Daniel Dennett | Factonista

Posts Tagged ‘Daniel Dennett’

The Harvest of Ideas

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

No Respect Needed

If we are to progress as a species, we need to understand differentiation. And this lies in attributing respect, rights and sympathy to the right sphere in an individual. If anything, humans are so made to resemble a snow man, with various massive parts that fit together in a semblance of form. Rolled into one, we thus view this whole-person as a thing to be respected.
But this view is wrong.

A fundamental error in our dealings comes from this fallacious view. Because our ideas and opinions are also part of what constitutes our individuality. And ideas are powerful enough to move mountains, given time for ripeness, fruition and actualisation. The petals to reality open to the light of reason and are justified accordingly to truth. Yet we forget that the ideas, the nectar from the fruits, need not be accorded rights and liberties and respect.

We need to be able to criticise every idea and scrutinise every opinion. Perhaps we can even add that no idea should be respected, given rights and treated with sympathy. If we are to understand this position, I need only point out the undue irrationality that this poison fruit is ripe for. In the garden of bad ideas, the flies always drift to this one.

Things like “blasphemy” or “non-Christian” or “non-Muslim” views are in this area. Religious ideas are cloistered within a sacred, pure garden and any outsider trespassing with his dirty feet, soiled hands and hardened eyes will ruin that sanctity. But no such place exists. The realm of ideas is constantly under growth and change and to consider otherwise is to live in delusion. Every idea should be under scrutiny, every thought should be liable to disagreement, every conceptual position should be amenable to change. “Sceptical scrutiny,” wrote Carl Sagan, “is the means by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”

Because many of us continue to harbour the belief that certain ideas dwell within the garden of purity, living by the flickering light of faith, we do undue harm by the truckload. We should all be the dirty, unkempt traveller into garden unknown, into territory long hidden to us. The acquisition of knowledge is one of the greatest things for any human.

But to treat those ideas and opinions with respect is unjustified.

Let us look at two polarised examples: The ideas in shari’ah law that women are given the status, in courts, of being only half-a-man; and the ideas and opinions of great humanists, respect, love, compassion, and so on.

In the first place, we can say the idea that women are inferior to men is a pretty stupid one. We can formulate arguments for this, and writers better than myself have done so (from the great John Stuart Mill to Simone de Beauvoir, though take her with a pinch of salt). Nonetheless, this is an idea we can criticise, look at sceptically and so on. Our desire to show that this idea is flawed can give rise to discussions on the brain, on the differences inherent in women and men and so on. This can only further our knowledge and be a good thing. This shows that whilst we do not respect the idea of treating women as inferior, it does give rise to knowledge because of the inevitable outcome of scepticism, scrutiny and critical analysis.

That was a soft target and one we can all agree is a silly one. But we can see that by looking at an idea critically, no matter how apparently backward, it does give rise to further knowledge.

Now, in this second instance, let us take the humanists’ view. Many, including myself, advocate free-speech, compassion, respect, reason, helping one’s fellow man in any way and so on. But here’s the essence of what I’m saying: Even these, I do not want you to respect! Why should you have to respect these ideas of mine? Saying that just because Bertrand Russell, AC Grayling, and Paul Kurtz express these views is an appeal to authority. Yet they have ideas which I (and which everyone should) endorse.

But just because we endorse a view does not repudiate it from criticism. If anything, we should constantly be challenging our notions of compassion, looking critically at what constitutes respect (which prompted me to write this article in the first place!); we should challenge how we can help others; we must look sceptically at free-speech (for example, does writing an article which calls black people defamatory names warrant banning?). We are constantly under self-scrutiny – even though these ideas must sound pleasing to the average person, they need not be respected.

They are just ideas.

By showing you polarised ideas, I hope I’ve demonstrated that ideas never need respecting. What does respect mean in this arena? Let us look at all the definitions that Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary provides and juxtapose them with the bad and good idea I provided. The Bad Idea in this case is the idea (or view) that women are inferior to men; the Good Idea is the idea that people are worthy of compassion.

1 : a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation ‹remarks having ~ to an earlier plan›
2 : an act of giving particular attention : consideration
3 a : high or special regard : esteem b : the quality or state of being esteemed c pl: expressions of respect or deference ‹paid our ~s›
4 : particular detail ‹a good plan in some ~s›
- in respect of chiefly Brit: with respect to : concerning
- in respect to : with respect to : concerning
- with respect to : with reference to : in relation to

2respect vt (1560)
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : esteem b : to refrain from interfering with ‹please ~ their privacy›
2 : to have reference to : concern regard

We can dismiss the first instances as a noun (for example: “with respect to Einstein’s equations, it seems this is wrong…”). This is synonymous with “consideration”. Now with regards to definition 3, we can safely say ideas do not warrant high or special regard. Be it the Good Idea of humanistic freedom and treatment; or the Bad Idea of viewing women as inferior. Both are ideas to be criticized about. We might be a little surprised to find that even ideas we endorse are not worthy of high regard. But I think that is to miss the point, as one can hold still something in high regard but treat it critically.

Consider: Even when it comes to those are ideas we find good, incredible, or beautiful. Daniel Dennett considers Darwin’s idea of evolution of natural selection incredible, calling it Darwin’s Dangerous Idea:

If I were to give an award to the single best idea anyone has ever had, I’d give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else … My admiration for Darwin’s magnificent idea is unbounded, but I, too, cherish many ideas and ideals that it seems to challenge, and want to protect them. [There are many ideas that] may need protection. The only good way to do this – the only way that has a chance in the long run – is to cut through the smokescreens and look at the idea as unflinchingly, as dispassionately, as possible.[emphasis added]

Dennett, as always, hits the nail on the head. I, too, love Darwin’s ideas on some things; I adore Dennett’s ideas, opinions and eloquence. I am enraptured by the awe and wonder of the beauty of the cosmos, as espoused by Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins. I enjoy being challenged by the ideas of Blaise Pascal, Einstein, Hawking. Ideas are there, growing in the fertile ground of the human mind. The fruit they bear is one which we can harvest or throw away – but we need to take the fruit, look at it critically, pressing our fingers into all its parts, and check it for rot or worms instead of simply throwing it into our baskets for immediate consumption.

This is my only plea: That we learn to look at all our ideas, opinions and viewpoints and realise:

(1) We are fallible, therefore our ideas are too.
- Every generation thinks it has the best morals and looks disdainfully at its past: Racism, misogyny, etc. “My goodness we would never incorporate those things as public policy!” we think now (not so in South Africa, only two decades ago). Yet, what will our children and our grandchildren think of some of the ideas we cherish? Perhaps the humanistic endeavor is fraught with lurid attempts at happiness, which will only be shown in the distant future.

(2) We can love and cherish ideas, but it does not mean we must respect them.
- You need not respect my ideas for fighting for equal human rights, over and above religious authoritarian views. But it should not be a crass dismissal; it should be intelligently answered and not dismissed with a snide-aside.
Thus, whilst I do think the idea of “women or non-whites as inferior” is a stupid idea, I can safely say why I think so and have no respect for that idea. Similarly, you can think my ideas are stupid and have no respect for it. Indeed, I hope you do not have an ounce of respect for any of the ideas I proclaim in this article! By looking at them dispassionately, but by treating each other as equal members of the human species, we progress.

•
This does not mean emotions are gone, or feelings. I am not stating we become robots marching to the drone of a flat-lined heart. It is in the defense of humanity that my view of ideas as open to criticism thrives. How many of us share opposing ideas, yet can embrace, love, and sit comfortably with another?

Ideas treated as they should be – as simply ideas – only add to our humanity. Treating ideas as if they were people in fact dehumanizes us. It is by liberating ideas from the conglomerate of the human individual that, in fact, we can locate the human to whom we owe respect, admiration and accord rights and liberties.

If one considers that ideas are “sacred”, it seems to minimize the central importance of us as humans: Ideas are not sacred, our lives and our existence are. It is for other people I would die and never ideas. How many of us would die for the ideas of Einstein? But how many would defend to the death our families? The sooner we start separating ideas from people, severing the immaterial from the mortal, the sooner we can come into full growth. One can consider ideas as vines that must be severed for the tree to stand tall against the light of compassion. Once we have severed the vines, we can hold them in our heads and treat them to the scrutiny they deserve. Let us place humanity before humanity’s ideas and never again equate the two.

Tags: beliefs, carl sagan, Daniel Dennett, Darwin, faith, ideas, religion, truth
Posted in Feature | 4 Comments »

Reason’s Last Stand – A Final Defence of ‘Militant’ Atheism

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

This is the final part in a trilogy of defences for so-called ‘militant atheism’ – you can find the previous two articles, here and here.

The Problem of IDGAFS

As I have stated before, IDGAFS is an acronym for “I Don’t Give a Frack”. These are fellow nonbelievers who nevertheless treat “faith” as:

- something to be respected

- something to be treated with kid-gloves

- something that we, as critics of religion, don’t understand (in a psychological or “spiritual” way)

- something that, as non-theologians, we have no right/ no argument/ no knowledge to speak against because of the “deep” theological miasma we ought to traverse first.

We have seen that faith is not a virtue. However you define “faith”, however much you go into these notions, we can all agree that belief without evidence is not a good thing. When you can present clear, logical arguments and proof that the Bible is not true historically and is contradictory; that the Quran is as far from being a science textbook, as a can of baked beans; when presented with overwhelming evidence that events did not occur as the Bible said, there is only one thing to bridge that gap, to render that false-claim into a shining example of virtue. That takes the Kierkegaardian “leap of faith”.

Critics often claim that we do not understand faith – but we are only pointing out exactly what the faithful do, how they conduct themselves when faced with our claims, and what they actually write about. I’m trying not to reference, but forgive me this one point. Rick Warren writes in A Purpose Driven Life: “Surrendered people obey God’s will, whether it makes sense or not.” Several million copies fly off the shelves, yet we critics are called upon for not knowing anything about faith.

I have raised this point before: Why criticise the critics of religion? We do not need to be backhanded from those who are fighting for the freedom of humanity, to liberate ourselves from the chains in the shadow of a falling “divine” icon. I have said that I do not accept a middle-ground in this debate. And I reiterate: One side in this debate is going to be right.

We have seen that all the criticisms by IDGAFs are laughable and I will now present them in short bursts of debunking.

Claims Against the Critics

1. Active atheism/religious criticism caricatures all religious belief and thinks everyone is a fundamentalist – The Strawman Fallacy.

This is usually aimed at us when we ascribe religion as a motivator for a horrible act: Reverend Paul Hill’s murder of the abortion doctor Dr. Britton; the murder of Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses, probably by fundamentalist Muslims; the proud martyrdom of many Muslim men and women, fighting for their “god-given” land; mothers sending their children out to test for minefields because, if their child dies as a martyr, Allah will put all the family members straight into j’ana (Heaven).

Notice I said “a” motivator, not “the” motivator. I’ve selected some horrible but nonetheless true examples. The criticism then is this: These are “fringe” groups and you can not attack religion because of that.

We do not have to: Look at the ‘holy’ books and look at the religious leaders. The Quran states you should kill, not listen, disassociate, and scorn unbelievers (4:89, 4:101, 4:76, etc. etc.). And the Quran is the literal word of Allah, according to Islam.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, a religious and nation-leader, issued a fatwa for the death of Salman Rushdie (and all associated with the book) for The Satanic Verses: because it caricatured Muhammad and disrespected Muhammad’s wives (and other reasons) – though it was a work of fiction and the only caricaturing was rendering Muhammad into a fallible human being. Khomeini did this without reading or even seeing the book.

Jerry Falwell was known for constantly saying floods and earthquakes were his god’s punishment on the world, because of human depravity (caused by homosexuality and other things Falwell deemed “evil”). His pestilential minions followed suit, by issuing similar decrees from their pulpits. Remember this goes to millions of viewers, not just those gaping from the pews.

And people lap it up, because Falwell and Khomeini are men the faithful consider their “spiritual” leaders. And let us not forget the “meek” Church of England, with Rt Rev Graham Dow, the Bishop of Carlisle, saying in 2007 that the “floods that [...] caused chaos and death across the UK were caused by God after he was provoked by the introduction of gay equality.”

Somehow these men know the “mind of God” – and not even the poetic beauty ascribed by Hawking, but in a way to initiate their own perverse goals. If you are going to deny the link between religion and all these atrocities, please present your case. No one is saying religion is the sole cause, but you can’t deny its power in making “good people do evil things”.

We do not caricature the faithful, the faithful have caricatured human sensibility. It is this we attack, criticise and deem disgusting for our species. There is no Strawmen here, only failed human intellect and reason which we bring to your attention.

2. You are just as fundamentalist as those you attack – tu quoque (pronounced: to kwoh kway)

Can you be a fundamentalist atheist? First, IDGAFS and other critics must point out which books atheists uphold as absolute, perfect and infallible. And we must not forget the stupidity of considering atheism as some sort of group or movement: It is not. Everyone is an atheist – but presumably, being an atheist of the monotheist god is somehow different to other gods.

Though it seems unnecessary for this discussion, we must not forget where this term comes from. According to Karen Armstrong, fundamentalism is a recent phenomena. It was done to defend against the rational inquiry, promulgated by science and logic. But, as CP Farley writes, “Religious truths had always been considered beyond logic, but the fundamentalists transformed them into literal truths.”

In what way, do nonbelievers or atheist writers do this? I do not even know what is absolutely true, nor do I think I will ever know. Can the same be said for those who hold the Quran as the perfect word of Allah? Perhaps, but that would go against the teaching of Islam.

As nonbelievers, we do not work with certainty but remain impassive to absolutes. We have no books, gods or holy men who command us. You can not be absolute and dogmatic in your lack of belief in fairies, gods or goblins. It is also for this reason that atheism for the monotheist god can never be a religious movement, group or cause. (It is not even a thing in and of itself)

3. You can’t criticise that which you do not understand. You must first get to grips with the deep theological notions, which have hundreds of years of scholarship before you can dismiss it as nonsense – The Courtier’s Reply

We do not think religion is stupid, any more than we think a fiction-writer is a professional liar. I have a deep interest in religion because it is part of makes us human. We look at it anthropologically, study it objectively. (This is actually the reasonable proposal for every religious parent set out by one of the so-called Four Horsemen, Daniel Dennett.) But its truth-claims and claims to “divine” knowledge are what we question.

We do not ignore or deny the years of scholarship, but we fail to see how or why it’s necessary. Your average believer would not be interested in spending hours wading through tome after tome, on how their god is one but three. The majority of believers would not be interested in reading the annals of cognitive gymnastics, the gymnasium of which was set out by Aquinas, et al. Most of it is terribly unhelpful, uninteresting and – of course – untrue. The bottom line is simple: There is not a single good reason for believing that the monotheist god exists. And no amount of ancient gymnastics is going to change that.

And finally…

4. Atheism is a positive position – it is “There is no god”. I don’t think I can say that. I am uncertain and would rather remain agnostic – The Great Agnostic Mistake

As we’ve seen, we do not deal in certainty. We are inherently sceptical and critical of those who claim certainty. To say, then, that atheism is about certainty is to forget that atheism is simply a “lack of belief in a god/gods”. You can then slip in Allah, Yahweh, Loki, Tyr. To say that we are certain or positive of the non-existence of Allah or Loki is tantamount to saying we are endorsing that which we are against: Certainty and absolutism. That is bad logic. (This is similar to the claim that atheism is a religion, though critics are not silly enough to raise that point – see Claim #2)

Nevertheless, though an “agnostic” might acknowledge every point we make, they won’t declare themselves atheists. Yet, agnosticism says nothing about belief: It works on knowledge. I myself am agnostic about the existence of all gods, but I do not believe the god of the Bible or Quran – That makes me an atheist.

“Agnostics” are simply atheists who think:

1. If you are an atheist, you have to be an outspoken critic, hater, or debunker of religion.

2. That atheism is a movement or a positive position “There is NO god”, which is as bad as religious faith in god.

But this is not true. You are an atheist, but just hate that the label entails people treating you with the mindset of the previous two points. We should be working toward the notion that it’s okay not to be a monotheist. You can be an atheist (in a passive form), which means you never have to deal with any of the things we, as outspoken critics, have to.

It is just erroneous to think there is such a position as “I don’t know” with the monotheist god. There isn’t. Either you believe the monotheist god is watching you, loves you, hates your enemies, or you do not. Either the Bible is the word of god or it is not. Either Muhammad spoke to Gabriel, or he did not. You might take the latter as what you believe and that would be the reasonable position – but it does not mean you hate religion, or that you have to be outspoken. In these times however, every voice helps.

In these ways, the term ‘militant’ falls away. In these ways, with these thoughts, we can understand that saying ‘militant’ or ‘fundamentalist’ is a mistake when attributing it to atheism. You might not like what some atheistic-writers say, but criticise them for that. Do not criticise the notion of atheism as a faith-position, as a positive position, as a religious movement. There are better criticisms. IDGAFs must join our mission for the freedom and liberation of our species, where every man and woman can be respected, treated equally and find depth and beauty in reason. It is possible. But being backhanded by would-be allies only stifles our steps toward that goal.

Tags: agnostics, atheism, Daniel Dennett, fallacy, IDGAFs, militant, religion, scepticism, skepticism, straw man, tu quoque
Posted in Feature | 34 Comments »

In Defense of ‘Militant’ Atheism, Part #1

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

This is the first part of a longer article. Please note that some criticisms will probably arise later, due to space, your attention span as a reader and because I care about not giving you information over-load.

Like a path in autumn: no sooner is it cleared than it is once again littered with fallen leaves.

- Franz Kafka¹

Kafka might well have been talking about my problems as an atheist communicator. Once a set of misconceptions are cleared, more meander down to cover the path of reason.

Amidst the discussions involving faith and reason, words escape their denotation. Before delving into the thesis of my article, we need to understand the various terms being used. Words like ‘secularist’, ‘humanist’, ‘atheist’, ‘evolutionist’ all fall into a crevasse which our antagonists hope will boil into a negative transmutation, thus tarnishing those same words to be used against us. It is in this same vein that ‘militant’ atheism has become coated with this negative transmutation. I want to argue: Firstly, the arguments against (militant) atheism from thinkers (on the faith and non-faith side) are all poor; and, second, that ‘militant’ atheism does not exist as our antagonists suggest (this second part will be dealt with more exclusively in Part #3).

I began my investigation into ‘militant’ atheism by asking many people’s opinions on the subject. I have spoken with leading philosophers (some of whom are my friends and who I will argue against), colleagues in the fight against unreason, and the general public. I will attempt to classify their various positions on ‘militant atheism’ and debunk the claims. However, in my online research, I was irritated that criticisms of militant atheism are mainly directed at Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (hardly anyone attacking Mr Anti-theist himself, Christopher Hitchens. His brother has offered some insightful remarks, though). The comments – which I will deal with – are unimpressive and have no feasible position against the accessibility, lucidity, bravery and awareness of The God Delusion (these I believe are its four important points, as I will show later). I will generalize the terms – as I imagine that the criticisms apply to anyone who actively is against religious bullying and against viewing faith as a virtue, which means myself and colleagues – and debunk those, too. Finally, I will suggest the major thesis which is this: ‘Militant’ atheism does not exist in my work and colleagues’, in the closed-minded, yelling, evangelical notions as many consider. ‘Militant’ atheism is a charge directed to those atheists who are actively against religious bullying and the negative connotations must change. The tu quoque fallacy abounds here (which I will explain later) and I want to arm my readers with various forms of identifying the fallacies in IDGAFs (nonbelievers who are critical of active atheism) and theistic antagonists’ approaches.

I hope that by the end of this article, my readers will either have refined their criticism against us active atheists (I accept this description over the erroneous ‘militant’ atheism), or – as a cothinker – you will feel empowered to continue the rightfully placed criticism against religious intolerance, bullying and privileged status of belief without evidence (called faith). Even if I do not change your mind, I hope to give you an advantage to make better arguments against me! I believe this goal beneficial to everyone: colleagues and antagonists alike.

Let us begin our investigation:

Definitions of terms

As I highlighted above, we need to understand the various terms so loosely tossed around in these discussions.

(Secular) Humanist: Richard Norman’s On Humanism beautifully illustrates the definition of humanism (which is not necessarily universal, but is one I certainly uphold and defend, along with Professor Norman. There are many definitions, the rest of which are not relevant to this discussion). As he states², humanism is believing:

“the things we value in human life are not an illusion
that as human beings we can find from our own resources that shared moral values which we need in order to live together, and the means to create meaningful and fulfilling lives for ourselves
and that the rejection of religious belief need not be a cause for despair”

It is thus not man as center, but rather the acknowledgment that man is part of a natural world; that humanity has the capacity to help, improve and save itself; to relish in the present moment as it is the only moment we have as a species. We are special, beautiful and wonderful – but we don’t need any deity to tell us so and we are no more special than other “forms most beautiful”³.

Evolutionist: This is an immediate (and mostly incorrect) labeling of a secular humanist or non-believer in the monotheist god. If their god is not the reason behind the incredible diversity, beauty and intricacy we see in nature, then you must believe in evolution by natural selection. This might be considered an either-or fallacy, namely giving only two options (design or natural selection), whilst forgetting there could be others. However, I will concede that in most cases my co-thinkers are believers in the Darwinian evolutionary process. It is a beautiful fact of science (yes: fact). It explains the intricacy of the eye and chaos of lion-hunting; it explains the beauty of a Benghal tiger and the hideousness of flatfish.

The world’s leading communicator of evolution (apart from Darwin’s “Rottweiler”, Richard Dawkins), Ernst Mayr, stated: “evolution [is] the gradual process of the living world by which it has been developing following the origin of life.”⁴ It unites genetics, geology, cosmology, biomedicine, chemistry, archaeology, anthropology and all the other disciplines that focus on our species, its relation to the world and other species. Darwin’s hand pulled us down from the pedestal we created for ourselves, showing us that we are indeed part of a natural order, one beautiful to comprehend. We are neither the goal of a god nor the goal of a process – we are part of it. I would contend that perhaps this is the main opposition to evolutionary theory: That we are not more special than other living beings, that ultimately the universe is uncaring, that we are alone.

Someone who embraces all forms of evolutionary thought – albeit the various dimensions it engenders – can safely be labeled an evolutionist. I would add however that it is more appropriate to a person who knows evolution to a larger extent than, for example, myself: a psychology and English student. Labeling me an evolutionist might be incorrect in that sense.

Atheist: Atheism does not mean you are a secular humanist, nor an evolutionist. You can be an atheist that hates evolution, science, and despises secular states. Indeed a majority of the world’s atheists do! Because we are all atheists. Atheism is simple: a lack of belief in a god. Everyone lacks a belief in other religion’s gods – unless you are a pantheist (I won’t comment on this flimflam in this article).

Therefore you can be an atheist about Tezcatlipoca and be part of the Discovery Institute in all its vainglory – why? Because as a Christian (not all DI IDers are Christian) you are an atheist about Tezcatlipoca, Loki, Zeus. This might sound ridiculous and stupidly semantic, but that is my point: It is. To say atheism (about which god?) is a position of ‘faith’ is preposterous because atheism does not entail belief in evolution, belief in humanistic outlooks, nor belief that science is beautiful. You are an atheist no matter who you are.

So before opponents decide to say: “a lack of belief is a faith position”, they should question what do they themselves lack a belief in? Fairies, goblins, the Invisible Pink Unicorn? If so, that is a lot of different faith positions! That dialogue – related to the tu quoque fallacy I will be dealing with later – gets us nowhere and is patently wrong!

We are all atheists/Passive Atheism

As an active atheist, I have dealt with many criticisms. An acceptable position says, “I am an atheist but x, y, z.” These are what we call passive atheists, or just atheists. We must remember that there is nothing special about the Judeo-Christian god, over and above other religions’ gods. I always find it amusing that when you tell someone you are an atheist, they assume you mean the monotheist god (how often are you asked: “Oh, so you’re an atheist? Of which god?”). In my case, it’s feasible considering I don’t believe in any supernatural, personal gods. But the fact that people don’t question which god you are an atheist of speaks volumes to our growing global culture.

However, the argument against this is quite simple: Everyone is an atheist of some god. To have to explain would simply be superfluous since we are all atheists.

I can accept this but I only want to make you aware that next time you are asked of your position on religion, reply as such:

Atheist: I am an atheist

Questioner: Oh ok.

Atheist: Aren’t you going to ask me of which god?

Your next line could be, “I am an atheist of all gods except the monotheist god.”

Assess the situation beforehand of course and see what happens (and I have yet to meet someone who has not begun a lame argument against me about my lack of belief, so the second line in this dialogue has never happened personally!). Let me remind you, dear readers, that even if you are a Christian, answer with “I am an atheist” to begin an interesting discussion – because you certainly don’t believe in Hujibi at the top of the mountain.

What on Earth is an IDGAF?

Passive atheism is an acceptable position and I know many such people (they erroneously call themselves agnostics, not realising I too am an agnostic about supernatural deities. However, my belief is in the negative, therefore I am an atheist – as are they but they think atheism necessitates active atheism. It does not). But there are two active lines that bifurcate the next step.

(1) It lends itself to my position as an active atheist:

seeking the enlightenment (not ‘conversion’) of every person to secular humanism
dispelling misconceptions of a lack of belief in the monotheist god
the beauty of science
the combat against religion obscurantism and bullying; and
the welfare of every person to be respected as a human being.

Or (2) it contorts into something I call Idgaffery.

I have met many of these and I am sure my co-thinkers have too. IDGAF is an acronym for: I Don’t Give a Frack. These are active atheists seeking the disestablishment of the campaign against religious superstition. These are people who are angry that you are questioning others’ faith – on the faithfuls’ behalf! (How patronizing to believers – let them defend themselves.) These are the major-league pitchers of the ad hominem: “You bigot, bastard, backward, bully, banal, buttheaded atheist!” They themselves do not believe in a god because they simply “do not give a frack”. Allow me to introduce the IDGAF: angry non-believers who speak for the faithful to keep faith treated with kid-gloves, who view active atheism as preaching, who view active atheism as no better than “other religions”. It is the culmination of active laziness and I believe one of the first such examples in our society: active laziness! Whoever heard of such a thing?

Laziness because most of these attacks are misconceptions, invalid, protective of religious faith and have little understanding of what active atheism entails. In my analysis of some upcoming writers, you can identify the IDGAFs (notably H. Allen Orr) from the faithful.

A critic can easily say the following: “You are making a false assumption, that either people are for you or against you. If they disagree with you, as an active atheist, they are either IDGAFs or faithful. You won’t accept a middle ground”. No. I will not. I have yet to be presented with a valid reason of why those who are active in this debate (passive atheism is fine, but IDGAFs actively speak out) choose the side of protecting the faithful instead of joining us in our fight against religious obscurity. I do not accept a middle ground because I refuse to give consent or respect to the belief without evidence, because a middle ground does not exist. Either you believe or you do not. When you are vocal about that opinion, what possible reason is there to then continue respecting faith? This is not intolerance, it is the position I hold because no non-believer has offered a viable criticism against active atheism. There are many good criticisms, which I will debunk, but they do not last. Why be an active IDGAF criticizing atheism, instead of being an active atheist?

Let me reiterate, I am speaking of no middle-ground regarding activism: passivity is another option and one I duly respect. But active entails writing, speaking and communicating in this debate. There are only two sides in the activism.

For this reason, I accept no middle ground. I am not trying to win hearts here, I imagine I am making fewer friends by saying this! I am attempting to find truth. And Idgaffery from people who should be helping us, only makes the job harder. Am I saying Idgafs should shut up? No. People must express and say whatever they want, but I ask only this: At least offer better reasoning for not being an active atheist and being an active IDGAF.

I hope I have established my position and that I have not created a Strawman. I will show examples of Idgaffery which should hopefully highlight why I feel so strongly about Idgaf nonsense.

END OF PART #1…

REFERENCES

1. Kafka, F. (2006) The Zürau Aphorisms. London: Harvill Secker

2. Norman, R. (2008) On Humanism. London: Routledge Pp. 24-25

3. This quote is from the famous, beautiful ending of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

4. Mayr, E. (2002) What Evolution Is. London: Phoenix. P. 314

Tags: atheism, christopher hitchens, Daniel Dennett, end of faith, fundamentalist, militant atheism, religion, richard dawkins, Secular Humanism, violence
Posted in Feature | 9 Comments »

Center for Inquiry Promo Video

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

I am proud to present to you CFI’s most recent promo video. The official site for the video contains more info.

[youtube]_o2_U0ggvb8&fmt=18[/youtube]

I quoth the CFI site hosting the video:

The methods and values of scientific thinking have expanded our knowledge about life and our place in the universe. This modern knowledge—based on experience and evidence—has brought enormous benefit to humanity, yet many people still choose to rely on ancient texts and beliefs to guide their lives and their nations.

The Center for Inquiry exists to change this situation. We are here to promote the scientific outlook, to expand the methods and values of science into all areas of human endeavor.

We invite you to learn more about the ways we are using education, outreach, and activism to advance reason and human values around the world. Then, if these values are as important to you as they are to us, we ask you to join CFI.

Let your voice be heard. With your help, we can ensure that our time—your time—will be a time of science and reason.

Some of the brightest lights or our day are in this video. It contains Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Susan Jacoby, Ann Druyan, Laurence M. Krauss, Damon Linker, E.O. Wilson, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Richard Dawkins, and Paul Kurtz.

The video is fantastic and for very good reason. Lauren Becker, a field organizer for CFI, along with Rich Blundell, president of Omniscopic and CFI supporter, produced the video, and I, yours truly, created all the graphics used in the video.

However, there are some observations I would like to make about the video. Again, it is awesome, but that is mainly due to the fact that I greatly respect and admire the work of everyone featured in the film. I am not entirely sure what the target audience for that video is, but I think in future promotional videos, younger student leaders need to be featured so that the video will appeal to a younger generation. I guess this has been a long-standing problem with CFI and the skeptical/secularist movement in general. There needs to be a greater showing of the many young people who are part of the movement. Plus, I have no idea how appealing this video will be to people who are not already familiar with CFI’s mission.

Nevertheless, I love this video. Lauren and Rich did a fantastic job and I am proud of them and CFI.

On a side note, if you noticed that Dawkins’ head was too close when he was shown for the second time in the video, don’t fret. Due to the contraints in time that was the best shot available.

Tags: Ann Druyan, Center for Inquiry, cfi, Damon Linker, Daniel Dennett, E.O. Wilson, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Laurenc Krauss, paul kurtz, promo, promotional video, richard dawkins, Steven Pinker, Susan Jacoby, Video
Posted in Media | 4 Comments »

Welcome to Factonista.org