My running has been stymied by injury and illness, but at least that's given me time to put down in writing some of the thoughts I think while running.
Before anyone gets excited, the problem I refer to is not a negative observation about atheists.
The problem has to do with this chart:
Atheists, for the most part, have to overcome indoctrination to become such. Richard Dawkins likes to say that there is no such thing as christian child or a muslim child...well, by unfortunate happenstance, most children are what he likes to call them instead: the children of religious parents.
What kind of traits can make one overcome indoctrination? Intelligence? Reason? Of course, I like to think so, but there's another trait: skepticism. Distrust of authority from title or tradition. A near synonymous term for an atheist or agnostic is a skeptic.
The problem, then, is that our skepticism keeps us from banding together under one banner. The aforementioned Richard Dawkins comes close to doing just that. Dude was a rock star at the Reason Rally on March 24th. This diminutive, slightly pot-bellied, tenor-voiced, silver-haired scientist could have had his pick of any of the atheist tail out there, and their husbands/boyfriends/fathers would've been okay with it. But even he has problems getting atheists together. The Reason Rally pulled about 20,000 people to the National Mall; statistically there could have been five times that amont from the D.C. area alone.
Personally, I think the problem is that we don't want to wind up a new religion. This is brought up by rabbi Brad Hirschfield:
This is the only thing he says in his editorial that makes a lick of sense. We are afraid, and rightfully so, that binding ourselves to a cause requires sacrifice of some of our personal beliefs. We will have to tow a party line for the greater good, which is something we inherently despise.
So what to do, then? Well, I have an idea. The irony, of course, is that I think it's a tremendous idea and my brethren will be completely skeptical of it, and skeptical of my rhetorical device of pointing out that they will be skeptical of it. But the nature of my idea is, I hope, an inclusive one, and one open to brainstorming.
I suggest that rather than another foundation or political party, we establish a loose affiliation. Articles of Confederation may have been too weak for the United States, but I think it might be just what atheists need. A central set of tenets they can reach back to while still maintaining their own individuality. So, I give you:
Follow the Golden Rule.
Treat others as you would like to be treated. It's simple. It works. It's the easiest response to the challenge, "Without god, how can you be good?"
As Eddie Izzard pointed out at the Reason Rally, his second rule is "What goes around comes around," which is really just the Golden Rule stated another way. I think we can take that a bit further into the realm of 'tit for tat.'
For example, a lot of people wear their religions on their sleeves. If someone introduces themselves, "Hi, I'm Mike, I'm a christian," I will calmly reply back, "Hi, I'm Emerson, I'm atheist," not, "Hi, I'm Emerson, why do you have an imaginary friend at the age of thirty?"
Article Two:
Don't indoctrinate the vulnerable.
Like 'what goes around comes around,' this seems like a natural outgrowth of article one, but I can conceive of some sickos out there who would be thankful for their indoctrination into a cult under any circumstances once they reach a place where they're able to question it.
Thankfully, the factory setting for a child is not christianity, it is not islam, it is not judaism nor buddhism nor hinduism. This might seem rather a convenience to atheist detractors. I say to them, if your beliefs require indoctrination, you're doing it wrong.
Not only that, but why would you want the vulnerable? The helpless? The weak-minded? If you want to help them, by all means, help. But when they're at their lowest and most susceptible, that is not the time to win adherents. I don't want them; neither should you.
Article Three:
Follow the scientific process.
I don't care what specific version you choose, as long as it involves observing, hypothesizing, predicting, and experimenting, all the while opening itself to review and new information that may run counter to prior experience.
This also means applying it to every aspect of your life. Are your pro-choice? Why? Can you back up your preconceived notions with research? Logic? Are you consistent on your stance until presented with new information? When presented with new information are you receptive?
If you agree with the third article, you have to throw out any beliefs you have founded on faith. I'll be the first to admit that people in a group all thinking the same thing and doing the same thing can have a profound psychological effect on the individuals. I'll even admit that individuals can have private moving experiences. I'll further admit that I like having these experiences. But if you chalk this up to anything but a mix of hormones and willing suspension of disbelief, you're quite literally fooling yourself.
After enough time passes and the initial high of a new spiritual experience wears off or the mundaneness of religiosity since birth begs further introspection, you may think you have come to some sort of logical proof of god's existence upon somber reflection of the intricacy of life and the way 'he' works all around you. Tell me, is this the intricacy of life that is so elegantly explained without a god by natural selection and physics? Or maybe these are the mysterious ways that not only allow you to be the last car through a traffic light before it turns red and allow your great-aunt to pull through her bypass surgery, but also allow Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, and a wall of tornadoes to make some sort of twisted sense in the 'grand plan' of god's sick universe?
Before anyone gets excited, the problem I refer to is not a negative observation about atheists.
The problem has to do with this chart:
 |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country |
What kind of traits can make one overcome indoctrination? Intelligence? Reason? Of course, I like to think so, but there's another trait: skepticism. Distrust of authority from title or tradition. A near synonymous term for an atheist or agnostic is a skeptic.
The problem, then, is that our skepticism keeps us from banding together under one banner. The aforementioned Richard Dawkins comes close to doing just that. Dude was a rock star at the Reason Rally on March 24th. This diminutive, slightly pot-bellied, tenor-voiced, silver-haired scientist could have had his pick of any of the atheist tail out there, and their husbands/boyfriends/fathers would've been okay with it. But even he has problems getting atheists together. The Reason Rally pulled about 20,000 people to the National Mall; statistically there could have been five times that amont from the D.C. area alone.
Personally, I think the problem is that we don't want to wind up a new religion. This is brought up by rabbi Brad Hirschfield:
Another bright spot to be found in Saturday's rally, is that it will force a measure of clarity and honesty upon a movement which has held itself out, until now, as being above the fray.
No more.
Now, they too will be down in the muck with those who invoke God and scripture to invoke wrath upon those with whom they disagree.
We can look forward to the same kind of rallies, the same kind of triumphalist slogans, the same kind of seething disregard for those who are outside their “church.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/24/why-reason-rally-is-unreasonable/#ixzz1qSjVR2CX
This is the only thing he says in his editorial that makes a lick of sense. We are afraid, and rightfully so, that binding ourselves to a cause requires sacrifice of some of our personal beliefs. We will have to tow a party line for the greater good, which is something we inherently despise.
So what to do, then? Well, I have an idea. The irony, of course, is that I think it's a tremendous idea and my brethren will be completely skeptical of it, and skeptical of my rhetorical device of pointing out that they will be skeptical of it. But the nature of my idea is, I hope, an inclusive one, and one open to brainstorming.
I suggest that rather than another foundation or political party, we establish a loose affiliation. Articles of Confederation may have been too weak for the United States, but I think it might be just what atheists need. A central set of tenets they can reach back to while still maintaining their own individuality. So, I give you:
The Atheist Articles
or
Things Everyone Can Get Behind
Article One:
Follow the Golden Rule.
Article Two:
Don't indoctrinate the vulnerable.
Article Three:
Follow the scientific process.
For a more in-depth analysis of the tenets, we go to myself below.
Article One:Follow the Golden Rule.
Article Two:
Don't indoctrinate the vulnerable.
Article Three:
Follow the scientific process.
For a more in-depth analysis of the tenets, we go to myself below.
Follow the Golden Rule.
Treat others as you would like to be treated. It's simple. It works. It's the easiest response to the challenge, "Without god, how can you be good?"
As Eddie Izzard pointed out at the Reason Rally, his second rule is "What goes around comes around," which is really just the Golden Rule stated another way. I think we can take that a bit further into the realm of 'tit for tat.'
For example, a lot of people wear their religions on their sleeves. If someone introduces themselves, "Hi, I'm Mike, I'm a christian," I will calmly reply back, "Hi, I'm Emerson, I'm atheist," not, "Hi, I'm Emerson, why do you have an imaginary friend at the age of thirty?"
Article Two:
Don't indoctrinate the vulnerable.
Like 'what goes around comes around,' this seems like a natural outgrowth of article one, but I can conceive of some sickos out there who would be thankful for their indoctrination into a cult under any circumstances once they reach a place where they're able to question it.
Thankfully, the factory setting for a child is not christianity, it is not islam, it is not judaism nor buddhism nor hinduism. This might seem rather a convenience to atheist detractors. I say to them, if your beliefs require indoctrination, you're doing it wrong.
Not only that, but why would you want the vulnerable? The helpless? The weak-minded? If you want to help them, by all means, help. But when they're at their lowest and most susceptible, that is not the time to win adherents. I don't want them; neither should you.
Article Three:
Follow the scientific process.
I don't care what specific version you choose, as long as it involves observing, hypothesizing, predicting, and experimenting, all the while opening itself to review and new information that may run counter to prior experience.
This also means applying it to every aspect of your life. Are your pro-choice? Why? Can you back up your preconceived notions with research? Logic? Are you consistent on your stance until presented with new information? When presented with new information are you receptive?
If you agree with the third article, you have to throw out any beliefs you have founded on faith. I'll be the first to admit that people in a group all thinking the same thing and doing the same thing can have a profound psychological effect on the individuals. I'll even admit that individuals can have private moving experiences. I'll further admit that I like having these experiences. But if you chalk this up to anything but a mix of hormones and willing suspension of disbelief, you're quite literally fooling yourself.
After enough time passes and the initial high of a new spiritual experience wears off or the mundaneness of religiosity since birth begs further introspection, you may think you have come to some sort of logical proof of god's existence upon somber reflection of the intricacy of life and the way 'he' works all around you. Tell me, is this the intricacy of life that is so elegantly explained without a god by natural selection and physics? Or maybe these are the mysterious ways that not only allow you to be the last car through a traffic light before it turns red and allow your great-aunt to pull through her bypass surgery, but also allow Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, and a wall of tornadoes to make some sort of twisted sense in the 'grand plan' of god's sick universe?
No comments:
Post a Comment