Dan Harper | Sermons

  • “WWWD”

    Sermon copyright (c) 2025 Dan Harper. As delivered to First Parish in Cohasset. The sermon as delivered contained substantial improvisation. The text below has typographical errors, missing words, etc.

    Readings

    The first reading was from The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell:

    “Scientific technique requires the co-operation of a large number of individuals organized under a single direction. Its tendency, therefore, is against anarchism and even individualism, since it demands a well-knit social structure. Unlike religion, it is ethically neutral: it assures us that we can perform wonders, but does not tell us what wonders to perform. In this way it is incomplete. In practice, the purposes to which scientific skill will be devoted depend largely on chance. The men at the head of the vast organizations which it necessitates can, within limits, turn it this way or that as they please. The power impulse thuswahas a scope which it never had before. The philosophies that have been inspired by scientific technique [as opposed to scientific theory] are power philosophies…. Ends are no longer considered; only the skilfulness of the process is valued. This is a form of madness. It is, in our day, the most dangerous form [of madness].”

    The second reading is “Eagle Poem” by Joy Harjo.

    Sermon: “WWWD”

    When I start to think about ethical issues raised by immigration, my thoughts often turn to the earliest immigrants to southeastern Massachusetts, the Pilgrims, and how they were received by the Wampanaog Indians. That’s where the title of this sermon comes from: “WWWD” stands for “What Would the Wampanoags Do?” And I ask that question, not because I think the Wampanoags are some kind of special moral and ethical exemplars, but because the Wampanoags had to confront the challenging question of what to do when your society is faced by a wave of immigration. Looking past the myths that have grown up around the Pilgrims and the Wampanoags, it seems to me that in 1620, the Wampanoags dealt with the Pilgrims with a salutary mixture of common sense and compromise. And I think their actions offer an interesting insight into immigration.

    The story of the Wampanoags is often told like this: The Pilgrims show up in the middle of winter. That first winter, the Wampanoags kindly share food with them so they don’t all starve. In the spring, the Wampanoags show the Pilgrims how to grow corn. Then in the autumn, the Pilgrims and the Wampanoags sit down together for the first Thanksgiving dinner.

    But that’s an oversimplified version of the story. The real story was a lot more complex. For one thing, the real story began well before 1620. Europeans had been landing on the coast of southeastern New England for a century or more before the Pilgrims arrived. Some of those first Europeans were decent people who treated the Wampanoags well. Others engaged in random acts of violence, like the Englishman who abducted a young Wampanoag named Tisquantum and sold him into slavery in Spain; Tisquantum eventually made it back to his homeland and became known to the Pilgrims as Squanto. So when the Pilgrims arrived in 1620, the Wampanoags had good reason to distrust them, and even treat them as potential adversaries. Why then did the Wampanoags treat the Pilgrims as well as they did?

    Partly, it boils down to politics. Prior to 1619, the Wampanoag had been decimated by an epidemic — literally decimated, since in some areas 10% of the population survived the unknown disease.(3) As a result of their greatly reduced population, the Wampanoag grew worried about the military threat posed by their historical antagonists, the Narragansetts, who lived just to the west and who did not experience the same epidemic. From Tisquantum’s personal knowledge, and from other sources, the Wampanoags knew about the Europeans’ impressive military capabilities. Thus it may have made political sense for the Wampanoag to try to build a military alliance with the Europeans.(4) Even though the Wampanoags knew first-hand of the dangers posed by Europeans, the benefits of a military alliance seem to have have outweighed those dangers.

    But while politics were clearly involved, there was also an ethical side to the Wampanoag actions: they helped the Pilgrims because it was the right thing to do. This is a perfect example of what we New Englanders call “enlightened self-interest.” We take care of our self-interest, but we do it in such a way that we take into account the needs and concerns of other people. New Englanders talk about “doing well by doing good”: that’s enlightened self-interest. When New England small business owners pay their employees a decent wage, partly because it’s the right thing to do, but it’s also self-interest because their employees are potential customers: this again is enlightened self-interest. Indeed, sometimes I wonder if the New England concept of enlightened self-interest has its roots in the way the Wampanoags treated the Pilgrims.

    While enlightened self-interest still exists here in New England, another pattern of behavior is also widespread. Today, our world is dominated by what Bertrand Russell calls “scientific technique,” or technical science as opposed to theoretical science. (This is what we heard about in the first reading this morning.) A society based on “scientific technique” — that is, on technology — requires large numbers of human beings cooperating together under the direction of a single authority. Both capitalism and communism arise from this same principle, the difference being that in capitalism, the coordination of a large group is mostly under the authority of the handful of persons who run large corporations; while in communism, the coordination of large groups is entirely under the authority of the handful of persons who control the Communist Party. These large groups, whether corporations or communists, are ethically neutral, which means that the handful of people in charge of these vast organizations can direct them to whatever ends they please. As a result, said Bertrand Russell, “The power impulse thus has a scope which it never had before.” To this he adds: “Ends are no longer considered; only the skilfulness of the process is valued. This is a form of madness.”(5)

    Russell wrote these words in 1943, while the Second World War was going on. Clearly he had the madness of fascism in mind while he was writing. But he was also aware of the dangers of the power impulse inherent in any society dominated by complex technology, because there are no widely-accepted ethical guidelines to determine societal goals.

    In today’s American society, quite a few people actually agree with Bertrand Russell that we lack ethical guidelines. Because of this, many right-wing Christians genuinely believe that they need to inject their own ethical principles into American society. I happen to disagree with the ethical principles of right-wing Christianity, and I have no use for those who use right-wing Christianity as a cover for naked grabs at power — but I respect the desire of the genuinely ethical right-wing Christians to attempt to articulate ethical principles which they sincerely believe would help direct the goals of our society. I can also respect the secular progressives who sincerely champion diversity, equity, and inclusion policies based on their ethical grounding in natural law and human rights. Again, I have no use for anyone who uses DEI as a way to grab power for themselves — but I respect the desire of the genuinely ethical political progressives to try to articulate ethical principles which they sincerely believe could help direct the goals of our society.

    Neither the right-wing Christians nor the proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion have been able to convince a majority of Americans that their ethical framework should be central to our society. Nor has anyone else been able to propose an ethical framework that attracts broad-based support. This has left us vulnerable to persons with no firm ethical principles, who seek power simply for the sake of seeking power.

    In the middle of the last century, we did arrive at a consensus for an ethical framework. This framework was our ethical commitment to democracy, which included individual rights, the rule of law, and checks and balances in government. All this was derived from the political philosophy of John Locke, a political philosopher who inspired the founders of the United States. But the polarization of the United States in the past half century means we no longer have such a consensus, and so we have descended into an era of power politics.

    Contrast this with the situation in the days of the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims. Both Wampanoag society and Pilgrim society were founded on solid ethical principles. Four centuries on, it’s difficult to put ourselves in the worldview of either the Pilgrims or the Wampanoags. But it appears that the Wampanoag had a strong ethic based on kinship and community; and the concept of kinship probably extended beyond humans to non-human beings.(6) As for the Pilgrims, they believed in subordination: the subordination of the ordinary man to the magistrate, the subordination of woman to man, the subordination of child to father, and above all subordination of man to God.(7) While the ethical principles of the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag had radical differences, nevertheless both groups felt the importance of connection between individual and family and community, and between individuals and the transcendent. Thus Pilgrims and Wampanoag had enough common ground in their ethics to be able to establish relations that remained mostly peaceful for four decades. Of course there were conflicts, sometimes violent ones. But for a long time, both groups managed to hold on to their higher ethical commitments. Forty years of peace is no small achievement.

    That was in the early 1600s. Now let’s return to the year 2025. The United States is now a technological society requiring the cooperation of large groups of people under the single direction of a very small number of persons. As the mid-twentieth century ethic of individual rights, the rule of law, and checks and balances has eroded, the power impulse has come to dominate our politics. Fewer and fewer political leaders or corporate leaders practice enlightened self-interest any more; fewer and fewer of our leaders have genuine ethical commitments.

    The lack of ethical commitment leads to a unfortunate result. Our political system is based on the political theories of John Locke. One of the flaws in Locke’s political philosophy is that in certain disputes, there is no good way to judge between the two sides of the dispute, with the result that in these cases decisions can only be made by fighting it out. In noting this weakness in Locke’s system, Bertrand Russell pointed out: “Where such a view is embodied in the Constitution, the only way to avoid occasional civil war is to practise compromise and common sense. But compromise and common sense are habits of the mind, and cannot be embodied in a written constitution.”(7)

    This helps explain what has been going on with immigration policy over the past few decades. Too many of our elected officials have lost the habits of mind of compromise and common sense. The inability to compromise, even when common sense indicates the necessity, is characteristic of power politics. This is not good for anyone.

    How can we return to the habits of compromise and common sense? How can we get back to enlightened self-interest? I found one possible answer coming from a source I had not expected. In his book “White Poverty,” published last year, William J. Barber suggests that confronting White poverty could help Americans of all political persuasions to work together.

    This makes sense to me because I’ve long felt that the most important problem facing America today is the problem of poverty. In 2018, the Federal Reserve — a body that tries to remain non-partisan — issued a report stating that “Four in 10 adults, if faced with an unexpected expense of $400, would either not be able to cover it or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money.”(8) Given what I’ve seen over my years as a minister, this sounds about right. And from what I’ve seen, poverty cuts across racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, whether you’re able-bodied, and so on. Even here in Cohasset, despite our picture-postcard-perfect image, too many households are just one medical emergency away from economic disaster. Nor has either political party been able to make much of an impact on poverty. From what I’ve seen as a minister, both the Democrats and the Republicans need to acknowledge that they have not done enough to address the fact that too many people live so close to economic disaster.

    So Barber’s book caught my attention because of his focus on poverty. In addition, Barber is a Black man, yet he says we must deal with White poverty. This shows his common sense, because he’s trying to get past polarization and divisiveness by focusing on an issue where he believes people of all political persuasions can find common cause. This also shows his willingness to compromise, because even though he’s Black he’s willing to focus on White poverty, knowing that if we address White poverty, we will have to address all poverty.(9)

    While it may seem as though I’ve diverged from the topic of immigration, I haven’t. Think about it this way. Four in ten Americans could not cover an emergency expense of $400. One in four Americans skipped necessary medical care in 2017 because they felt they couldn’t afford it. Three out of five non-retired adults say their retirement savings are on track.(10) It is true that compared to the developing world, we Americans have a very comfortable lifestyle; nevertheless, a great many of us do not feel economically secure. If you do not feel economically secure, it would not be surprising if you wondered whether immigrants were going to have an impact on your economic well-being.

    In other words, perhaps we can begin to address the immigration crisis by invoking enlightened self-interest. The “enlightened” part of “enlightened self-interest” recognizes that we do have some degree of ethical responsibility for people from elsewhere in the world who show up on our doorstep. The “self-interest” part of “enlightened self-interest” makes sure that we ourselves get taken care of, and also that we’re taking care of people already in America; this includes attending to already existing poverty in this country.

    What would the Wampanoags do? Back in 1620, they followed enlightened self-interest. They were enlightened when they extended a helping hand to the strangers who showed up in their land without invitation. This was also an act of self-interest, since these newcomers were potential allies and supporters. And as is always the case with enlightened self-interest, the Wampanoag used both compromise and by common sense to achieve their ends.

    As for those of us sitting here in the Meetinghouse, I think we can set an example of enlightened self-interest for others; and we can exemplify the habits of compromise and common sense that go along with it. How can we do this? I’ve heard from quite a few of you that you make a real effort to listen respectfully to those with differing political opinions. This is an example of enlightened self-interest; these days, no one wants to listen to opposing political viewpoints, but it is in our self-interest to do so; for by doing so, we set an example of how to restore democracy. This is a small example, but it is something that one person can accomplish by themselves.

    Beyond that, common sense indicates that it makes sense to find some issue that people of many different political affiliations can work on together. Perhaps that issue could be White poverty, although I’m open to compromise and willing to listen to other common sense ideas. However, I would point out that our congregation is already addressing White poverty. The South Shore where we live is roughly 95% White, and we are staunch supporters of anti-poverty initiatives such as the Cohasset Food Pantry, Habitat for Humanity, and the new Cohasset Community Aid Fund. It is true that addressing White poverty doesn’t directly address the issue of immigration. But it does address the underlying issue of needing to strengthen our democracy.

    And with that in mind, I’ll close with a short common sense poem by Unitarian minister Everett Edward Hale:

    I am only one
    But still I am one.
    I cannot do everything,
    But still I can do something,
    And because I cannot do everything
    I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.

    Notes

    (3) Scholars still debate what the disease was. For the most recent hypothesis, see J. S. Marr and J. T. Cathey, “New Hypothesis for Cause of Epidemic among Native Americans, New England, 1616–1619,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 16, no. 2, 2016, pp. 281–286 — this paper reviews some of the earlier hypotheses, and concludes, “The causes of most historical epidemics may never be proven.”
    (4) Many of the historical facts come from Kathleen J. Bragdon, Native People of Southern New England, 1650–1775 (University of Oklahoma, Press, 1996). However, the interpretation of the historical record is mine.
    (5) Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, Simon & Schuster, 1945/1972.
    (6) Bragdon, chapter 6, “Kinship as Ideology.”
    (7) For a good discussion of this worldview, see Mary Beth Norton, Founding Mothers and Fathers: Gendered Power and the Forming of American Society (Knopf Doubleday, 1997). Norton cites the political philosophy of Sir Robert Filmer as exemplifying this, which she calls a “Filmerian” worldview. (Filmer was one of the thinkers against whom John Locke was arguing.)
    (8) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017 (Washington, DC, Federal Reserve Board), p. 2.
    (9) For an overview of Barber’s argument, see chapter one in William J. Barber II with Jonathan Wilson-Hargrove, White Poverty: How Exposing the Myths about Race and Class Can Reconstruct American Democracy (W. W. Norton, 2024).
    (10) Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, pp. 2-3.

  • Religion and Public Education

    Sermon copyright (c) 2025 Dan Harper. As delivered to First Parish in Cohasset. The sermon as delivered contained substantial improvisation. The text below has typographical errors, missing words, etc.

    Readings

    The first reading was the poem “Theme for English B” by Langston Hughes.

    The second reading was from the essay “The Need of an Industrial Education in an Industrial Democracy” by John Dewey:

    “It is no accident that all democracies have put a high estimate upon education; that schooling has been their first care and enduring charge. Only through education can equality of opportunity be anything more than a phrase. Accidental inequalities of birth, wealth, and learning are always tending to restrict the opportunities of some as compared with those of others. Only free and continued education can counteract those forces which are always at work to restore, in however changed a form, feudal oligarchy. Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.” [John Dewey, Manual Training and Vocational Education (1916)]

    Sermon: “Religion and Public Education”

    Unitarian Universalism has a long history of being concerned with public education. This begins at least as far back as the work of Horace Mann, a Unitarian who served as Secretary of Education in Massachusetts in the mid-nineteenth century, and did more than anyone to establish the idea of universal, free, non-sectarian public schools as the norm in the United States. Our own congregation was also deeply involved in public education in the mid-nineteenth century; we allowed our then-minister, Joseph Osgood, to serve as the superintendent of the town’s schools while he was serving as minister. Osgood worked tirelessly at the local level for the same goal of universal, free, non-sectarian schools.

    The involvement of Unitarians, and to a lesser extent Universalists, in public education continued through the late twentieth century. Many Unitarians became teachers; many Unitarians served on their local school boards; and Unitarians also advocated tirelessly for universal, free, non-sectarian public education at the national and state levels. Our reasons for doing so are fairly straightforward. We Unitarian Universalists believe that public schools are essential for a strong democracy; and we believe in democracy as the governmental system best designed to help us establish a society oriented towards truth and goodness. We are well aware that both democracy and public education are imperfect vehicles for helping to establish a society devoted to truth and goodness. Both democracy and public education can be diverted away from truth and goodness, towards lesser goals like personal gain and power politics. But, to paraphrase the old saying, so far they’re better than any other system anyone has come up with. And public education is essential to democracy because an informed electorate is essential to democracy.

    Besides, we Unitarian Universalists are idealists, in the sense that we believe in the perfectibility of humanity. As the Unitarian minister Theodore Parker said, and as Martin Luther King, Jr., later paraphrased, the moral arc of the universe may be long, but it bends towards justice. Thus the reasons why we Unitarian Universalists support public education are fairly straightforward. I’d like to review with you some of our past support for public education, and then I’d like to talk about why we should recommit ourselves to public education.

    And by looking back at education in Cohasset, we can see how far we’ve come. Prior to about 1830, those who wanted their children to have more than basic literacy had to pay for their children’s schooling. Younger children paid to attend “dame schools,” often taught by a widow who needed income. For young teens who wanted the equivalent of a high school education, Jacob Flint, minister at First Parish until 1835 and one of the few people in town with a college education, would prepare students for college for a fee. There was also the Academy, a private school organized in 1796 by well-to-do parents who wanted to prepare their children for college. Cohasset finally established a public high school in 1826. At first, the town’s high school was so poorly funded that it shared a teacher with the Academy, and only operated when the Academy was not in session.

    Cohasset finally established a school board in 1830, and that committee slowly improved the town’s public education offerings. By 1840, the “dame schools” had mostly given way to publicly funded primary education. It took longer to establish a year-round high school; it wasn’t until 1847 that the town finally provided funding to keep high school open for all year.

    When our congregation hired Joseph Osgood as our minister in 1842, we specifically chose him because he had a background in education. According to town historian Victor Bigelow, Joseph Osgood brought about “uniform teaching and systematic promotion in our schools.” Osgood established graded classrooms and regular oversight of teachers. To support his efforts, Osgood could point to the work of Horace Mann. To train teachers, Mann had founded three so-called “normal schools” across the state; one of these normal schools was in Bridgewater (now Bridgewater State University). Mann also published “The Common School Journal,” a periodical filled with practical advice and best practices. No doubt Joseph Osgood read “The Common School Journal,” and (when he could) hired his teacher from the Bridgewater normal school.

    Of special interest to us today, given what’s going on in public education elsewhere in the United States, is that both Osgood and Mann believed that publicly funded education should be non-sectarian. This did not mean that Horace Mannn believed that religion should be excluded from the public schools; it only meant that no one denomination or sect should have control over what was taught. In 1848, Mann wrote: “our system earnestly inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals based on religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible; and, in receiving the Bible, it allows it to do what it is allowed to do in no other system — to speak for itself. But here it stops, not because it claims to have compassed all truth; but because it disclaims to act as an umpire between hostile religious opinions.”(1)

    I think Mann was wrong in saying that public schools should be founded on Christian morals. In his own day, there were Jews and freethinkers in Massachusetts who did not wish to have their children inculcated with Christian morals. Even among the Christians of Massachusetts, it proved impossible to find common ground. Roman Catholics felt that Massachusetts public schools taught Protestant Christianity, with the result that they established Catholic parochial schools to provide appropriate schooling for their children; indeed, Catholics sometimes referred to public schools as “Protestant parochial schools.”

    Yet although I don’t agree with everything that was done by the mid-nineteenth century educational reformers, people like Horace Mann and Joseph Osgood, I give them credit for greatly extending the reach of free public schools. Here in Cohasset, Joseph Osgood provided leadership to extend the school year, and to open the schools to as many children as possible. Over time, other educational reformers worked to further extend the reach of the public schools, and to further reform the content of public schooling.

    One of those reformers was one of my personal heroes, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. A Unitarian and a teacher, Peabody became interested in the education of young children. She traveled to Europe to learn about a new educational approach called kindergarten. Peabody and other educators helped to establish kindergarten as an accepted part of the public school system, extending free schooling down to five-year-olds.

    One of the people Elizabeth Palmer Peabody trained was Lucy Wheelock, who went on to found Wheelock College. My mother got her teacher training at Wheelock College while Lucy Wheelock was still active, and thus had a direct connection to Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. My mother was both a career schoolteacher and a lifelong Unitarian, and I’d like to use my mother’s example to talk about the connection between mid-twentieth century Unitarians and public education.

    Unitarianism in the mid-twentieth century was deeply influenced by the Progressive movement. Please note that what was meant by “Progressive” back then is not what is meant by the adjective “progressive” today. The Progressives of that time (spelled with a capital “P”) wanted to reform human society: they believed in the essential goodness of human beings; they believed in the capacity of human beings to progressively establish a more just and humane society; they believed in the power of reason; they believed in democracy. They differed from today’s progressives (spelled with no capital “P”) in that the older Progressives founded their Progressivism in their liberal religious outlook; by contrast many of today’s progressives either have no religious outlook, or they try to divorce their religious outlook from their politics. I’d even say that the earlier Progressivism was not so much a political movement as it was a religious movement.

    The wars and economic disasters of the mid-twentieth century caused many people to abandon Progressivism, to abandon their hope for progressively establishing a more humane and just human society. These other people turned to a grim view of humanity, and a grim view of human society; we can see some of this grimmer outlook in today’s political progressives.

    But we Unitarians and the Universalists, and some other liberal religious groups, held on to our belief that human beings are basically good. We held on to our belief that human society can be improved through human effort. My mother was one of that generation of mid-twentieth century Unitarians who believed we could make the world better. Like so many Unitarians of her generation, she and her twin sister both trained to become teachers. This was a classic strategy of Progressivism: to reform the world through education. With their sunny view of human nature, my mother and her twin were drawn to John Dewey’s educational philosophy. Dewey said that it was through public education that we could establish a truly democratic society. Dewey taught that “only free and continued education can counteract those forces which are always at work to restore, in however changed a form, feudal oligarchy.”

    My mother’s idealism was quickly tested. She got her first job right after the Second World War ended, teaching kindergarten in the public schools in Fort Ticonderoga, New York. In 1946, Fort Ticonderoga was a backwater. At the end of her first year of teaching, the school principal told her that if she wanted to continue teaching in Fort Ticonderoga, she would have to begin to use corporal punishment. This went against my mother’s belief in progressive education. She found another job.

    She wound up teaching in the Wilmington, Delaware, public schools when those schools were being desegregated. Once while she was walking down the street with her class, some men drove by and shouted racial slurs because she, a White woman, was holding the hand of a Black kindergartener.(2) The Progressive Unitarian teachers of the mid-twentieth century believed, with John Dewey, that “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.” In the 1950s and 1960s, the crisis in democracy centered on racial segregation; and educators and education were the midwives to a very messy birth of equal access to the public schools, all in service of strengthening democracy.

    Today, seventy-five years later, we face a different educational crisis, and we Unitarian Universalists are still trying to figure out how to respond. The current presidential administration is in the news this week with their efforts to dissolve the U.S. Department of Education. While this act grabbed the headlines, it’s actually just one event in a longer history of efforts to privatize education. These efforts can be traced in part back to the work of the influential economist Milton Friedman. In 1955, about the time when thugs were shouting racial epithets at my mother, Milton Friedman wrote an essay titled “The Role of Government in Education,” in which he advocated for what he called school choice, based on a voucher system. School choice has been widely adopted both by both political and religious conservatives, and by political and religious liberals. Friedman’s ideas for school choice are rooted in his notion that economic freedom is the crucial freedom that a democracy needs to flourish.

    We are in the process of discovering some of the downsides to school choice as promoted by Milton Friedman. School choice policies have encouraged for-profit companies to get involved in education. In theory, this is not a bad thing, but it has led to a definite tendency to establish financial profit as the most important goal of a school, rather than education. School choice also means that one city can see separate schools reflecting the values of a small group of families rather than the wider community. In theory, this is not a bad thing, and indeed Unitarian Universalists have used school choice to establish charter schools that reflect their ideals and values. But this goes against the notion that public schools are where we can learn to live with people who are different from us, an essential skill in a democracy.

    At the same time, school choice could be a useful tool for promoting educational reform, because it allows for the testing of innovative ideas. If school vouchers existed in the day of Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, perhaps she might have established a charter school to demonstrate that kindergartens really do benefit young children. Similarly, we can imagine John Dewey establishing a charter school, to show that the educational methods he first tried out in the University of Chicago laboratory school could also work in a public school.

    And we do face some serious educational problems today. For example, the quality of the schooling a child gets depends a great deal on what city or town they live in. In 2023, the high school graduation rate in Cohasset, where I now live, was 98.3%; in that same year, the high school graduation rate in New Bedford, where I used to live, was 78.6%.(3) Nor can this disparity be explained solely by the per-pupil expenditures; for while Cohasset does spend more, at $23,212.40 per pupil in 2023, New Bedford is not that far behind, at $20,943.37 per pupil in 2023. The reasons behind these educational disparities in Massachusetts are hotly debated, and I’m certainly not qualified to end that debate. My point is simply this: educational reform is still necessary to ensure that all children have equal access to education, and to ensure an informed electorate which is necessary for democracy.

    Unitarian Universalists used to see education as a key area where we could make a difference in helping to improve human society. After all, we are one of the top two or three most-educated of all religious groups; thus not only do we place a high value on education ourselves, but our educational attainments mean we should be able to help strengthen the educational system of this country. And as a religious group, we remain committed to education, both as a way to strengthen democracy, and as a way to allow human potential to flourish.

    Yet it feels to me as though Unitarian Universalism, as a wider movement, has drifted away from seeing education as a key area where we can make a difference. In the past couple of decades, I’ve heard lots of Unitarian Universalists talk about their commitment to social justice, but I’ve rarely heard a Unitarian Universalist say that their commitment to social justice led them to get elected to their local School Committee, or try to influence state or local policy on education. Similarly, in the past couple of decades, I’ve often heard older Unitarian Universalists encouraging young people to go to college to “get a good job”; much less often have I heard older Unitarian Universalists encouraging young people to go to college so they can become teachers. And in our denominational publications, I read quite a bit about how we should be active in promoting justice, but I don’t read much about the importance of teachers and teaching and education.

    Our own congregation is better at seeing education as a central way for us to make a difference. We have quite a few teachers and educators in our congregation, and we honor them and their profession. I’ve listened to older Unitarian Universalists in our congregation encourage young people to follow careers in teaching. A primary part of our mission as a congregation is operating Carriage House Nursery School, a progressive educational institution providing innovation in the area of outdoors education for young children. I should also mention that our congregation provides state-of-the-art comprehensive sexuality education for early adolescents and a week-long ecology day camp; these are both small programs, but they fill an educational need here in Cohasset.

    In these and other ways, we’re continuing Joseph Osgood’s legacy. We still consider teaching and education to be a central part of our purpose; we still consider teaching and education to be a central part of how we contribute to the betterment of human society. It might be worth our while to be a little more forthcoming about taking credit for all the ways our congregation supports public education, supports early education, supports teachers, supports other kinds of education — and for us to be a little more forthcoming in taking credit for the way we are thus supporting and strengthening democracy.

    Notes

    (1) Horace Mann, Life and Works of Horace Mann, vol. III, ed. Mary Mann, “Annual Report on Education for 1848,” pp. 729-730.
    (2) I don’t know when exactly this took place. My mother left Wilmington, Del., c. 1956; I can’t find out when primary schools were desegregated. One source I consulted said that desegregation didn’t occur until after the 1954 Supreme Court ruling; see: Matthew Albright, “Wilmington has long, messy education history”, The [Wilmington, Del.] News Journal, 10 June 2016 accessed 22 March 2025 https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/education/2016/06/10/wilmington-education-history/85602856/
    (3) The Massachusetts Department of Education has a website where you can compare educational outcomes between school districts: go to the “DESE Directory of Datasets and Reports” webpage, click on “School and district performance summaries.” https://www.mass.gov/info-details/dese-directory-of-datasets-and-reports#school-and-district-performance-and-indicators-

  • Math and Religion

    Sermon copyright (c) 2025 Dan Harper. As delivered to First Parish in Cohasset. The sermon as delivered contained substantial improvisation. The text below has too many typographical errors, missing words, etc., because I didn’t have time to make the necessary corrections.

    Readings

    The first reading was an excerpt from the essay “A Mindful Beauty” by the mathematician Joel E. Cohen, from the September, 2009, issue of American Scholar.

    “My grade-school education in mathematics included a strict prohibition against mixing apples and oranges. As an adult buying fruit, I often find it convenient to mix the two. If the price of each is the same, the arithmetic works out well. The added thrill of doing something forbidden, like eating dessert first, comes free. In any case, the prohibition against combining apples and oranges falls away as soon as we care about what two subjects, different in some respects, have in common.

    “I want to mix apples and oranges by insisting on the important features shared by poetry and applied mathematics. Poetry and applied mathematics both mix apples and oranges by aspiring to combine multiple meanings and beauty using symbols. These symbols point to things outside themselves, and create internal structures that aim for beauty. In addition to meanings conveyed by patterned symbols, poetry and applied mathematics have in common both economy and mystery. A few symbols convey a great deal. The symbols’ full meanings and their effectiveness in creating meanings and beauty remain inexhaustible….

    “The differences between poetry and applied mathematics coexist with shared strategies for symbolizing experiences. Understanding those commonalities makes poetry a point of entry into understanding the heart of applied mathematics, and makes applied mathematics a point of entry into understanding the heart of poetry. With this understanding, both poetry and applied mathematics become points of entry into understanding others and ourselves as animals who make and use symbols.”

    The second reading was from the poem “Equation” by Caroline Caddy:

    …working through difficult equations
    was like walking
    in a pure and beautiful landscape —
    the numbers glowing
    like works of art….

    The third reading was from a letter written by Albert Einstein, as printed in Albert Einstein, the Human Side: New Glimpses from His Archives (Princeton Univ. Press, 1979):

    “If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

    Sermon: “Math and Religion”

    In honor of Pi Day, which was yesterday, I’d like to talk this morning about the connection of mathematics and religion. The right-wing Christians who make so much noise these days keep trying to tell us that religion has nothing to do with either math or science. But the connection between mathematics and religion in Western culture predates Christianity, and goes back to the ancient Greeks.

    The first great mathematician in Western culture was Pythagoras. Pythagoras is best known today for the theorem known as the Pythagorean theorem: in a right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the squares of the two other sides. But Pythagoras was not just a mathematician. He also founded a religious community, which was remarkable for combining serious mathematical and scientific inquiry with some fairly strange religious beliefs.

    Pythagoras was born in Greece, on the island of Samos. As a young man, he traveled around the Mediterranean Sea seeking learning and wisdom. He supposedly learned arithmetic from the Phoenicians, geometry from the Egyptians, and astronomy from the Chaldeans. He also learned some interesting religious rituals. Tradition tells us that the Egyptians didn’t want to teach him about geometry, so to dissuade him they made him follow strict religious rituals. But Pythagoras wanted to learn the secrets of geometry, and followed all the rituals carefully. So Pythagoras learned his math and science along with religious ritual.(1) Mind you, religion was not the same as it is today.(2) Rather than being focused on personal belief in a transcendent god, religion primarily consisted of ritual, most of promoted social cohesion.

    In addition, much of what passed for scientific investigation in that time took place in what we would call religious communities. This actually makes a lot of sense. If you want to gather enough data to be able to predict eclipses — one of the major scientific achievements in Pythagoras’s day, and one which he was directly involved in — then you need a stable community that can support people who spend their time observing the night sky; a community that can collect and safely store data over fairly long periods of time; and a community that brings together people who learn from one another and strive together for the truth. In fact, this kind of community still lies at the root of scientific and mathematical progress. If you’re doing math or science, you have to be in a community of peers that can review your work; that’s how scientific progress happens. Pythagoras not only learned in such communities, he brought the concept back to Greece, and founded his own religious community.

    The Pythagorean community was governed by a set of rules, such as the rule prohibiting the consumption of beans.(3) Pythagoras was convinced of the transmigration of souls, and he thought the movement of souls took place through bean plants. There mix of “semi-scientific observation” with superstition sounds alien to us today, but as one scholar puts it, “a network of cleverly designed reasons, with the doctrine of the transmigration of souls at its center, held the whole system together….”(4) Today we would not call this science, but it does represent the beginnings of science.

    And the Pythagorean community managed to come up with some pretty interesting discoveries in math and science. The Pythagorean community discovered the connection between numbers and music; predicted eclipses; developed the idea of numbers as shapes, as in the square of a number or the cube of a number; and with the Pythagorean theorem helped lay the foundations for geometrical proof later perfected by Euclid. Finally, Pythagoras is supposed to have said that “all things are numbers,” which in a generous interpretation resembles the way science today uses mathematics to model reality.(5)

    Also noteworthy is that the Pythagorean community admitted women as members.(6) By today’s standards we would doubtless consider the Pythagorean community to be hopelessly sexist, but by the standards of their day they were unbelievably progressive. Women in the Pythagorean community contributed to the theoretical work of the community, and wrote their own treatises. This may be the earliest recognition that women have just as much to contribute to math and science as men; a fact that certain elements in today’s scientific and mathematical communities are still trying to accommodate themselves to.(7)

    We also get our word “theory” from the ancient Greek word “theoria.” For the Pythagorean community, “theoria” meant a kind of “passionate sympathetic contemplation” that came out of mathematical knowledge; it represented a kind of “ecstatic revelation.”(8) While I am not especially adept at mathematics, this does describe the feeling I’ve gotten at times when I’ve finally managed to follow a proof of a challenging theory — a very satisfying feeling that comes upon perceiving something that’s really true and good and beautiful and unchanging. Right-wing Christians would be horrified to hear me say this, but this is indeed a kind of religious experience.

    This brings me to Kurt Godel, the next mathematician I’d like to talk about. You may have heard of Godel from the bestselling book Godel, Escher and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, written in 1979 by Douglas Hofstader. However, I first encountered Godel in 1981 when I took an introductory course in mathematical logic. This class was designed to give us enough background so that we could follow the proof of Kurt Godel’s famous incompleteness theorems.

    I remember being blown away by the implications of Godel’s incompleteness theorems. The first incompleteness theorem can be summarized like this: “Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.”(9) What I took from Godel was this: that within a logically consistent system like arithmetic, you have to accept some statements that cannot be proven within that system. And even though you might be able to construct another logically consistent theorem that would allow you to prove those unproved axioms, there would be other axioms that you couldn’t prove within that second system.

    Godel’s theorems obviously have implications for mathematics, but Godel himself believed that they had also implications for all human thought. John W. Dawson, a mathematician and biographer of Godel, put it this way, quoting in part from one of Godel’s lectures:

    “[Godel] believed [there was] a disjunction of philosophical alternatives. Either ‘the working of the human mind cannot be reduced to the working of the brain, which to all appearances is a finite machine,’ or else ‘mathematical objects and facts … exist objectively and independently of our mental acts and decisions.’ Those alternatives were not … mutually exclusive. Indeed, Godel was firmly convinced of the truth of both.”(10)

    If Godel was correct, this becomes very interesting. First, if the human mind is indeed something more than the workings of the brain, what is that something more? Perhaps this is no unlike what the ancient Pythagoreans called “soul.” We Unitarian Universalists affirm the inherent worthiness and dignity of every personality. In this sense, we agree with Godel that human beings, and other sentient beings, are something more than mere machines.

    Second, if mathematical objects exist objectively and independently of our mental acts, what does that mean for science? Most of us these days believe that mathematics is useful because it creates models to help us understand the physical world. We typically believe that the greatness of the mathematics in Einstein’s theory of relativity, for example, is that the mathematics helps us understand observations made in real world scientific experiments. But Godel understood mathematical objects to have an independent existence. Since they are not bound to things in the real world, these pure mathematical objects are not perceived through the usual senses. We intuit them directly, through our minds. Compare this to Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson, a Unitarian who remains the biggest single influence on , was a Transcendentalist who said that we could directly apprehend truth and beauty. Thus, we Unitarian Universalists are like Godel in that we have a tendency to think that we can apprehend truth directly with our minds.

    This brings me to the third and last mathematician I’d like to talk about: Karen Uhlenbeck, a Unitarian Universalist who also happens to be one of the greatest of living mathematicians. Uhlenbeck received a MacArthur “genius grant” in 1982, and in 2019 became the first woman to win the Abel Prize, the most prestigious prize in mathematics. The Abel award cited Uhlenbeck for “her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics.”(12)

    Sadly, I don’t have the background to understand Uhlenbeck’s mathematical achievements.(13) I did discover, however, that she has spoken about the connection between mathematics and introspection, and between mathematics and community. Both introspection and community are characteristic of Unitarian Universalist notions of religion, and I wondered if this might represent a connection between mathematics and religion.

    Not long after she was announced as the winner of the Abel Prize, Uhlenbeck was asked if she though success in mathematics is partly due to concentration. She replied, “I think you can’t do mathematics without the ability to concentrate. But also, that’s where the fun is, the rest of the world fades away and it’s you and the mathematics.” In that same interview, Uhlenbeck said: “You struggle with a problem, it can be over a period of years, and you suddenly get some insight. You’re suddenly seeing it from a different point of view and you say: ‘My goodness, it has to be like that.’ You may think all along that it has to be like that, but you don’t see why, and then suddenly at some moment you see why it is true….”(14)

    To me, the way Uhlenbeck describes what it feels like to solve mathematical problems sounds similar to how people who have meditation or mindfulness practices describe their epxeriences. The process goes something like this: you concentrate, and the world fades away, and it’s just you and something beyond yourself. Then, if you concentrate long enough, you may have an “aha” experience that really feels out of the ordinary, where you feel like you’ve seen something new and (dare I say it) beautiful. So I emailed Uhlenbeck to ask if she thought there was a similarity between doing math and doing meditation. She replied, in part: “When I try to meditate, I usually end up thinking about math. They are very similar.”(15)

    Indeed, this experience occurs in many different pursuits. In the first two readings, mathematician Joel E. Cohen and poet Caroline Caddy both find a deep connection between poetry and mathematics, because both “create internal structures that aim for beauty.”(16) In these kinds of experiences, we use symbols to help us perceive the beauty and order of the universe. The poets and mathematicians have the original insights, and then we ordinary folks can experience some of the same wonder by following the mathematical proof, or reading the poem, or reading one of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essays. Although right-wing Christians would disagree, I would call these religious experiences.

    Mathematics and religion are also connected in that human community is central to both. Most obviously for mathematics, when a mathematician thinks they have done some original work in mathematics, they have to write it up and publish it so that their work can be reviewed by other mathematicians. Individual mathematicians may work alone, but overall mathematical progress happens in community, as mathematicians check each other’s work, and then build upon the work of others.

    Religion also requires human community, for much the same reasons. Take Ralph Waldo Emerson as an example. Emerson had one or two insights on religious matters, and wrote them up in an essay he titled “Nature.” When he first published the essay, some people thought it was brilliant and others thought it was garbage. Over time and after much discussion, a consensus arose that Emerson really had come up with some genuine insights into religion. Still others came along and extended Emerson’s insights, including people like Henry David Thoreau.(17) Emerson’s new ideas first had to be carefully considered by a human community, and then extended by other people.

    Karen Uhlenbeck refers aspect of human community in an interview. When Uhlenbeck was doing postdoctoral work at the University of California in Berkeley in the 1960s, she found herself in the midst of tumultuous political activity concerning the Vietnam War, women’s rights, and so on. Uhlenbeck had always thought of mathematics as somehow separate from politics. But, she told an interviewer, “I was startled to see the politics appear in the math department. It was eye-opening to me… up until that time I had seen mathematics as a very bookish thing and that what went on in the mathematical community had nothing to do with the life out there on the streets, and this is not true.” In other words, Uhlenbeck realized that mathematics is a human activity that’s done by humans. This means that “all of what goes on between humans appears in the mathematics community, perhaps toned down quite a bit, but it’s not a world of pure brains, people behaving rationally and unemotionally.” (18)

    One of the very human problems in the mathematics community that Uhlenbeck became aware of was that nearly all mathematicians were men. She told one interviewer, “if I had been five years older, I could not have become a mathematician because disapproval would be so strong.”(19) Thus while human community is necessary, human community also has problems that must be addressed. If you’re a mathematician, you can’t just take the human community for granted, you have to be willing to confront the faults and problems of that human community. Obviously, the same is true for any human community, including religious communities.

    In today’s world, we have a strong tendency to separate religion from mathematics and science. Yet by so doing, I think we place unwarranted restrictions on religion. The right-wing Christians are wrong — religion, religious experience and activity, can not be restricted to the very narrow sphere of personal belief in a transcendent god. Religion includes the introspection that occurs not only in meditation and centering prayer and mindfulness practice, but also introspection of doing math and science. Religion and mathematics can both result in ecstatic experiences that come when you gain insight into truth. Both religion and mathematics are rooted in human community. And while you, personally, may not have ecstatic experiences or pursue introspective practices, yet as a part of a human community we accept the differences between us, and try to lrean from those differences.

    Notes

    (1) Christopher Riedwig, Pythagoras: His Life, Teaching, and Influence, p. 8.
    (2) See, e.g., Brent Nongbri, Before Religion: A History of Modern Concept, Yale Univ. Press, 2013.
    (3) Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosopy, p. 32.
    (4) Riedwig, p. 71.
    (5) Russell, p. 35.
    (6) Much of what follows is taken from Sarah B. Pomeroy, Pythagorean Women: Their History and Writings, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2013.
    (7) See, for example, the 2005 remarks of Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard University. According to the Harvard Crimson, “Summers’ Comments of Women and Science Draw Ire” (14 Jan. 2005, article by Daniel J. Hemel), Summer said “the under-representation of female scientists at elite universities may stem in part from ‘innate’ differences between men and women….” Admittedly, this is not precisely what Summers said, but for a good discussion of the implications of Summers’s remarks, see “What Larry Summers Said — and Didn’t Say,” Swarthmore College Bulletin, Jan. 2009, article signed “D.M.,” available online: https://www.swarthmore.edu/bulletin/archive/wp/january-2009_what-larry-summers-said-and-didnt-say.html
    (8) Russell, p. 33. The OED says that “theoria” refers to contemplation, including the contemplation of beauty.
    (9) Panu Raatikainen, “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 ed.), ed. Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ accessed 15 March 2025. For an explanation of both Godel’s proof, and its implications, designed for the intelligent layperson, see: Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, Godel’s Proof, New York Univ. Press, 1958; this book is available to read online at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/gdelsproof00nage/page/n5/mode/2up
    (10) John W. Dawson Jr., Logical Dilemmas: The Life and Work of Kurt Godel, p. 198.
    (12) Isaac Chotiner, “A Groundbreaking Mathematician on the Gender Politics of Her Field,” New Yorker, 28 March 2019.
    (13) For those who do have the background to understand Uhlenbeck’s work, a discussion of her achievements in variational problems in differential geometry is freely available online in Simon Donaldson, “Karen Uhlenbeck and the Calculus of Variations,” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, March 2019, pp. 303-313 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1806. There may well be other such technical summaries available online and not hidden behind paywalls.
    (14) Bjørn Ian Dundas and Christian Skau, “Interview with Abel Laureate Karen Uhlenbeck,” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, March 2020 [reprint of an interview originally published in Newsletter of the European Mathematical Society, September 2019], p. 400.
    (15) Karen Uhlenbeck, personal communication, 11 Feb. 2025.
    (16) Joel E. Cohen, “A Mindful Beauty,” American Scholar, September 2009.
    (17) As an aside on Emerson: In his book The American Evasion of Philosophy (Univ. of Wisconsin, 1989), Cornell West argues that Emerson also lies at the root of the American philosophical tradition: “The fundamental argument of this book is that the evasion of epistemology-centered philosophy — from Emerson to Rorty — results in a conception of philosophy as a form of cultural criticism in which the meaning of America is put forward by intellectuals in response to distinct social and cultural crises.” (p. 5) Our Unitarian Universalist religious tradition is directly influenced by this philosophical tradition.
    (18) Isaac Chotiner, “A Groundbreaking Mathematician on the Gender Politics of Her Field,” New Yorker, 28 March 2019.
    (19) Ibid. A side note: To help inspire more young women to go into mathematics, Uhlenbeck wrote an essay for the book Journeys of Women in Science and Engineering: No Universal Constants, ed. Susan A. Ambrose, Temple Univ. Press, 1997, pp. 395 ff.; this essay is freely available on her website here: https://web.ma.utexas.edu/users/uhlen/vita/pers.html.

    Visual of text and mathematical formulae.
    An excerpt from Simon Donaldson’s article mentioned in the Notes.