"James Hacker : Humphrey, what's a Modernist in the Church of England?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Ah, well, the word "Modernist" is code for non-believer.
James Hacker : You mean an atheist?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : No, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn't continue to draw his stipend. So, when they stop believing in God, they call themselves "Modernists".
James Hacker : How could the Church of England suggest an atheist as Bishop of Bury St Edmunds?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Well, very easily. The Church of England is primarily a social organization, not a religious one.
James Hacker : Is it?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Oh yes. It's part of the rich social fabric of this country. So bishops need to be the sorts of chaps who speak properly and know which knife and fork to use. The sort of people one can look up to."
If the position is anything like the chaplains I met in the military, being an atheist won't be an issue. They were pretty much counselors that were available for anyone who needed somebody outside the chain of command to talk to, and they did things like organize couple's retreats. I think the only time I ever heard them mention anything that was directly religious was during traditional ceremonies where they would lead a prayer at the beginning.
His job includes community building and informal discussions of morality and "our place in the universe", which is a bit beyond the scope of typical counseling. And people feel a need for that independently of whether they believe in god(s).
I can not speak about him specifically, but most people that call themselves atheist in this setting mean "agnostic atheists", i.e. "of course I can not prove there is no god, but I do not see the point of god, so let's focus on morality from within". A gross simplification, of course, but hopefully it clarifies what I think is just a semantic misunderstanding.
Where 6 would be the scientific stance for most atheists imo.
>6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Depending on the definition of “God”, I might me an atheist to agnostic to religious.
Old white loving fatherly figure watching me 24/7 in order to punish me if I don’t obey the orders of some cult? Probably not.
The sum of all laws of physics, known and unknown, along with all causation chains from the beginning off time, in all directions and interpretations of “time”, in all dimensions etc.? Count me in, I do see the sacredness of it all, in a completely impersonal way.
Why would you need to be religious (much less believe in capital-g god) to answer questions about morality or our place? These are basic questions answered by a variety of secular philosophies.
To be fair, there are religious atheists, though often not Christian. There are (neo)-pagans, Buddhists, and minority religious group members (various indigenous religions, The Satanic Temple, among others) that often describe themselves as "atheistic" or "non-theistic."
I think you missed the point of the response above the divider. It was "what if we use the same logic in circumstances that makes it more obvious that this would be silly". It was definitely not meant literally. Maybe quotes would have helped.
And to be clear, it definitely isn't meant literally - I'd apply the same logic to above poster: He's welcome to post here because he wants to and the community allows it.
I am not affiliated with a religion at all and I think that is a very good question that he asks. Just seems like more woke nonsense and Harvard turning its nose up at society.
The role of a chaplain is very different than a typical clergyman.
I think a better question might be why you, and the above poster, think you're making a better determination about where this person can serve his community then he himself can make?
Full disclosure - I'm not religious either, but I do have family members serving as chaplains at universities.
I went to a Christian highschool, and they accidently hired an atheist science teacher. It was from before my time there, but according to another teacher, apparently no one noticed for a while, the science teacher would just have students lead the prayers when appropriate.
As long as the person is respectful and open-minded, I don't think it's a problem. What difference is it to a Hindu if the Chaplain was Christian or an atheist; the Hindu wouldn't share beliefs with either?
> What difference is it to a Hindu if the Chaplain was Christian or an atheist
None, but is the Chaplain there for the benefit of the Hindu students?
Also, while there's not so much difference to a Hindu between a Christian and an atheist, the Hindu might well be more comfortable with a Chaplain who did not deny the existence of Hindu gods.
Sorry, i don't understand your last point. Wouldn't a christian (Chaplain or not) deny the existence of hindu gods?
I mean, when i was a christian kid, i did not believe at all in 99.99% of all gods and thought people of other religions (and especially polytheists) were dumb not to believe like me. I decided later to round it up and that believing in something is OK and not a intelligence marker, just a cultural one.
[edit] Btw i agree with you, the chaplain (if i translate this word correctly) should be christian and shouldn't take care of non-christian people (unless chaplain in the US is a non-religious role, in this case i stand corrected).
> Sorry, i don't understand your last point. Wouldn't a christian (Chaplain or not) deny the existence of hindu gods?
Yes, that is my last point. If you're worried about whether the Chaplain offends the Hindu students, a Christian and an atheist are both bad choices. From a world perspective, Christians are militant atheists. The Hindus would be less offended by e.g. a Wiccan.
It’s interesting that atheism still has such a stigma. It’s still inconceivable that an atheist can become US president. It seems women may get there at some point but I don’t think an openly atheist candidate will make it anytime soon.
Even in personal conversations you get an awkward silence when you directly say you are an atheist. Better to waffle around and say you are “spiritual” or “agnostic”
Eh, it depends on where you are. Plenty of communities in the US where strongly held religious views will be looked down on. At the national election level it has to do with who votes (skewed towards older people who tend to have different views on religion).
Why does a university need multiple religious people, let alone a chief chaplain? As someone who studied in France, that concept seems extremely alien to me ( to be fair the separation between church and education was forced here a century ago).
Is that a common thing in American universities / colleges?
I think it's common among universities that have a divinity school or an explicit religious alignment. Harvard has a divinity school and an unusual history tying back to the theocratic Massachusetts Bay Colony. The governing entity "President and Fellows of Harvard College" is actually written into the Massachusetts Constitution as holding its rights and powers in perpetuity, with one of the justifications for its existence being "the advantage of the Christian religion" [1]. That being said, the Harvard Chaplains organization hasn't been exclusively Christian for a long time.
This is actually really common, especially among the schools run by the more liberal Roman Catholic orders.
Plenty of people wash out in seminary and get completely disillusioned with the religion. Since the people who make it through generally go into the priesthood, this leaves the washouts as the most qualified to teach (comparative) religious studies and run campus religious services. The last thing most of them need to do to land a position is get qualifications required for counselors in their state, which is usually relatively simple.
This is basically a fluff piece about a piece of non-news. Some alumni who actually know what’s going on wrote a newsletter explaining what the real deal is here: https://harvardchristianalumni.org/activities/
This newsletter was really weird to read for me. I think I am facing some cultural differences and preconceptions of mine that make it difficult for me to understand the message they are trying to convey. To me it all read as "we are unruffled, but let us write two pages of unrelated stats so we can butt in a conversation that is not about us, as that would obviously show how totally unruffled we are". That community is obviously defensive and somewhat annoyed about it, while also being worried about presenting visible annoyance. I do lack the context to understand why.
This really raises the question, what is the role of a chaplain anymore?
At a school tolerant of religious diversity, I don't imagine a Christian chaplain would be of much help for explicitly religious matters for a Muslim student. Nor even would a Catholic chaplain be of much help to a Mormon on explicitly religious issues.
Part of me thinks this position is a bit of an anachronism in the current day. However I do know that chaplains provide a lot of value as councilors and "life guides" on a host of topics including moral ones for military members. And it often doesn't matter the religious beliefs of the chaplain in that context, they are often simply someone outside the chain-of-command who is credible on moral issues who is not obligated to report the things you tell them (e.g. suicidal thoughts, being a victim of sexual assault, etc.)
Are you saying that Harvard itself is a crown of decadence, or are you trying to deride the election of a humanist as the head of their council of progressive chaplains?
That's not really what most atheists are in practice. I just live my life without ever even thinking about religion, except when someone tries to use theirs to take my right to marry away. It does not factor into my daily life at all. Literally life without theism.
You might call that agnostic, but in my mind that's just a euphemism for atheist.
No: us atheists say - "there is no independent, testable evidence of any gods."
Further to your point: we also say there is no evidence for the tooth fairy. My daughter truly believes in the tooth fairy. My position vis a vis the fairy is not "exactly like her belief, but the opposite."
That's basically what I had thought (I'm the grandparent poster), and I had included a definition in my post to try and make it clear what I meant.
As a sibling post pointed out
> This only applies to gnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist like me admits to not knowing if $DEITY exists but does not believe in the absence of compelling evidence.
So it seems like there are different flavors of atheist.
But you can also see the other person that answered my post with a rant about how god doesn't exist and science won. This vocal kind of atheist is what I was calling "religious"
Just because something is unanswerable does not mean that your can't make good predictions. I am not 100% sure that there isn't a tiger under my bed. But I am sure enough.
I can be 99.9% sure that God doesn't exist and that is enough. And even if the 0.01% is true I have no reason to believe that religious doctrine would have useful expertise on the nature of God.
Religion was a good explanation for people living 2000 years ago. People didn't just have "faith" they knew that God had a profound impact on their day to day lives. Slowly but surely science has provided better explanations for all the big questions. Until all religion has left are things that cant be proven to be false. Science won.
This only applies to gnostic atheism. An agnostic atheist like me admits to not knowing if $DEITY exists but does not believe in the absence of compelling evidence.
I don't really have any substantive comment here, other than to simply express that I think that this is cool and it's super cool that the Earth has progressed to the point where things like this can happen.
TFA says that the decision to place this guy was unanimous, which bodes well for the future.
Isn't it rather an indication that our religious impulses have moved onto different topics / domains, where sufficient fervor is still a required qualification for office?
I'm sure that depends on whether you believe religious impulse is a fixed and constant feature of the human psyche that requires some outlet, or whether you believe it is variable based on some set of environmental factors.
To give an example of how this could manifest: it could be that religious impulse scales with material uncertainty and is also passed down in the family environment. Under a construction like this, you would expect religious impulse to begin fading among families where there is a certainty of sufficient food and shelter, with the fade occurring over the course of multiple generations. I'm not saying this specifically is the case, just proposing one mechanism that is broadly consistent with the shape of history.
I think that a lot of people feel the need for moral certainty in their lives, and that some of them aren't satisfied with personal models thereof and want to extend them to the entire society, perhaps minus some loathed outgroup that plays the role of the Devil.
I'm not woke. I haven't lost my job, been deplatformed, or been branded a "MAGAT". But I tend to not frequent platforms popular with the Elect, I never give out my real name or current employer, and I refuse to talk politics with the Elect. When possible I block them on sight as I do alt-reich cultists. Nor do I get involved with DEI initiatives at work, even if only to oppose them. I just refuse to care, and my silence is ultraviolence.
Underground is where the interesting stuff happens, and I don't see myself as persecuted so I care little for the comparison. Don't mistake me for one sympathetic to your cause. I despise authoritarians of all kinds, left, right, and center.
