11/18/2011—Today’s Tribune Review continues a story that I first read about in the Duquesne Duke. The Student Government Association denied formal recognition to a group calling itself the Duquesne Secular Society, a decision the University supported.
The reason given by a University spokesperson was that “formally recognizing a student group whose main purpose is opposition to belief in God is not aligned with our mission”. The reason actually seemed reasonable to me, but that did not seem like a fair description of such a group.
I wrote to Nick Shadowen and suggested that if the group made it clear that its concern is not with religious believers but with students who are not believers and that the group’s purpose is to explore the resources of depth and meaning for people who are not religious believers, I thought the University would be happy to recognize the group. Nick wrote back that the purpose of the group is “open discussion on the existence of god”.
So, the university did not mischaracterize the purpose of the group. I’m sorry that once again, secularists think they are the truth and religion is the problem. Maybe we secularists should look at ourselves for a change.
[Readers of this blog will be aware that I have edited it to remove a reference to an email exchange betweeen Nick Shadowen and me that he felt both misrepresented the purposes of the group and made public an exchange that he considered private. I apologize for that and unlike the rest of the Internet, I'm pretty sure that this quiet corner will allow matters to disappear. I have also removed his comment in case it was prompted by the offending quotations. Of course Mr. Shadowen if free to comment again and I hope he will. I hope he does not consider his comment on the purpose of the group to be private and in any event it is consistent with public statements in the media.
That said, I repeat my main point. The purpose and thrust of all these secular organizations, including the one at Duquesne, is, as some secularists see it, to expose the falacies of religion to the light of reason. When called on it, these secularists insist they are not attacking religion, but all they mean is that the discussion should be fair and open.
There will not be a genuine secular society until religion is not in its mind at all. There will not be a secular society until its focus is entirely on the nature and potential of a secular society.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Having knowledge of the comment now removed, it seems odd that it would misrepresent the purpose of the group. On the Contrary!
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we can disprove the existence of god using a simple logical exercise might be true but we should be asking ourselves if it is really,truly necessary and if so, what the larger implications are.
I, for one, do not give humanity the credit, at least at present, to live in a world without religion. Religion makes sense of a senseless world and makes tragedy understandable. It might be a crutch and it might be irrational, so be it!
If someone wants to believe that gorto from the lake is all-powerful and has a formidable system of ethics and morals, then why not? So long as that belief isn't forced upon me or my beliefs, then there shouldn't be a problem. So long as gorto isn't informing the president about foreign policy or international crises, there shouldn't be a problem. There are alternatives... Such as trying to affirm a plurality of views, systems of ethics and beliefs. In doing so, the lives of everyone involved can only be enriched.
Why is it that some atheists feel the need to create identities based upon destroying someone else's system of beliefs? They proceed to yell and shout about the wonders of atheism and a secular world( and the danger of the religious), in attempts to win over followers without realizing that the atheistic views they are so aggressively pushing on others depends upon religion for its very existence.
In many ways, it is becoming just as dogmatic, evangelistic, and oppressive as the religion it so vehemently opposes.
I agree with Mr. Ledewitz.The group should indeed be concerned with issues about how to best live the secular life and how to flourish as an athesist.
As a secular humanist, I would much rather live in a world with as much diversity as possible than in one where people feel the need to aggressively silence the views of others. It is through a diversity of perspectives that we derive the most meaning as humanists. That means developing a strong intellect and a willingness to be open minded. It doesn't mean finding one's identity in the destruction of others'.
"It might be a crutch and it might be irrational, so be it!"
ReplyDeleteThere is a very big problem that follows this. Nothing good can result from a very large group of delusional and irrational people. How can mass delusion NOT be a cause for concern? Irrational people are easily manipulated- see islamic suicide bombers. Moreover, problem with the mass delusion of religion is that it holds itself to be have absolute answers- see the Catholic Pope's infallibility. Science doesn't work this way, science doesn't believe itself to hold all the answers. When conducting scientific experiments scientists invite other scientists to critique their work, to repeat the experiment to see if they get the same results. It is a system based on humility, on not having Divine authority.
"So long as gorto isn't informing the president about foreign policy or international crises, there shouldn't be a problem."
Unfortunately, gorto is indeed informing the president about foreign policy and international crises. You don't think the evangelical christians have political power? If it wasn't for fundamental christianity, another Republican president might never be elected. You don't think religious groups influence our political system?-I won't take the time here to list the countless powerful lobbyist groups and political think tanks based on religious ideology, but you get my point.
"Why is it that some atheists feel the need to create identities based upon destroying someone else's system of beliefs?"
I don't think atheists define themselves by what they are against. Atheism is a content-less term. I view atheism as a side effect of rational thinking, not a system of thinking in itself, not a system based on a belief nor based on attacking beliefs.
"they proceed to yell and shout about the wonders of atheism and a secular world( and the danger of the religious)"
I can't think of any atheist thinkers who "yell and shout about the wonders of atheism." Again, atheism is a content-less term. It is like saying those who do not like the color blue shout about the wonders of not liking the color blue. Atheists do know, however, what a world without religion would be like. Science would not be held back (stem cell research, etc), people would have one less reason to kill each other (Protestants v. Catholics in Ireland, Crusades, Muslim Africans v. Christian Africans in Africa (especially Sudan), etc. etc. etc.
"In many ways, it is becoming just as dogmatic, evangelistic, and oppressive as the religion it so vehemently opposes."
How is atheism dogmatic? Perhaps you have a different definition of dogma, but here at Duquesne's philosophy department it is something like "principles or beliefs espoused by an authority to be inconvertibly true, often without supporting evidence." Under this definition, I don't see how atheists are dogmatic by claiming that there are implicit and immediate dangers to large groups of people holding irrational beliefs that lead often lead them to do irrational things. Religion has also accomplished wonderful things, that fact is indisputable. In the modern world, what comes to mind is the charity organizations. But these wonderful things can be accomplished without evoking religion- see UNICEF (and countless other organizations).