 |  103610 | Apr 30, 2004 5:32pm | | Have you been made to feel guilty about your beliefs and ideas? |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Nerd-Panda | Apr 30, 2004 7:58pm | | No, but whenever me and my christian friend are arguing about anything he will go "at least I'm not an atheist" trying to make me feel guilty, but why should I it's my decision? |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Meh | Apr 30, 2004 8:28pm | At least I'm not an atheist?
What's up with that? |
|
|
Sponsor | | Nerd-Panda | May 1, 2004 12:10am | | Not sure. He probably thinks I'm missing out on the 'better things in life'. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Meh | May 1, 2004 12:12am | Like salvation from eternal hellfire?
-kidding- |
|
| 
Sponsor | | ThePrawn | May 1, 2004 8:29am | What's interesting is that the religious tend to view their religion as not only right and true, but fundamental. They view an atheistic outlook as one created by unlearning.
In reality, no one is born with religious/spiritual knowledge. It could be argued that religion, in its most natural form, is no-religion.
If anyone should feel guilty, it's the devoutly religious father who systematically conditions his child not to think for himself. |
|
| 
Staff | | joewalp | May 1, 2004 3:34pm | I didn't feel guilt per se, but the prospect of guilt caused me more than a little frustration. That'll take some explaining....
I grew up in the heart of the Bible Belt and received zero explictly secular education from my Christian parents. What's more, I went to advanced academics schools for grades 8 through 12 where discussions about social issues and current events at the lunch table weren't uncommon. Unfortunately (and I say this recalling considerable frustration---even occasional angst), I was woefully unprepared to defend positions that were intuitively appealing.
Until exploring social systems research and humanist belief systems on the Web during my second year at university, I felt ... ungrounded. No one made me feel anything. But my own uncertainty due to self-knowledged ignorance prevented me from advocating anything from principle. I honestly didn't want to break the beliefs of my schoolmates; I would have felt guilt if I'd placing them in the same moral limbo where I found myself. In other words, I could not advocate atheism or agnosticism in preference to Christianity, as they're qualitatively dissimilar; the former doesn't include a system of morals. Even during university years, it took a while to come to grips with the fact that the choice between various secular belief systems like secular humanism [1], existentialism, Objectivism and nihilism is relatively arbitrary without adopting some kind of external constraint. For me, political theory (primarily utilitarian and social systems theory) offers that constraint.
That's one of many reasons that I try to promote secular humanism as a legitimate moral authority worthy of political clout in the US. A young person shouldn't have to live in moral limbo or be seduced by nihilism or Objectivism. Many classmates of mine in grade school and university failed to take the time to survey secular belief systems and, rather, latched on to the first marginally suitable philosophy after, say, being exposed via the fiction of Ayn Rand (Objectivist) [2] or Albert Camus (existentialist). And many less philosophically inclined persons throw up their hands and rely on some amalgam of principles like the golden rule or national law precedent to guide moral decisions.
IMO, a strong secular humanist church would be a wonderful resource for individuals and families wanting to teach children, wanting to network with like-minded persons and wanting to lobby secular issues. I'm baffled by lack of local organizations dedicated to teaching and promoting secular humanism. I certainly don't advocate brainwashing. Rather, I believe it's important to light a path for persons exploring atheism and agnosticism.
Heading off an important tangent:
Unfortunately, I don't consider a church like Unitarian Universalist to be a reasonable longterm option. It may be a reasonable interim option for our generation. But I believe that an umbrella religion like that has such a poorly defined ideology that it cannot act as a moral authority and, consequently, has inherent difficulty advocating secular issues from principle in the political realm.
I'm not just rambling here. Offering secular or secular-curious youth a community with resources oriented to all levels of education would offer more concrete support for what Nerd-Panda terms "[her] decision". It would offer ideological support rather than just defense as a personal perogative under freedom of conscience. I'm not implying that our illustrious melanoleuca isn't able to support her choice ideologically---just using her comment to illustrate a point.
re: 6: ThePrawn:
I prefer not to start a conversation about the topic, but I feel compelled to mention that I take issue with most generalizations about "the religious" or even "the religious fundamentalists", as both populations are pretty heterogeneous.
I agree that many church doctrines demand suspension of disbelief and that demanding that of a child may sometimes stunt critical thinking. However, as noted above, I think that demanding that a child explore various belief systems without guidance (as I was forced to do) is asking too much. In this case, too, I'm not implying that ThePrawn advocates a position in opposition to mine---just playing off his comment. (Let me know if that bugs you, dude.)
[1]
secular-humanism.group.stumbleupon.com [secular-humanism.group.stumbleupon.com]
[2]
rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/ [rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/]
BenefitsAndHazards.html |
|
| | | 103610 | May 1, 2004 4:09pm | Thanks everyone.
joe...Thank you, especially for the Ayn Rand link. I need to grasp your post in my mind a bit more, but I must say I know I agree completely, just never was able to state it with such grace. |
|
|
Sponsor | | ThePrawn | May 1, 2004 4:09pm | | For brevity, I was making a sweeping blanket statement. More than anything, I suppose it was a round about "pot calling the kettle black" statement. I do acknowledge the value of religion--if nothing else, it serves to herd the sheep. I certainly don't trust the masses to think for their selves. (Is that right? Spell check dislikes themselves...) |
|
|
Sponsor | | Meh | May 1, 2004 4:30pm | ==> Even during university years, it took a while to come to grips with the fact that the choice between various secular belief systems like secular humanism [1], existentialism, Objectivism and nihilism is relatively arbitrary without adopting some kind of external constraint.
I'm not sure I understand what this means. A constraint is something that limits or sets boundaries. It sounds as if these "external constraints" needed to come from outside of you.
==> For me, political theory (primarily utilitarian and social systems theory) offers that constraint.
Social systems theory -- how social systems seem to work. Utilitarianism -- the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
== > That's one of many reasons that I try to promote secular humanism as a legitimate moral authority worthy of political clout in the US.
Wow, man! It's strange hearing the phrase "moral authority" coming from you, Joe. I thought you were opposed to all of that kind of stuff. :)
If secular humanists are searching for truth and trying to understand other people's points of view, then the chances are they're probably already going to be behaving in a moral way since tolerance and respect for your fellow man in a non-judgemental way go into this sort of pursuit. Doesn't this go back to the golden rule? And what's wrong with the golden rule? You really shouldn't need any other guidelines; you know, unless you're studying your fellow man so that you can murder him. :) |
| |
| |
Atheist/Agnostic → Discussion