the desert, and conquest of Canaan is legend, not historical fact. The truth is that Israel developed as a nation in the highlands of Canaan, gradually becoming distinct from the people of the lowlands, and eventually controlling the whole country under kings David and Solomon. The Exodus story is evidently made up from a combination of many little Exoduses. Israelites in Canaan would suffer drought. Some would go to Egypt where there was food grown by irrigation from the Nile. The Egyptians, considering them to be free-loaders, would tax them by putting them to forced labor. The Hebrews would then revolt and flee back to Canaan.

The logical conclusion one must draw from the inconsistencies, contradictions, and changing concepts in the Bible is that this library of books, written and edited by a number of authors, is a work of human composition. As such it is subject to error as is every human work. It is not infallible. Some passages are sublime, such as Micah 6:8: “What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Others are abhorrent, such as the command in Deuteronomy 20:16 & 17, “But as for the towns of these people that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them … .”

One must read the Bible in the light of insights provided by science and experience. When the Bible classifies a bat among birds, as in Leviticus 11:13-19, and speaks of unicorns as an existing species, reject it. When it calls for justice, compassion, forgiveness, kindness, and peacemaking, accept it: not because it is an authority but because our experience shows us that justice is better than oppression and exploitation, compassion is better than hard heartedness, forgiveness is better than vengeance, kindness is better than cruelty, peace is better than conflict.

Abandoning faith in any book as an infallible authority is an important step in the search for truth. This step has many advantages and produces good results in human society. It frees people from being bound to false, unscientific notions and an unreliable reporting of history such as

• holding that God created the universe a few thousand years ago
• that homosexuality is evil
• that a second coming of Jesus as Christ will lead to the rule of God on earth, so that humans need not be concerned about environmental degradation
• that God promised Palestine to the Jews, so it is right for them to take over the whole of the area and expel the Palestinians

Third. I pose the question, What about God?

I myself do not believe in a supernatural, supreme being called G-0-D. At the same time, as a member of the non-creedal Unitarian Universalist Association, I do not hold to a creed that necessarily excludes belief in a supreme being among my fellow members of the Association. The commitment we Unitarian Universalists make is to a way of life defined in our Seven Principles, not to a system of dogma that either includes or excludes belief in God. The mending of religion which I advocate, however, does require amending some ancient concepts of God. As I have pointed out, concepts of God changed throughout the history of Israel. Consequently, as I said earlier, these changes indicate to me that the god-concept is a human creation without basis in fact. Nevertheless, for those who cannot give up on believing in a supernatural being distinct from the universe, it is necessary to abandon the ancient concept of a warlike, vengeful, punishing God and to replace it with a concept of God like the God of Jesus:

• compassionate
• forgiving without requiring sacrificial atonement: forgiveness granted to the extent that one is a forgiving person — “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”
• A God who blesses the meek, those who hunger for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers

History shows us people with this kind of God who have helped lead humankind to a more just and humane society: Francis of Assisi; William Wilberforce; and many other theists who worked to abolish slavery; advocates for non-violence in the struggle for justice, like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Nevertheless, I want to add also a point made by Lloyd Geering in his book, Christianity without God, for sale in our bookstore. If your religious ideal is to be loving, kind, compassionate, forgiving, and a peacemaker, then that ideal stands as a symbol of God for you, and you don’t need a supernatural being out there.

Conclusion

Although I think that Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris are right in being atheists, they are wrong on two counts: First, by defining religion as theism they fail to recognize that classical Buddhism is not theistic; many humanists see their commitment to human welfare as religious; humanistic Jews are religious; our UU commitment to a way of life defined by our Seven Principles is religious. Second, they fail to recognize the good being done in the world by theists with an amended concept of God. Mending the religion of theists in the areas I have outlined can enable them to make common cause with humanists, working for a world society of peace, justice, and environmental responsibility. Reformed Jewish congregations, Quakers, and liberal congregations of the United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Church of the Brethren, Reformed Church in America, and others are so involved. In Palo Alto we have an example of cooperation between theists and others in the cause of peace and justice. The Peninsula Peace and Justice Center has its headquarters in a building owned by First Presbyterian Church. First Presbyterian Church and our Unitarian Universalist Church are both hosts to lectures and films sponsored by the PPJC: we are colleagues in a common effort.

In conclusion, I admit that in giving this sermon here I am in effect preaching to the choir. Probably most of you do not believe that you have immortal souls. You certainly do not believe in an infallible book. And all of you are either humanists or hold a benign view of God. I feel like someone preaching on immersion in a Baptist congregation. Nevertheless, I think it is important for us, to reinforce our witness to amended religion, to celebrate the way we have amended religion, and to recognize that increasing our membership strengthens the witness to amended religion.

 

Reflection: Acting on my Faith is a Challenge by Phyllis Cassel