What do I mean by 'Godless Faith', anyway?

Let's try and look at a really fundamental point about what I'm trying to communicate about, and as, in this blog. The phrase is right up there in the title - Godless Faith. I even clarify it in the text 'about me', by saying I'm a non-theist Quaker. I do realise that the meaning of this isn't apparent, and nor is why anyone should care... this rather rambling post might help with the meaning - as for interest, I wouldn't like to say.

Well, firstly, I don't believe in any god or gods. That's what I mean by both 'Godless' and 'non-theist'. The immediate question that comes to mind is "why don't you say atheist?". The answer is a little subtle and a little weird, but it's partly to do with the loaded meanings that come with that term. Atheists don't believe in any god or gods, and that is the major defining characteristic; in fact, they specifically state that they believe there are no such things, or at least that there's no evidence for them (yeah, some believe it on grounds no more clearly reasoned than most religious people, too). I can get on board with that. However, on the same evidence-based grounds, they generally deny anything 'parapsychic' or 'supernatural' as well - nothing wrong with that, I'm just not so comfortable doing so. Many assert, and I believe them, that they would happily change their opinion in the face of evidence. I'd agree with that as well.

My difference comes in on the question of what constitutes evidence. When it affects what I believe, but not what I tell others they should believe (which I tend to avoid), then surely subjective evidence counts. It certainly counts for me. The essential summary is that I feel the evidence of my own experience suggests that there are many things beyond the current understanding, or even measurement, of science. I don't think that should satisfy anyone but me, and I expect science will get along there at some point. Most importantly, if there's evidence that contradicts what I think, I'll happily consider it and alter my view. Ultimately, the outlook isn't too different.

Many people, however, take atheist to mean "there's nothing uncanny/non-physical/whatever", and I don't like avoidable misunderstandings, so I take the alternative non-theist. I don't believe in theistic gods, as the constant interference of such beings would be noticeable. I think deistic gods aren't worth talking about, as they (by definition) wouldn't impact our lives. I think talking about life-after-death is largely pointless, as there's no way to actually gather any evidence, even subjective, about it - until such time as we have people verifiably coming back from the dead and explaining it to us. However, I think there's more to life and existence than obvious physical reality. As to exactly what that is, well, that would take a lot more space...

So that's the godless/non-theist bit taken care of. If you want to understand Quaker, then stay tuned and you'll pick up a lot of bits and bobs, but you can get more right now by going and reading about it. Lots of sources are available, Google and see what you find. Just take care of American sources - most European Quakers are what would be called 'Liberal Quakers' in North American parlance. Given what I've said above, especially my feelings regarding evidence, it seems an apt question to ask what I mean by faith.

That's where the conclusions I've tentatively reached come in, and I cover a bit of the details...

I quickly reached the view, much as the American Founding Fathers' 'self-evident truths', that people are basically equal. That doesn't mean the same, but equal in some horribly-difficult-to-describe way. I'll put effort into that in other posts. I also reached the conclusion that violence is inherently 'wrong' (whatever that means), although it can be the 'least wrong' course in some situations. One of the most difficult things I concluded was that honesty and openness are good things; I concluded this from the basis of the merits of extending knowledge. Ultimately, people can only make choices and understand the choices they make if they know everything they could reasonably know. As with everything else, there are exceptions, but the base should be honesty and openness. My 'faith', and that word isn't ideal, but it suits the attitudes of society, is in those principles.

Really, they are axioms - there is no way they can ever be proved. Perhaps they can be disproved, and new axioms will be needed, but for now those are my axioms. Where a scientist uses axioms to perform reasoning, they are showing faith in those axioms, because otherwise they could have no expectation of the correctness or applicability of their work. Any time that anyone reasons anything, there are axioms - there must always be a starting point for the reasoning. Axioms are always present, and there's nothing wrong with that; it is simply one of the characteristics of science and rationality to be prepared to adjust the axioms of they are shown to be false. One should also distrust axioms that cannot possibly be shown to be false, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. Read some Popper :)

Finding Quakers

By way of a lead-in to more diverse aspects of my journey, I'd like to talk about how I first learned about Quakers, and came to consider myself one.

I actually wasn't consciously aware of having heard of Quaker or the Religious Society of Friends until my first year of university, although I was aware of the cereal brand (which is not a good thing to mention when you meet someone and find out they're a Quaker... maybe I'll explain that at some point). While helping with a particularly bizarre campus protest, some existing friends and myself met another first year that I hadn't been familiar with, and, as people do at university, we all made friends. Quite quickly in the conversations, the young woman mentioned that she was a Quaker - I have absolutely no memory of the context of this, just that it happened. There was some very vague explanation of this, but I think the aspects she chose to explain were mostly chosen for the degree to which they might seem strange to 'normal' people; things like not voting, for instance, though I think she did work in the fact that Christianity is optional and the Bible isn't particularly important. After that, I did understand slightly more when Quakers were mentioned in the media, but I didn't give it terribly much thought for some time - it never seemed to be an apt topic of conversation, although I was curious.

Fast forward two-and-a-half year, to early in fourth year, and I meet another young woman who was a Quaker. I had had some conversations with her in the context of some student societies we were both involved in, but religion had never come up. I should explain that I have always been curious about religions and love to learn about them, and had done various things towards that over the intervening years. At the Writers' Guild Christmas meal, I was sat across from the woman in question, when conversation turned to religion (I assume - my memory of it isn't hugely clear), and she mentioned that she was a Quaker. I expressed interest, and over the conversation and a few others we talked about it more. By the end of the year, I was going out with her, and then learned a lot more, going to my first Quaker event that summer - a Summer Gathering/Work Camp at the Young Friends Centre at Pardshaw, near Cockermouth (the latter being in the Lake District), and learned some more there. I still considered myself just curious, although I had realised that my own personal beliefs were compatible with Quaker teachings.

A month or two later, I went with my girlfriend to a wedding of an old school-friend of hers -- a Quaker wedding. I talked to various old friends of hers there, including one who was interested in the fact that I wasn't a Quaker, but was curious. On explaining my own personal views, she pronounced that I was a Quaker, I just didn't know it yet. Perhaps she was right.

From then on it's quite run-of-the-mill - I went to Young Friends' General Meeting as an Enquirer the following February. I should note that every February, YFGM holds an Enquirer's Gathering alongside the main meeting, the term Enquirer used among Quakers to refer to those who are interested in learning about Quaker teachings, traditions, practices and so on, particularly those who are willing to learn by doing. by later that year, I considered myself a Quaker. For those who know (and care) about these things, I have not yet sought Membership; this was originally because I wasn't confident about remaining in one area, and Membership is held by Area Meeting. Now it's because I don't have time to be involved in local matters as well as national Young Friends stuff, and as Membership is held by Area Meetings, it's meant to imply a willingness to take on some of the work of the Meeting.

Oh, and the Quaker I talked to at the Christmas meal, and then started dating? I'm still with her, and we intend to marry when we get around to it.

An Introduction

So, here I go trying to start my own blog. I've chosen as my main topic something I wish was talked about more - not being a non-theistic Quaker per se, but the idea of non-theistic religion. I would describe myself as religious, but not in a way that matches what most people associate with religion: I have no belief in an afterlife, no divine authority I defer to, and no concept of sin. I do not pray, having no target for those prayers or any belief that would support the idea of prayer.

Instead, there are principles that I have come to believe. Some of the language of this comes from traditional theistic religious discourse, but the meanings are not quite the same. I'm not entirely sceptical in my approach to these matters - there is no base of evidence to support what I believe beyond my own experience. I would, however, assert that my own experience is perfectly good evidence for me to go on, my claims being not so extraordinary; I would also point out that I don't seek to convince anyone else of my views. I share them in case they're of interest, in case anyone else shares them, or in case they turn out to be useful to someone else. Don't get me wrong, I'd be pretty happy if anyone becomes convinced of a similar view to mine, but it's not a goal I'm aiming for. A goal I hope to meet, if it's possible, is to find those who have compatible views, even if they don't realise it, and allow us to explore ideas together.

While I'm doing all that, however, don't be surprised if I talk about things that bother me, or current affairs, including Quaker matters. I also get het up about disability issues, gender issues, all sorts of social issues, really. Politics, science, games... well, we'll see what I feel like talking about.