I’ve been holding off talking about Richard Dawkins’ “Out Campaign” for a while (yes, it’s probably all died down by now - you’ve either got a scarlet “A” on your t-shirt, website, car and baby, or you don’t) because I still haven’t figured out what I really think about it. On one hand, I applaud the effort to bring atheists together and to “out” themselves, but on the other, I still see the label “Atheist” as useful as “non-chocolate lover” or non-spice girls fan1.
Of course, the use of the word “atheist” (and therefore the need to “out” oneself) has been stirred up recently by Sam Harris at an Atheist Alliance conference in Washington2 - there are no “non-racists”, so “why are we defining ourselves by something that should simply be the case”3?
Every political or social group have certain beliefs and/or interests in common. A football team shares a love of sports, and possibly a belief that football is a worthwhile pursuit. A political group might share certain values and beliefs about how a society should function. A religion, well, they often share beliefs about a great many things: politics, sexuality, family values, etc. But more importantly - they share a belief in a supernatural being (or spirit, or afterlife, etc.).
What do atheists share? Nothing. Many of us can’t even agree on a definition of Atheism! I don’t mean to say that there’s nothing that we share, but what we do share is, quite literally, “nothing” - we share a nonexistent thing4: a lack of a belief in God. While this probably gives us a more common understanding of God than most religious people (even within the same religion or denomination, it seems every person has their own understanding of exactly what or who God is), this doesn’t seem to be a great foundation for an alliance.
Am I going to “come out”, well - yes, and no. I am without religion. I am, therefore, an atheist. I am also without racism, and am therefore non-racist. I have never killed anyone, and am therefore a non-murderer. I further have no love for chocolate5, no love of ABBA or the Spice Girls and most certainly no belief in fairies or celestial teapots. If you wish to define me by any of these “labels”, feel free - but I certainly don’t.
Harris explains it much better than I could on his website [↩]
Today was the day when every good Pastafarian (and other pirate loving people) talks like a pirate. I, however, am a non-practicing Pastafarian, so I don’t generally observe these religious holidays (there was a pub crawl at Uni to celebrate, but I had to work instead).
But that should stop you getting in on the act! Even Flickr celebrated the day:
If you didn’t talk like a pirate today, you’ve only got 364 days until the next time you can “talk like a pirate and not be entirely insane”.
So, I’ve been wondering - when are all the atheist holidays and festivities?
I recently1 read a post by the Friendly Christian, who questioned why some people just “aren’t interested in God”. The suggestion is made that perhaps the Church isn’t friendly or welcoming enough, and that if they improved in this area, perhaps they’d win more converts.
It’s certainly a valid criticism of most of the churches I’ve gone to, as many Churches aren’t friendly to nonreligious people wanting to see what things are like. I’m utterly sick of people asking me “What church do you go to?”, and then seeing the look of shock on their face when I tell them I don’t go to any church, I’m not religious, or (worse!) if I was to use the word “atheist”.
The quote being discussed by the Friendly Christian is as follows:
“I’m not religious. I don’t think much about God, except when I am in a pinch and need some special favors. I have no particular reason to think he’ll deliver, but I sometimes take a shot anyway. Other than that, I’m just not that interested in God.”
This, to me, sounds like a person who has no reason to believe in God except for the simple fact that many others seem to have this belief. If one is raised in a society where God is almost universally accepted, if one made no effort to actively think about God, what possible conclusions could that person come to?
This is where I think the Friendly Christian has got it wrong. This person doesn’t sound like someone who’s been shunned by the church, but someone who (quite legitimately, in my opinion) has no interest in God because the idea has little or no influence on their life. In an ideal world (one where personal beliefs in supernatural beings remained personal - in the sense that your beliefs were unable to affect my way of life), I think such a lack of interest in God would be quite common.
That’s not to say an interest in God is a bad thing, however. As you might have discovered, however, I do have an interest in religion and the concepts of God. These ideas do have an influence on my life because our politicians make them relevant, and because I want to understand why so many people have these beliefs. I find the idea of God interesting from a historical and cultural point of view, and want to learn more.
Are you interested in God? If not, why not?
Well, not so recently, but it was recently when I first drafted this post. As you can probably tell if you’ve been subscribing to my blog, I’ve been quite slack recently. I won’t bore you with the personal details, but lets just say there’s been a lot on my plate. My apologies, and I’ll hopefully get back to a more reasonable blogging schedule again now. [↩]
Update (26/08): Thanks to all of you who are spreading the word, with any luck they’ll get their required members through this post alone! Two points to clarify:
This post was in no way authorised or endorsed by the party - it’s just my way of trying to help out.
If you’re not eligible to vote in Australia, don’t try and join up, but help spread the word if you know other Aussie Atheists.
Hey all you Aussies out there (if you’re not an Aussie, keep reading, you might still be able to help by spreading the word),
I recently received an email from Frank Gomez of the Secular Party of Australia (previously the Freedom from Religion Party), which I wanted to get your help with. Members of the Secular Party are hoping to run in this year’s election, but as the party doesn’t have enough members yet, they’ll need to run as independents, giving them a much lower chance of success.
All you need to do, if you want to help, is to fill out and mail (yes, snail mail) in the form below to join the party - membership is free. For 20 seconds of your time, and the cost of a 50c stamp, you could help Atheists get a stronger voice in Australian parliament.
Perhaps if you’re not an Aussie yourself, but might have Australian readers on your own blog, or know of some Aussie Atheists? Please help get the word out there, either direct them to this blog, or post something on your own blog if you can!
If anyone’s interested, I’m posting the full text of the email below.
Hi members and supporters,
The party’s executive has decided to contest this year’s Federal election. However, as we do not have the numbers yet to register as a party, candidates will have to run as independents. This means that we cannot use the words “Secular” or “Freedom From Religion” on ballot papers.
I am writing to all of you because we need your membership of the party to be official so that it can count for registration.
I have attached a membership form, and for those of you for whom I have a postal address you will receive (or may have already have received) these in the mail also.
I urge you all to complete and send back the attached form to the below address.
I also wish to ask you whether you know someone else who would be interested in joining.
We currently have around 300 members and need only 200 more in order to register as a party for this year’s election. Registering the party would mean being able to use the party’s name and abbreviations in how to vote cards and ballot papers, and would increase out vote many fold.
If every member of the party sent back two forms - their own and for someone else - then we would reach the 500 we need in a matter of weeks.
Otherwise we need to wait another 3 years to contest as a registered party. That’s another 3 years of more religion in politics - whoever wins the election. MAKE A DIFFERENCE !!
FRANK GOMEZ
SECULAR PARTY www.secular.org.au
NATIONAL VICE-PRESIDENT
19 Fishers Reserve
Petersham NSW 2049
I can’t imagine the atheist community would have anything important to confront them about? (*cough* evolution *cough*) Anyone skilled with a camera, and able to present a good case in 30 seconds or so?
I hadn’t really come across the argument from morality much before - at least not enough to seriously think about it. I’d heard people ask “if you don’t believe in God, then where do your morals come from?”, but rather than answer the question (I’d say honestly “I don’t know”), I’d retort with the observation that Christians “pick and choose” their morals from the bible, and clearly their morals come from the same place as mine - and it’s not the bible (an idea I’d always had, but one that Dawkins helped me articulate).
For those not familiar with the argument from morality, it basically goes like this1:
If God does not exist, then there are no objective (i.e. independent of human opinion) moral values and duties.
There are objective moral values and duties.
Therefore God exists.
My gut instinct when I first thought about this argument is that the first point has issues. I’ve asserted before that we can have morality without religion2, and I still believe that a moral code independent of religion is superior, but as for where this morality could come from - I have no idea. I seem to remember Dawkins talking about how morality could have evolved, but that wouldn’t be objective morality, would it?
Which as got me thinking about the idea of objective morality as a whole, and I can’t help but ask - do we really have objective morality (point 2)? Zach Moore says that, at least at a debate lecture he attended, the idea the objective morality exists seems to be generally accepted, but I can’t help but feel that there’s something wrong with that, too.
What morals do we have that are objective? “Murder is bad” - Surely there’s some times it’s justified3? “Do no harm” - but what if my survival is at stake? “Do the greatest Good” - but, what IS good? Even the golden rule isn’t objective (although the rule itself seems to be the most universal law of morality) - “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” relies on our own opinions! Perhaps I really wouldn’t care if you stole my girlfriend?4
I’ve been holding off talking about Richard Dawkins’ “Out Campaign” for a while (yes, it’s probably all died down by now - you’ve either got a scarlet “A” on your t-shirt, website, car and baby, or you don’t) because I still haven’t figured out what I really think about it. On one hand, I applaud the effort to bring atheists together and to “out” themselves, but on the other, I still see the label “Atheist” as useful as “non-chocolate lover” or non-spice girls fan1.
[
Posts
