Public Relations Makeover, Part 2
Why do they hate us? Why? WHY?!
I thought I’d start off with a bit of drama. Just to get your attention.
We can find a legitimate answer by taking the emotion out of it and giving it a good analysis. Do they hate us, or do they FEAR us? And do they fear us, as individuals, or US as a whole?
AgnosticMom reader, Hifi, twice emphasized an important distinction we have to remember as we discuss how to improve our atheist/agnostic image:
Speaking of the UofM study about the negative view and distrust Americans have for atheists one commentator had this to say, “Agnostics like myself…would very much like to be considered full citizens and participate in American public life. The study found that “negative views about atheists are strong,” but that “survey respondents were not, on the whole, referring to actual atheists they had encountered.”
I reiterate my earlier statement, “In that light, personal revelations will do little to change the dominant view of atheists as the least trusted demographic in America - including the way our friends vote on religious issues. The last thing they will do is consider how promotion of religion by government is going to affect us.”
While you and I may be (or become) successful at winning our neighbors’ hearts, friendship, and even trust, it’s an entirely different story if we are ever to consider a fellow secularist gaining the presidency, or even lower-level government position. A successful “coming-out-of-the-closet” will hardly help us make gains when it comes to public policy that affects us.
It is time to dissect the problem. What do they fear about a secular society and secular influence? I think it is three things.
1) They fear the “removal of God” from the public domain as an abandonment of God, which will result in either his wrath, or in a loss of his protection.
2) They think anger motivates us more than charity, and fear a loss of goodness and good actions.
3) They fear a decrease in morality in our country.
It is the bottom two fears that we have the most control over. If we focus our efforts to improve our image in these two areas first, if we can convince the religious public that the non-religious can maintain a charitable and moral society, the first fear may prove less difficult to overcome.
I want to address morality in a separate post. In fact, I may initiate the topic as my next article in the Humanist News Network. It is a massive topic and I hope to address it over a few different blog entries. Let me just touch on the subject with a skeleton overview and the statement that we need to have a system for identifying moral choices. I cannot think of many other things that anger and scare the religious more than the idea of “Moral Relativism.” Therefore, Moral Relativism is just as much our enemy as it is theirs.
Moral living makes sense for two basic reasons:
1) Humans feel pain and suffering (as well as joy)
2) Humans have a capacity for empathy
We can choose to be moral, not because we hope for eternal blessings and fear eternal punishment, but because we can relate to and empathize with another person’s pain.
We should base our moral choices, not on arbitrary rules from an old book (a few that come to mind: don’t eat pork, don’t drink coffee, don’t flip the lights on the Sabbath, don’t expose your shoulders except when swimming); we should base our choices on whether they will cause others pain. To take it further, we should ask ourselves whether the action we want to take, if everyone were to take the same action in similar circumstances, would increase the overall happiness or the overall suffering in the world.
We will discuss this in detail later, but ultimately we have to show the world that we have a reliable system for making moral choices, a system that will agree with and make logical sense to all people, no matter the religion. We won’t all necessarily agree with the exact choice in every situation. The important thing is that we can show that there are reasons to be moral which extend beyond arbitrary religious rules.
The other image problem has to do with the inaccurate portrayal that some of us project on a regular basis: Anger. I see it in some atheist blogs: Cries for the termination of religion altogether (is that really going to convince religious people that they are safe with us leading?). I see blame against the religious for all of the world’s problems. I see hyperbolic claims about religious people that are simply not true.
Some atheists also project a lopsided amount of anger in the way they choose to demonstrate. The recent “War On Easter” was an example. One blogger I read said she was treating Christians to a taste of their own medicine by putting anti-Jesus literature in the church pews for Easter Sunday. I have never known a Christian to defame another religion’s god in the other religion’s holy chapel. The War On Easter was not a tit-for-tat pay-back game. It was an outrageous assault unlike any actions I have ever seen a Christian take.
It reminds me of a recent “Smut for Smut” campaign where college students set up a booth where they offered to trade smut for smut: They handed porn to anyone who would give them a Bible. The idea was to bring awareness to smutty passages in the Old Testament regarding women, sex, and war. While a genuine discussion with the religious regarding these problems with the Bible could be enlightening and educational to many people, offering pornography in exchange for Bibles only make us look crude and hateful.
On the other hand, we have people like the Ebay atheist, who is actually reaching his hand across the aisle of differences and having a real and positive affect. He is showing concern and striving to understand the religious. In return they are trying to understand him. He is taking a non-offensive, but very bold approach to bridging the gap between us.
Just look at what this article had to say about Hemant Mehta, the Ebay Atheist:
The stunt has racked up several ad campaigns’ worth of exposure for the product he was actually marketing: atheism as a wholesome American way of life.
A dedicated nonbeliever, Mehta auctioned his soul on the following terms: For every $10 bid to win, he would attend an hour of services at a local house of worship of the winner’s choosing. He promised to keep an open journal of his experience and an open mind to the possibility of conversion. The bait was the chance to win him over for God, but only the purest of souls could fail to see the hook in Mehta’s own bid to sell atheism as just another strand in our glorious tapestry of beliefs.
I also liked the friendly “demonstration” that gay and lesbian families held for the Easter Egg Hunt at the White House. It was hardly a demonstration at all. No shouting, no accusations. All they did was announce that gay and lesbian families would have a large showing at the White House for the Easter Egg Hunt. And they did! They showed up early to get in. They wore the rainbow-colored flower leis to identify themselves. They were happy and friendly and participated like any other family. They put a good face on gay families. We need to do something like that.
I have an idea of something we can do right away. Something to identify us with our real values. Something that will show that we mean business when it comes to working to solve the world’s problems. And it will be positive! Just give me a few days to present it to you.
In the meantime, clear your calendar for May 4th. Pencil in a two or three hour block for an activity which I will later disclose. Begin thinking about a cause you feel passionate about. I’m not talking about a cause for atheists/agnostics/freethinkers etc. I’m talking about a real problem in the world: hunger, abuse, the child-sex industry, disease. Which one moves you the most? Hold onto that thought and that date. I promise I’ll get back to you later.
29 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
April 28th, 2006 @ 4:35 am
I was thinking about how many times I’ve been annoyed or insulted by someone who thinks that everyone he/she encounters in life is ignorant and falls for lame explanations for the way things work the way they do. They don’t have the answer so they don’t seek it like a responsible person would , but say things like “why don’t you pray about it?” Ask God to help you understand ? I usually don’t have much more association with a person beyond that level because he/she are obviously in a world of their own. Possibly on the edge of psychosis Here’s a little stat that may illustrate what I’m saying. Did you know that home schooling is extremely popular in the bible belt ? Hundreds of orders are placed every year for books related to the subjects at hand all the way through high school . Here’s the kicker. 77% of the orders for subjects (exclude) the teacher’s manual if there is an extra charge. So when you talk about anger Noell I think you may be paralelling it with disgust . I’m not angry with religious people but at some point everyone needs to rise up and accept what has been ” proven ” to be true. I am convinced life and progression should go hand and hand . Ignorance can be overcome with patience….
April 28th, 2006 @ 6:15 am
Hey, fran! I agree that a little anger, a little frustration is in order. But anger cannot continue to be the face of atheism if we want to gain anyone’s favor.
We also need to be realistic about the fact that not all religious people are completely ignorant. I know many, many religious people who are extremely bright, extremely educated. I even know a good number of certified geniuses who are also devout in in their religions. We’re fooling ourselves to ingore these people.
April 28th, 2006 @ 10:22 am
I understand , but it’s the arrogance that gets my goat. Not only regarding the 77%, but when it comes to every day living . They are not reasonable people, as a group,they are sometimes snide and sassy. They literally thumb their nose at us and call us names based on ignorance . Just like they’ve done with multiple groups of people throughout history. Indians, Blacks , Gays ,fair housing , and tons of other discriminatory practices started with, religion. Supernatural, ghostly, spirit driven, hate saturated religion. I went to ski in Vail once(1978) . It was a super time . Took the greyhound bus . I had a layover in Salt Lake City for several hours . Got to talking to a really nice black couple there . We decided to take a walk and walked nearby the mormon tabernacle and we happened to arrive in the middle of visiting hours . We walked up to the entrance and a man dressed in a business suit came over toward me and signaled for me to come to him. He literally shook his finger and said ” Blacks are not allowed ” I walked back towards them and they were crushed . You could see it in their faces . I was crushed as well. There god wasn’t in a loving mood I guess :(Religion pffft , what a crock
April 28th, 2006 @ 11:29 am
Fran, what a disgusting experience! I never heard of them not allowing black people in as visitors.
April 28th, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
First, I want to apologize the the last (and only) comment I’ve made before on this blog, which was a few months ago. At the time, I was in the middle of leaving Christianity after 8 years of trying to make it work, and grasping at straws, and way too defensive. Anyway, on this particular subject, I would definately have to agree with what you are saying Noell. When I was looking into “Bible Contradictions,” reading “Why I am Not a Christian” essays, and so forth, one thing that struck me was how bitter many people seemed, especially on the internet. I also noticed the tendency to use anything and everything against Christianity, regardless of how persuasive the point was. With some (though of course not all) religious people, it is true, any point that supports them will be accepted without much attempt at verification (e.g., Nasa supposedly coming across the “missing time” from the Old Testament, or women supposedly having one less rib). But there is a lot of this an agnostic and atheist sites as well.
April 28th, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Err, that should be men supposedly with one less rib..
April 28th, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
It drove me nuts to go to public school and be taught science and then have to go to bible school to learn about miracles. The two schools contradicted themselves and both left me with more questions than answers. Questions I couldn’t ask openly because I was taught that if you question the bible you’re an anti-christ and the devil has entered your body. How could any rational person not get upset with that? It was VERY difficult for me not to and I was miserable and bitter about the whole thing. But my bitterness stemmed from this feeling of not being able to do anything about it. I didn’t know that there were other people that felt the same way. But its evident that we’re not the only ones and that fact alone should ease everyone’s frustrations a little bit. So anyone out there that thinks they might be a humanist please join the movement and help us get better organized.
I was a closet atheist and still am to a degree. I’ve opened up to certain family and close friends and did so surprisingly with confidence because I felt that I’ve already gained their trust over the years through my ACTIONS and wasn’t afraid of any backlash. In fact opening up to my roommate helped him realize he wasn’t so christian after all and he’s now trying to find a relationship with god on his own terms.
As far as putting a positive face on atheism/agnostics yea I agree we need to do that and should continue to support those that are already out there whenever possible. But I’ll continue to be frustrated with religion and in defense I will say this: if being bitter and not believing in Christ/Allah are my only two “sins” then I can live with that because for me I know that’s as far as it will ever go. I will not kill, cheat, lie, hurt or terrorize anyone to justify my non-religious beliefs. Rationality, science, the law of averages, and a little bit of common sense has shown me a better way to live a good healthy life than any book or faith. So I say go ahead and be angry. Just be responsible about it.
April 28th, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Maybe those who advocate complete passiveness think the following kind of conversation is going to occur in homes around the country:
Jack: Hey dear, you know that guy down the street?
He’s an atheist, but, get this, he doesn’t run
around stabbing people.
Jill: What?! He’s an atheist.
Jack: Yes.
Jill: But, he doesn’t run around stabbing people.
Jack: Yes!
Jill: How… I’m confused…
Jack: Maybe…
Jill: what?
Jack: Maybe atheists don’t run around stabbing people?
Jill: No way! What’s stopping them?
Jack: Could it be that atheists don’t run around stabbing
people? And … it just occurred to me:
Maybe atheists have morals.
Jack: gasp
Jill: gasp
This kind of conversation is NOT going to spontaneously occur all over the country, solving the image problem, and helping atheists/agnostics/free-thinkers make gains in public policy. So what should we do? I don’t know.
Anyway, how was the recent War on Easter an “outrageous assault”? I didn’t agree with it, because it was in bad taste and, like you said, payback is not a good motivation. But they just left some DVDs around. No one was assaulted or even confronted and no property was damaged. Am I missing something?
Atheism/agnosticsm doesn’t assert any set of morals. Maybe that’s what humanism is for? Your overview of morality looks good so far. Looking forward to your discussion in future posts.
April 28th, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
Regarding Fran’s comment: I find it hard to believe that an offical from the mormon church would acually turn someone away because of his/her race. I would have to question that if this really did happen, was this person an officer of the church or just another visitor? I don’t believe an offical representative would have done that.
There have been policies practiced in the past (ie: blacks not being able to hold the priesthood until 1978 and the lamanite issue) that have been inheritly rasist but the church has modernized their idealology and are trying to lay those issues to rest.
April 28th, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
Such a brave person you are. Taking on the challenge of defining some form of basis for morality from a secular perspective is one of the “Holy Grails” of modern secular philosophy. I would like to toss out a couple of thoughts on the subject.
The human species has developed a bad habit of creating dichotomies and that causes unnecessary problems. For example, there are those that would claim the basis for moral decisions can either be relativistic or objective (or even absolutist). I would claim that the right answer is probably one that recognizes a continuum that spans the range between those two extremes. We can probably identify some set of principles that are at least almost universal, some that are usually valid but may incur exceptions more frequently and some that are closer to the relativistic end to reflect the variations in a very pluralistic society.
I recently read Stephen Jay Gould’s last book “The Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister’s Pox” in which he states that “The facts of nature simply cannot dictate correct moral behavior or spiritual meaning.” He reinforces his position by further stating that, “…our yearning and quest for morality and meaning belong to the different domains of the humanities, the arts, philosophy and theology – and cannot be adjudicated by the findings of science.” Up until now he has been one of my favorite authors but we part ways with those statements. I remain convinced that a set of principles derived from scientific analysis of behaviors that contribute to successful continuation and advancement of the intelligence/wisdom of a species will be an integral part of any moral code. I am also convinced that certain beneficial behaviors are the result of the unique design and construction of the brain that has evolved to support those behaviors. The very fact that we have the moderating influence of the frontal cortex is a simple example.
I fully recognize that E. O. Wilson badly stubbed his toe on this subject when he tried to translate some of the genetically based social actions of ants to the human species and was soundly chastised by the scientific community but recent evolutionary psychology is making progress to support my position.
April 28th, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
I think that widespread coming out of the closet and being visible as atheists can have a very positive effect on peoples’ perceptions of atheists, just as the same strategy has helped the cause of homosexuals. One advantage that homosexuals have is that they’re more randomly distributed in the population, whereas it’s my impression that atheists tend to be grouped in certain milieus. But even so, it’s not a waste of time to give a positive impression of atheists to the people you know.
Of course President Bush is helping our publicity in a sort of backhanded way. He’s perceived as very, very religious, yet according to polls:
“More than half the country now considers Bush dishonest and untrustworthy, and a decisive plurality consider him less trustworthy than his predecessor, Bill Clinton — a figure still attacked by conservative zealots as ‘Slick Willie.’”
I got that quote from this interesting article in Rolling Stone.
April 29th, 2006 @ 4:27 am
It really comes down to moral absolutes versus situational ethics in most cases . Islam and Christianity both have ” clauses ” in their contract with make believe god that allows for the slaughtering of an enemy under certain circumstances. Many followers have extreme interpretations of biblical passages , this allows room for abuse. There should have been notations to buffer the confusing parts . Pretend god was never really clear about these things . Zaqwari and Bin Laden and Robertson are left to interpret just what it is God was trying to say, seems fitting given pretend god’s propensity toward violent ritualistic reprieval. It is all so silly!!
April 29th, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
I have just recently started visiting your web site, and I just want to say I am so thankful to you for being so real and open. Your blogs are very interesting, and I love reading the comments too. After growing up in a Christian home and struggling with questions about my faith/religious beliefs for at least half my life, I have recently accepted the fact that I am agnostic. I have not “come out” yet to my family and friends (except my husband). Not sure when I’ll be able to do that. But at least now I KNOW that I finally have found an answer to all my questions I’m comfortable with … and knowing that I’m not alone helps tremendously. I will continue to read your blog entries, as well as a few others I have found very interesting and “educational” on the subject. Thank you!
April 29th, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
Hi again everyone
I have to say I am shocked. I had no idea that atheism and agnosticism are met with such hatred in your country. Globally - and especially in the eastern world - the perception is that the US is the embodiment of individual freedom, so I find it hard to believe that what is essentially a personal choice should be met with so much disrespect and mistrust.
From an outsider perspective, I agree with Noell that handing out porn and anti-christian literature is not the best way to deal with the problem. To my mind, you’re simply feeding their mistrust and helping them to prove their point — which is that atheists jeopardize morality.
I agree 100% with Gregg’s view that our behaviors have and will evolve in whatever way is necessary to sustain ourselves as a species. Evidently, we’ve found that living in a societal group is more beneficial to the species than not. Morality is simply the oil that lubricates the social structure and makes it possible for us to live together as a “pack” or “herd” — thereby ensuring our continued survival.
April 30th, 2006 @ 5:07 am
Wow!! Back to the cave…In my opinion religion has been able to corner the market of ignorance and iliteracy It keeps those folks comfortable and needy. A grand PR scheme that is focused on people who have had very few choices in life . Many of whom were drudgened by alchoholic or drug crazed parents who didn’t give a good acre what happened to them .I know kids who were in and out of jail all of their lives and remember that they were often sent to bed while it was still daylight and had to sneak to the refrigerator and grab slices of baloney to heat on the radiator quietly in their rooms while quivering at the prospect of being caught in the process . That kind of treatment is hard for most of us to conceptualize when we’re growing up. I commend the religious institution for at least taking a stab at it but I question the motives behind their undertaking , some people just love to be noticed . I know people who give $500 a year to care for the homeless and glean for the cameras at thanksgiving while slapping mashed potatoes on tin plates just to see there picture in the sunday edition.( “There ya go pal, Happy Thanksgiving to ya ) Then ya get a huge flash of the $7,000 pearlies. ( The $500 can be written off )There are millions of these translucents who want to appear as though they genuinely care when instead they’re building office points. Please don’t misinterpret my comments ,but I’m only trying to illustrate some of what really happens in the ghosts and gods sector that encourages belief in the nonsense. The fact they are worshiping ghosts ,gods and spirits is secondary actually, because most are simply fitting into the fold . Playing the role. WHERE IS YOUR HEART , REALLY
April 30th, 2006 @ 6:57 am
Another mistake, I meant uncomfortable and needy. I swear I’m a dork !!!
April 30th, 2006 @ 8:07 am
News of interest…
What is it with car dealerships? Yet another evangelical one is sponsoring a school in the Midlands.
Not convinced by the arguments, apparently ‘atheism is on the run‘.
Via National Secular Society e-newsletter.
Agnostic Mom has a bril…
April 30th, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Noell,
I couldn’t find a way to e-mail you directly, so I’ll just post my request here.
I’ve written a leaflet that I’m planning to distribute in my local area, and I’d like to list your blog as a one of several web sites for those seeking a community of ex-believers.
Is it OK if I list agnosticmom.com in the leaflet? The document does not insinuate in any way that you are an author or sponsor, so there should be no legal issues. I’m happy to discuss this further if necessary. Please e-mail me at the address I left in the “required” field if you need more information.
As your readers can attest, your blog is very unique and valuable to those who are questioning — or have already abandoned — their faith. I’d greatly appreciate your permission to reference.
Best regards,
Trey
May 1st, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
We do seem to be a minority. A schoolmate asked if I had gone to church Sunday. When I said that I don’t go to church, she raised her eyebrows and looked away. I had fun with it and teased her about being self-riteous. But I can’t help but think that she looks down on me now. What an odd world. Every difference makes an outlier.
May 1st, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
I have a personal story about the public/private PR image issue. When the community got wind of my request to our Board of Education for an Pledge-alternative activity for my kids, over a hundred people turned out to the Board meeting to protest any thought of taking “my god”, as they said, out of the schools. There were all of two of us spoke for my side.
Curiously, I had never made any request at all about removing the Pledge from school or taking out “under god”. But the movement through the Christian grapevine had mistakenly characterized it. I spoke towards the end, so I wasn’t able to correct the misconceptions, but it was quite astounding to listen to. I should point out that I never mentioned to anyone my personal belief as this was an inquiry into providing for students who feel the need to abstain from the pledge, for whatever reason (ie, 1st Amendment issues, idolotry, boredom, etc.)
Where you can run into danger is when you put a name to the anonymous atheist. When the meeting was reported in the news, I had the pleasure of receiving a nasty anonymous Xmas card (if you can imagine) and a phone call from a man who wanted to tell me how wrong I was (I’m now unlisted). Interesting that the only thing I found the need to debate with this guy, though, was government, not religious truth as he wanted to.
In fact, if there is any advice I can offer when involved in a situation like this, it is not to defend atheism, or attack religion. Instead, state the case for secular government - because that is usually were the interface is between “us” and “them”. In fact, if anyone ever has to ask about a person’s religion in order to decide a matter of public policy (schools, communities, government, electability), it is a sign that the discussion is inappropriate.
Again, I have to emphasize that the number one priorty for Christians is keeping “under god” in the Pledge. Not for fear of god’s wrath. But because it validates, on a daily basis, the whole claim to Christian theocracy. In school, it works as a relentless hook into the next generation as the default view. My kids have never once said the Pldege at school, but, if you ask them, they can recite it. That is power and scary!
But back to the main point, I would say most atheists have no interest in expressing their views to others, either in public or private - except as others try to shove their views down our throats, i.e., family and government. Thus the outrage in our tone when we are driven to defend ourselves.
It may serve to look to what other minorities who just wanted to be left alone and live like everyone else have done to advance their standing as full citizens. A few commonalities run through these approaches.
1) Taking it to the courts - requires that the nation be answerable to the protections of the Constitution. As the laws have changed, blacks, gays, the handicapped, even women have seen quantum leaps in acceptance. Most important here is that these laws do as much to protect religions from other religions as it does to make the country safe for atheists.
2) Reclaiming the derogatory labels - disarms the knee-jerk prejudice. I pulled a quote from the typical strategy of gays.
“We consciously use the word “queer” to refer inclusively to our entire community (gays, lesbians, baklas, transgenders, MSMs, bisexuals, etc.) Within the past decade, more and more LGBT people have been using the term “queer” in order to refer to themselves. I guess its our way of telling society that their name calling and derogatory remarks cannot harm us. We reclaim the derogatory term into one of empowerment and consciousness. You will find that the term is more commonly used among younger generations. So actually, the term “queer” does not undermine our objectives. Rather, it advances our mission of creating a place where all people, regardless of what term they use to identify themselves, can feel respected and affirmed.”
3) Sometimes you have to mix it up. Tim Gordinier of IHS had this to say about his recent debate with a right-wing Christian, “Don’t we run the risk of becoming cultural hermits if we don’t mix it up on occasion?”
May 2nd, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Hi Fi , I look forward to your posts and enjoy them ,but from time to time I have to respectfully disagree . Like gay people before atheists and blacks and women before them the time comes when you have to defend your position and I think there’s nothing like a little radicalism to stir the masses. Christian people enjoy poking quips like “I’ll be praying for you” and you’re saying we’re going to stand there say “ouch”. That is an arrogant verbal attack and you and noell may enjoy it, but I sure don’t . It certainly isn’t like they’ll “really ” be praying for you .It’s Doubtful they’ll ever remember your first name that is unless you’ve thrown coins in the basket. Who are we kidding here, being nice doesn’t gain you respect because there only goal is to flip you so that they can smile and say , see pretend god had him pegged all along. At that juncture they get to pat each other on the back. I think it’s time for secular humanists to stand firm and be outspoken about what we do believe in (scientific research) and against all manner of behavior sanctioned by ghosts, gods and the belief in spirits of a unproven supernatural world . Then whatever respect that’s put forward will be genuine. We would have earned it !!!
May 2nd, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
Fran, I detect something in your last post that I have been watching for;i.e., the implication that scientific research is an alternative to “belief in spirits.” I think it is important to recognize that having or not having faith is not related to scientific research. Scientific research is a simply one of several processes to gain knowledge about natural phenomena. Many great scientists have had faith in some form of supreme spirit. This does not imply any contradiction. While they would certainly not accept the interpretation of scriptures by literalists when those interpretations defy accepted scientific principles, they may still identify topics that science has yet to explain and may or may not attribute those topics to supernatural causes. The conflict is actually between literalism and science and it seems clear to this atheist that there is no contest. But if someone were to ask me what I thought set the Universe in motion, I could easily elect to accept the premise of there even being an an initiating event and have faith in the supernatural or elect to reject the premise and simply state that “existence is” with the implication being that it always was and will always be with no need for any supernatural concepts. I hope you see my point. There is no war between science and religion as such.
May 3rd, 2006 @ 5:07 am
I never meant to imply that there was a war between religion and science ,if I did , because to me they are two totally separate entities with two totally different functions . Religion , it appears to me , is based on the unknown . I bet if you started in the 1200’s and researched to the present how many explanations there were for thunder you would have dozens upon dozens related to god and spirits and religion up until the current one where we have explanations based on sound scientific principles .I am citing one very simple explanation whereas many still exist within the confines of religious institutions . Irrational irresponsible voodoo like rituals that are only good for creating false imagery . They are now taking hypothesis and , knowing they will be shot down immediately, passing them off as true in an effort to create confusion. Intelligent Design showed us that . Everyone of the examples pushed forth in that theory have been dissected and dismissed already for the most part . In my last post I spoke of scientific research as being the key to understanding , and that is what I meant . If it eventually leads us to discover a higher power with tested verifiable data then so be it, but until then stop the guessing games and let’s get to work.No more ghosts, gods, and spirits………
May 3rd, 2006 @ 8:58 am
It sounds like we are pretty much on the same page. However, let me point out a much more subtle version that is deeply ingrained in at least one culture I am aware of. In this version, the purpose of scientific research is to discover the nature of the spirit of some item. Let me take the case of wood. In that culture there is great respect (reverence?) for wood and for the spirit of the wood. When they work with wood, they are expected to respect that spirit and pay great attention to the nature of the wood with respect to such scientifically established characteristics such as strength, durability, acceptence of finishes, dimensional stability, asthetics of the grain, etc etc. There is a religious attitude toward and respect for the spirit of wood yet science plays a key roll in discovery of factual knowledge. The two are quite compatible. Again, as an atheist, I do not accept this mental model of the nature of items such as wood but I can easily see how such a model could evolve and be operational in a modern world.
May 3rd, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
fran- What is there about these actions that make you think I am advocating a passive approach?
1) Taking it to the courts
2) Reclaiming the derogatory labels
3) Sometimes you have to mix it up.
May 3rd, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
BTW, seeing as how atheists are more distrusted (can we say despised) than gays, there is a news item I came just came across we may caution us, at the same time it moves us to action.
“Two-thirds of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students (ages 13-20) report having been verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation, a new study shows. More than a third have suffered anti-gay physical harassment.”
I haven’t heard much about that kind of thing as applied to atheists. But then again, atheists aren’t so easily identified as gays - outside of the Pledge of Allegiance at school, that is. Sadly, there, abstaining students often receive similar treatment.
May 5th, 2006 @ 10:18 am
Here is a report on the latest development in a long term action one atheist has taken in my area and which has served as a rallying point for the atheist community here.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060503-1334-bn03cross2.html
Unsurprisingly, it has given many Christians here an even dimmer view of atheists. But if you look at it the other way around, a cross on public land is a daily affront to non-Christians, so it should at least be mutual, shouldn’t it?
As this is the public action blog, I wonder if anyone else can report on any public action taken?
May 6th, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
I’m new to reading your blog, and I quite enjoy it. Because I’ve just started reading here, I may have missed any long-ago reference you’ve made to The Brights Movement. The Brights Movement may be the best effort going right now to put forward a name (which some people don’t like, but it’s the one that stuck) that encompasses people of many “colors” of belief (or non-belief, if that’s how you see it). I realize that not everyone who is agnostic fits under the umbrella defintion of “a bright” (note that this is a new noun, not related to the adjective) as a person with a naturalistic worldview, but those who do fit the definition may find a new way to describe themselves, and a new home for community and activism.
May 7th, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
I think catchy bumper stickers would work to gain more acceptance. How about “Atheists believe in love” or “Agnostics aren’t afraid of going to hell, we behave because it’s rational.” (maybe too long) or “Agnostics believe it when they see it”.
I also think that more humor is appropriate to soften our image - let’s face it, the legacy of Madeline Murray-O’Hare still leaves a bitter taste in people’s mouths. We should have a cartoon contest.