 Atheism Photography Games Music Other Contact Me |
 |
Atheism and Morality - UNC Charlotte 2/20/2008 POSTED: 2/21/2008 3:32:03 PM | PERMALINK I gave a one hour presentation entitled "Atheism and Morality" last night at UNC Charlotte to an audience of about 42 people. It went pretty well despite not being able to show my PowerPoint slides due to technical problems. The audience participated throughout and asked plenty of good questions at the end. I received some very positive comments afterwards as well as even more questions. Click here to read the full text of my Atheism and Morality presentation  Atheists Can't Hold Office in North Carolina? POSTED: 11/5/2007 3:01:03 PM | PERMALINK I got a call last week from Tim Funk, a reporter for the Charlotte Observer's "Faith and Values" section. He discovered that the North Carolina constitution contained a section which states: "the following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God". I'm mentioned briefly at the end of the article. He asked me if I was aware of this section of the constitution and I said "no, but I'm not surprised". So far as he could tell, nobody has ever challenged it in court. It seems that a prominent North Carolina Catholic was responsible for getting the language of the consitution changed in order to allow Catholics and other "believers in Almighty God" to serve as well. Link to article. My Experience at the 2007 Atheist Alliance Convention POSTED: 10/3/2007 1:12:52 PM | PERMALINK
After a short fundraising event on Thursday evening, the convention got started on Friday night with hosts Margaret Downey, Herb Silverman and Bill Creasy and featured a hilarious appearance from "Pastor" Deacon Fred from the Landover Baptist Church. Next, Richard Dawkins took the stage with a very enthusiastic reception. I overheard some criticism that he didn't seem to tailor his presentation for the all atheist audience instead pulling remarks from previous talks and writings. In his defense, he did give us an interesting glimpse of his experiences since releasing The God Delusion. Sam Harris followed and what he said had everybody talking about it the next day. He basically started out saying that, since everyone in the audience was pretty much in agreement with his arguments, he could just throw some "red meat to the lions" or he could talk about the things where he might disagree with the audience. Of course, he chose the latter. He dedicated the first half of his talk to the idea that we shouldn't call ourselves atheists. He claims that using the label of atheist is a liability and hinders our ability to get our message heard. The mood of the room started to shift a bit during this part. I think most people thought this point was too idealistic and that we have to have some label to organize under. Sam's final point concerned the exploration of meditation and contemplation that he touched on in The End of Faith. He basically tried to make his case that we should take seriously the study of meditation and critically study its possible benefits to human happiness and not simply dismiss it just because the practice has historically been pursued mainly by religious followers. At this point, the air was pretty much leaving the room. All in all, I completely respect Sam Harris even more for telling people what they may not have wanted to hear. He proved to me that he's not in this to win a popularity contest, but instead to honestly explore the best possible solution to the negative effects of religious faith. Read the transcript of Sam Harris' speech and see what you think. Saturday was a whirlwind of events. After attending a session on handling the media and secular parenting, I ran into our fellow Charlotte atheist Joseph Stewart for lunch which was then followed by a 6 hour block of speakers. First up was Eddie Tabash who gave a very sobering talk about the threat of the religious right. One of the main points he stressed was the importance of the Supreme Court in the fight to maintain the separation of church and state. He also stressed that it's important which senators we elect since they have the power to confirm Supreme Court judges. To help lighten the mood of the room, Eugenie Scott next gave a spirited recounting of the "Intelligent Design" trial in Dover, PA. As an active participant in the trial, she was able to give us the inside details of the case. The highlight was when she led us through the "evolution" of the book Of Pandas and People used by the Creationists over the years. She clearly showed how all references to "Creation" were replaced with "Intelligent Design" after losing a landmark court case in 1987. She reminded us that the Dover trial was an even bigger victory because not only did they prove that teaching ID in school was unconstitutional (which was all they had to do to "win"), they went even further to prove that ID wasn't science. A surprise hit at the conference was Matthew Chapman who is the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. Matthew works in Hollywood and has written or co-written several successful movies including Consenting Adults and Runaway Jury. He's written several articles about the Dover trial and ended up writing a book about it called 40 Days and 40 Nights – Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin and Other Oddities. He was the first person to bring up the topic of women and religion. He thinks the final step in the feminist movement is for women to change and/or renounce all remaining religious traditions that view men as dominant over women. He also made an interesting connection between how a county/government takes care of its citizens and the effect this has on how much people rely on religion. He argues that a country that provides basic needs to its people (such as universal health care, etc.) will create a more happy and healthy citizenry that will be less likely to rely on religion. After a short break and a security sweep of the room, Ayaan Hirsi Ali took the stage and charmed everyone with her articulate and soft spoken recount of her experiences growing up as a Muslim in Somalia. After being forced to marry, she fled to the Netherlands and obtained refugee status, went to university and eventually won a seat in the Dutch Parliament. After a script she wrote called Submission (which criticizes the treatment of women in Islam) was made into a movie, the director was murdered. A note was left at the scene saying that she was next, so she now travels with security wherever she goes. Her description of life as a Muslim woman was both fascinating and frightening. When asked what can be done about it, she indicated that some women are trying to change the system from within, but, for her, the only solution was remove herself from that world. She said that the cognitive dissonance of maintaining the Muslim faith was too much for her to handle and she cites dissonance as the main tool for defeating fundamentalism of all types. Christopher Hitchens was the last speaker and he didn't disappoint. It was classic Hitchens. After a fairly short set of remarks, he decided (since he could “feel the solidarity”) to just open up the floor for questions. Rather than me trying to describe it for you, I would suggest watching a clip of it online if you can find it. The evening culminated with a banquet and an award ceremony for Daniel Dennett. By Sunday morning, I think everyone was still reeling from all the previous day's events and a certain lack of sleep. Margaret Downey presented an interesting session about the importance of secular celebrations. Margaret, in addition to being president of Atheist Alliance International and coordinator of the AAI convention, is a recognized Secular Humanist Officiant and performs non-religious unions for couples who want a ceremony without any references to God. In many states there is something called a “Self-Uniting Marriage License” which allows marriages to be recognized without a member of the clergy officiating. Apparently, many of the county clerks who issue marriage licenses don't understand self-uniting licenses and often will deny atheists/agnostics from getting them. Margaret has taken on this issue and works with atheist couples to insure that their rights are not denied. For more information, visit secular-celebrations.com. The last event before the closing ceremony was a Welcome to the World / Secular Naming Ceremony for the twin daughters of Matt and Shannon Cherry. PBS was on hand to film the event. Margaret Downey lead the ceremony which included a poem read by Matt, naming of the children's mentors, readings from relatives and even some brief words from Richard Dawkins (lucky kids!). In between the Sunday events, I was able to talk to Daniel Dennett briefly. He remembered the radio show that we did together back in January. I thanked him for all of the insights I received from his books and other writings. I also managed to meet my hero Richard Dawkins. Of all the big names there, Richard Dawkins was one of the most visible and could be seen walking amongst the crowd throughout the convention. When I saw a good opportunity, I walked up to him, introduced myself and told him about the Charlotte Atheists group. He was kind enough to have a picture made with me. Before I let him go, I thanked him for everything he's done and told him that he was an inspiration for so many of us. Overall, I had a great experience at my first atheist convention and I feel that it will take some time for it to all soak in. It was quite a feeling to be surrounded by that many freethinkers and to be able to tap complete strangers on the shoulder and have an instant bond with them. Although there were many reminders of the challenges we face ahead, it was nice to enjoy this moment in the sun if only for a short time. Interesting Coincidence in Richmond, VA POSTED: 10/3/2007 1:10:52 PM | PERMALINK On our way up to Washington, DC and the Atheist Alliance Convention, we stopped in Richmond, VA for lunch. After driving around the downtown area for a few minutes, we saw a good area with restaurants and parked the car. The first thing we noticed after getting out of the car were these huge murals about religious freedom.
It turns out they were put up by the First Freedom Center which is a non-profit organization whose goal is to promote religious freedom including the right to not believe. My Appearance on the Charlotte Talks Radio Show POSTED: 2/1/2007 | PERMALINK I recently appeared on our local radio show "Charlotte Talks" along with Daniel Dennett and Ellen Johnson to discuss the recent rise of Atheism. Mike Collins was the host. To listen to the show, click the link below:
Here is my write-up of the event: Before the show I arrived at Spirit Square, where Charlotte Talks is produced, much later than I planned to. The place was like a ghost town and I wasted a bunch of time trying to find the studio. Once I found it, there was nobody there and it was only 10 minutes before airtime. Finally the associate producer saw me and let me in. The host, Mike Collins, introduced himself and was soon busy talking with the producer and recording the promo for tomorrow's show. I was little anxious, but I felt that I had prepared as best I could. Synopsis of the Show Question: Why are you an atheist? I think I was a bit verbose during this segment, but I wanted to take the time to accurately explain what an atheists and agnostic is so that there would be no confusion. I tried to explain that Atheism deals with "belief" and that agnosticism deals with "knowledge". I made the point that we are all technically agnostic with respect to god… It was kind of funny when Ellen later referred to me as an agnostic. She must not have been listening very carefully because I clearly stated that I was an atheist. I liked Daniel Dennett's explanation (borrowed from Richard Dawkins) that we are all atheists with regards to Thor, Zeus, etc. and that he just goes "one god further". His comment that many people, even ministers, don't believe but continue to go to church anyway was interesting and took the host, Mike Collins, a little by surprise. Question: Difficulty of Being an Atheist? I don't think I handled this question very well. I think the point I was trying to make was that it's easy for religious people to identify themselves as believers. They say things like "I'm going to church", "my church is doing this/that", "thank god for ….", "I'll pray for you…", etc.. But it's harder for atheists to identify themselves without appearing as though they are deliberately trying to offend people. If we say something that supports evolution or explain to people why we don't think prayer is useful, we are seen as being intolerant, etc. I also didn't make the case for why religion can be dangerous either. It's hard to think on your feet… Ellen made the point about how religious people don't really care that atheists exist, they only care when we do something about it such as filing a lawsuit, speaking out, etc. Question: Are some people atheists just because they don't want to admit that there's something bigger than themselves? Daniel Dennett answered with a definitive yes" and went on to say that there also deeply religious people who are selfish. "There are selfish jerks in the world and religion doesn't seem to cure them." He did offer an olive branch by saying that "at its best religion can help restore a sense of humility and a sense of purpose to people who have lost track." He thinks that, instead of ending religion, we should try to help it evolve into a more benign form and get rid of some of the irrationality. Ellen sees this question as just another form of the same argument that atheists hear all the time from theists which is that being an atheist allows to you commit horrible acts since you don't believe in a supreme being. She mentioned that Atheists aren't known for a higher crime rate and that this type of question is just a way for theists to turn table away from themselves so they don't have to explain their own behavior and crimes, etc. Question: The laws of the US are predicated on Judeo-Christian values and the 10 commandments… Before Mike could even complete the question Ellen and I interrupted. I made the point that of all the 10 commandments, only 3 are actually laws (murder, steal, false witness). Ellen went on to make the point that some of the 10 commandments actually directly contradict our bill of rights. For instance, the commandment to not take the lords name in vain violates our freedom of speech. Also, the commandment to have no god before me violates our right to freedom of religion. Question: Where do we get our morals if not from religious beliefs? Daniel Dennett answered this one in the first of many brilliant responses. He said that our morality comes from "the political consensus of reflective people" and that Christianity has evolved over the centuries by modifying its views on what constitutes a capital offense and so on. Question: Is religion irrational? "Religion says that it's irrationally based!" says Daniel Dennett. "Of course it's irrational. If you could prove it, it wouldn't be faith". Nice... Question: Can you prove that there isn't a god? I made the point that the burden of proof isn't on us since we're not the ones making a positive fact claim. Question: What if you're wrong? My response was "what if Christians are wrong about Islam?" They are risking their eternal soul for not believing in Allah. Everyone, whether religious or not, can be said to be taking some sort of risk. Ellen said "I'm willing to burn for my intellectual integrity." She went on to talk about the problem of evil and asked "who wants to worship a god that allows that." She went on to say that "anybody who was omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent would prevent any child from getting cancer" and "Humans take care of humans. We solve our problems. We improve the world or it doesn't get done." Email Question: Atheist doesn't talk about it at work. Daniel Dennett would call them a bright. Daniel Dennett talked a bit about who the "Brights" are and that the term covers both atheists and agnostics. He stressed that you don't have to shove you views in peoples faces, but that there are times when you should risk rudeness when someone says something outrageous about atheism. He says it's still acceptable to call people "godless" and mean that in a negative tone. "Staying closet for many people is wise" especially if you're a politician. Question: Can you be an atheist and a politician at the same time? Daniel Dennett replied "Sure but you just can't admit it!" Next, I made the point that there is a double standard with regard to religious belief such that religion is off limits in conversation. As an example, I mentioned that if I said that the holocaust never happened, I would be pinned to the wall to explain my position and give evidence. But if I said that the Earth is 6000 years old because the bible tells me so, then that is off limits. It would be considered impolite to question me because that's part of my religious belief. Question: Why are people against that kind of conversation? Daniel Dennett explained that the taboo over criticizing religion is just one of many adaptations that helped some religions evolve and thrive. If you can make people feel guilty about criticizing religion, then religion is more likely to survive. He finished by saying "Today's religions are just the survivors of hundreds of thousand religions that have vanished without a trace. The ones that survived are the ones that had the best defense mechanisms built in to them." Telephone Question: Atheism is a religion. How do atheists rationalize pushing their religion on the rest of society by filing lawsuits that clear out the public square? I jumped on this one first by defining what religion is and how atheism isn't even close to being a religion. Religion involves the belief in a supernatural being which atheists don't believe in. Atheists don't have sacred objects or sacred texts. We don't do ritual acts and we don't get our morals from ancient religious texts. My last comment was "As far as lawsuits go… it's called the constitution and the founding fathers were wise enough to create a secular constitution were there is a separation of church and state. America was built for everybody not just for specific interests." Question: Is religion an outmoded construct that should be retired from the field? Daniel Dennett replied by observing that some religions are remarkably reasonable and open. His main example was the Unitarian/Universalists who provide fellowship, communion of spirit, good works and tradition. He said "If more religions could become like that I think that would be fine." He noted that each of their principles is open to criticism and skepticism. Question: Harm caused by religion? I mentioned intelligent design and the general attack on science by religion. Daniel Dennett expressed concern over the end times/rapture push because it encourages people to not plan for the future and it licenses irresponsible policy. Question: What do you think of the idea that you should live your life for the reward ahead (heaven)? Daniel Dennett said hat's an ignoble motivation and asked "how about just being good because you want to be good?" Question: What is the motivation for a non-believer since there is no reward or punishment in the afterlife? Daniel Dennett explained that you can be motivated to live up to an ideal set by people who inspire you including Jesus, Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He said you don't have to be religious to be inspired. Email Question: What about teaching religion and moral philosophy in schools? "Knowledge is the best protection against fanaticism" said Daniel Dennett. "Fanaticism thrives on the enforced ignorance of the young." He made the point that any religion that can thrive under scrutiny deserves to thrive. Ellen brought up the point that the right-wing doesn't what their children to be taught about other religions. Question: Given the "perfection in nature" (i.e. Fibonacci sequence), how can you deny the existence of at least a master plan? "The mathematics of the universe is eternal and doesn't need to be created" said Daniel Dennett. Ellen added that it's still not proof of a designer/creator. Question: In the absence of a creator, is there a void in your life? Here's Daniel Dennett's fantastic response: "But look how wonderful it is! Look at this great wonderful planet. It's so beautiful and there's so many wonderful things that thousands and millions of people have created over the centuries. There is a tremendous amount of goodness in this world and I, for one, am very grateful to be alive and I feel an obligation to give back to try to contribute to this wonderful stock of goodness that there is in the world. That's enough." Ellen Johnson added that idea that when the theist's lives come to an end, they fight to stay alive just like the rest of us. They have the will to live. "If they think that there is something more wonderful, more beautiful why is it that they resist death with everything they have. Because we know instinctually that there is nothing else." She also stressed that "We don't make the rules. We atheists aren't making the rules. It is what it is." My final comment was "Atheists have the intellectual freedom to handle real world issues without having to reconcile an ancient theology. We realize that this is the only life we have and we better live it to the fullest." Final Thoughts Looking back, I think I did "ok" for my first media appearance. Next time, if there is one, I need to try to make my points more short and concise and plan the main points I want to make in advance instead of just sticking to the questions asked. I also need to remember to mention Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics along with the web site URL. |
|
|||||
 Copyright © 2008 Dan Russell-Pinson | ||||||||
