Radio Freethinker

Vancouver's Number 1 Skeptical Podcast and Radio Show

  • Welcome to Radio Freethinker!

    Radio Freethinker is a radio show/podcast that promotes skepticism, critical thinking, and secular issues.

  • Follow Us!

  • Categories

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘Atheism’

« Previous Entries

The Atheist Church?

Posted by Don McLenaghen on March 17, 2013

atheist

There has been a movement lately to establish a ‘church’ for the atheist community. No, these are not attempts by the Christian community to convert atheist but atheist themselves, and mainly apostate, who miss the community that comes with a church life.

Web-Banner-2A pair of well-meaning comedians setup the first British Atheist Church in an old Anglican Church in London and there are plans afoot to set up other churches in other cities across the isle. At the UK branch, there is singing…Stevie Wonder, Queen, etc…there are lectures on topics like ‘the origin of anti-matter’…public reading of works like Alice in Wonderland…and other communal activities.

Although officially called the Sunday Service, the title Atheist Church has stuck and seems to be welcomed the participants or ‘parishioners’.

There is a Calgary Secular Church, which meets in a theater once a month. Which, to quote…”allows like-minded people the chance to get together, to fellowship, to share stories, to enjoy beautiful music, to have their children get excellent ethical and rational instruction, to be enlightened, and most importantly, to know they are not alone!”

Now there are a number of interesting things about this movement. A lot of those who are members are emphasizing the community aspect of it. To quote another ‘parishioner’: “I think people need that sense of connectedness because everyone is so singular right now, and to be part of something, and to feel like you are part of something. That’s what people are craving in the world”

Now, of course I have some issues with this. First, the term ‘church’ is explicitly a Christian term from Greek meaning “belonging to the lord” and they don’t mean the Lord of Downton Abby. A better term would be Congregational.

Yes, there are religious groups who use that term but at root it just stands for a gathering of people…which is really the whole point of this movement.

Now, the term religion is perhaps worse…not in its definition, but its long-term implications.

pknn937lReligion is defined as “A particular system of faith and worship”, but as skeptical or scientific atheists, you would never adhere to a system of faith. Faith of course is believing in something without evidence.

And the idea of worshiping anything should strike, at least the skeptic, as anathema. There is an aspect to the concept of worship that implied blindly following ….always right …a surrender of will.

The irony is such ‘churches’ at least as communal support groups already exist around the world. There are the Skeptics in the Pub phenomena…and no, not all of them are in Pubs, which just goes to show how this idea has stretched its original form. It is in the processes of transforming from a drinking club into a skeptical community center.

Another worry I have about the Atheist Church, is that its members are not necessarily atheist but “no-religion’. That is, they believe in a higher power or some form of spiritualism that is not founded in reality. Why this becomes troublesome is some of these types are actively pushing to make this church a real religion in the traditional sense.

One petitioner stated: “It will become an organised religion. It’s inevitable. A belief system will set in. There will be a structure, an ethical outlook on life”

mlyn1447lTo show signs that there may be dogma in dem-der atheist pews, there are a number of “10 commandments” for atheist popping up. This set is from writer Alain de Botton’s Atheist Manifesto and the default commandments of the UK Atheist Church:

1. Resilience. Keeping going even when things are looking dark.

2. Empathy. The capacity to connect imaginatively with the sufferings and unique experiences of another person.

3. Patience. We should grow calmer and more forgiving by getting more realistic about how things actually tend to go.

4. Sacrifice. We won’t ever manage to raise a family, love someone else or save the planet if we don’t keep up with the art of sacrifice.

5. Politeness. Politeness is very linked to tolerance, the capacity to live alongside people whom one will never agree with, but at the same time, can’t avoid.

6. Humour. Like anger, humour springs from disappointment, but it’s disappointment optimally channelled.

7. Self-Awareness. To know oneself is to try not to blame others for one’s troubles and moods; to have a sense of what’s going on inside oneself, and what actually belongs to the world.

8. Forgiveness. It’s recognising that living with others isn’t possible without excusing errors.

9. Hope. Pessimism isn’t necessarily deep, nor optimism shallow.

10. Confidence. Confidence isn’t arrogance, it’s based on a constant awareness of how short life is and how little we ultimately lose from risking everything.

fullNot to be left out, the Calgary Secular Church has their own set of commandments which are taken from activist writer Adam Lee:

First Commandment: Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

Second Commandment: In all things, strive to cause no harm.

Third Commandment: Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

Fourth Commandment: Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

Fifth Commandment: Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

Sixth Commandment: Always seek to be learning something new.

Seventh Commandment: Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

Eighth Commandment: Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

Ninth Commandment: Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

Tenth Commandment: Question everything.

Again, Commandment is an edict that must be obeyed…skeptics do not obey, they follow the evidence.

So, I think that as a minority community in a greater society there is a longing to connect with ‘our kind’ in the same way that religious or ethnic groups form inner-communities. There have been many attempts to form these inner-communities and will be more in the future. I worry that this particular experiment carries dangerous baggage but a good skeptic believes in the experimental method, so maybe we try it out and see where it goes.

Adam Lee’s – The New Ten Commandments
Calgary Secular Church
10 new virtues for atheists: Alain de Botton unveils new manifesto
Good without God: Atheist churches offer non-believers community and ritual without faith
What happens at an atheist church?
The Sunday Assembly

Posted in Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Perhaps it’s not about the Skeptic Schism

Posted by Don McLenaghen on September 8, 2012

I was planning to write about my thoughts on what I saw as the exclusionary nature of A+ when I heard about the self-imposed digital exile of Jen. I think I had a bit of an epiphany. I no longer saw the issue in the narrowly defined bands of skepticism, atheism or even feminism (although those are all involved) but in terms of bullying.

As a member of the LGBT community and someone who was continually the victim of both physical and psychological bullying at school in the late 70s/early 80s…in a time and place where people saw “fags” as unnatural perverts. Where bullying was seen as an opportunity for “character building” …if you were a REAL man you would stand up to your bully and be a better person for it…the reality is shittier than that. But I survived with ‘minimal’ emotional scaring, I guess.

From that perspective I look at what has happened to the Skeptic Movement in a new way. It is almost impossible for someone who has not been subjected to this abuse to understand…it is literally beyond their conception. Bullying is not about points of view, agenda or the ‘future’ of anything. It is only about power and abuse!

Conversely, the victim will often focus on the ‘proximal’ cause (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) as the “BIG” problem to addressed, missing the fundamental issue – The Bullying. The bully did not act because I was gay…there were lots of people who knew and did not bully. They acted because there are people in our society who wish to hurt…who feed on pain. My identity was only the proximal cause; their identity was the fundamental cause.

Returning to the supposed ‘schism’ in the community; the problem is not how we see ‘atheism’ or skepticism in the future; that is a disagreement in views. The issues articulated by the founders of the schism are not goals but process…not an argument of policy but the way those disagreements are conducted.

The fundamental problem Jen and those subjected to abuse was not whether people agreed or disagreed that skepticism/atheism should focus of social justice or feminism…there is space for debate there. The problem was when these issues were raised some people chose not to debate but to bully; the meeting of logical arguments with violent epithets and threats. Sadly, this is a character of the wider society and skeptics are not immune. Complicating and amplifying this problem is the internet.

One of the mixed blessings of the internet is to give voice to all the “little” crimes of bullying that would have remained isolated (and often unreported). Providing those victims the opportunity to express and share their pain…to find solace and solidarity in a wider community……to find some justice (of a sort) by bringing both the crime and the ‘criminal’ to public attention.

However, it has also provided a (usually anonymous) way for bullies from around the world find new victims. It not only united the victims but also the victimizers. Where in the past a bully was limited to their local community; the digital bully has the entire web-o-sphere to prowl for prey.

There is not a group/forum/community that is ‘online’ that has not been subjected to trolling…members singled out for persecution by this vicious hatred. There are few people who have not, in the heat of an argument with the ‘digital distance’ the web provides articulate a thought that was not in some way hurtful, overly forceful or simply ill-stated.

If the skeptical community adopts the practical actions proposed by some as anti-bullying there may be better purchase by the community as a whole; a greater recognition that it is not the content of the message but how those delivering the message are being treated.

This is where people’s honest difference of opinion about issues surrounding ‘proximal’ causes can muddy the water regarding the fundamental cause. Someone might think “I don’t think feminist point number ‘x’ is important, therefore I can’t see why anyone (pro or con) could get violently upset”. We can forget bullies are not motivated by issues; issues are simply excuses for their vile form of self-gratification.

This explains why I think that A+ (as originally envisioned) will not address this problem because it is NOT fundamentally a problem about the issues but a problem with bullying. If people think that the A+ forms/conferences will not be trolled, they are delusional. If they think that bullying over other issues will not occur, they are too optimistic. It may be libertarians threatening socialist…people who lack a rational argument…people who feel powerful by hurting others…people who confuse fame with infamy will rear their ugly head. Harassment is the symptom, bullying is the disease.

If one looks at some of the rhetoric that some of the ‘supporters’ of the A+ movement has said about those deemed enemies…well, bullying is bullying regardless the cause.

One would think harassment is simple enough, but when we add “sexual’ to that, about half the population sadly cannot (truly) relate…where as everyone of every ilk has at least once in their lives been the victim of bullying. It offers a distance between one’s honest disagreement with an idea and the treatment of the person presenting that idea.

I think this provides a framework for those who fear that other attempts to ‘police’ the behavior of the community will lead to a suppression of ideas…to witch-hunts or inquisitions. Anti-bullying campaigns do not limit the spectrum of debate but only the conduct by which such debate is executed.

Let me give three practical examples (these are distinctions open for debate).

Someone, let’s make it the ‘old white male’, shouts out at a forum at a participant . The intent of this is to bully the speaker into silence. This act would be judged under anti-bullying rules. It is unacceptable and subject to ejection. No one has a right to bully.

Someone, a different “old white male”, is at the bar and tells a ‘joke’ about . Here the intent is to be funny and not to bully. This act should be judged by social norms…it should be brought to his attention that such joke are hurtful and continuation of telling them may lead to social isolation but not “ejection” from the movement. People have a right to be a jerk.

Our last “old white male” is at the forum like our first example. There he expresses that affirmative action is ‘reverse-discrimination’ and we should abandon it. Now, this is out dated thinking and with better education he may learn the error of his judgment; that said he is entitled to his views and should not be shunned from the community. We all have a right to our opinions, provided our expression of them does not harm others.

The whole point of skepticism is to education; how can that be done if we only accept into our movement people who already agree with our views 100%. That is why I was against the ‘splintering’ action of A+ while support the ‘practical actions’ for the skeptical movement and the need to think about where skepticism will be in the future.

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Radio Freethinker Episode 180 – Skeptical Waves Edition

Posted by Don McLenaghen on September 4, 2012

This week:

- Goodbye Neil Armstrong
- Causality and Climate Change
- Defining the ‘-ism’s
-What’s up with A+ and the skeptical movement?

Download the episode here!

Good bye Neil Armstrong

With the passing of Neil Armstrong, we take a moment to look back at both the man and his impact on humanity.

Find out more:

Causality and Climate Change

A recent publication by James Hansen (in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) claims to provide proof that weather is caused by climate change. This is a strong and controversial statement, not that climate change is real and affecting the weather but the stronger claim that “THIS hurricane was caused by climate change”. Ethan takes the classic scientific skeptic stance while Don attempts to use the “smoking causes cancer” defence; read, listen and decide where you come down on this important issue.

Find out more:

Defining the “-ism”s

There has been much debate in the skeptical and atheist community about the future of the movements. Don takes a moment and tries to define what the terms mean so that people engaging (at least RFT) will have a common understanding of what we are talking about. Even if you disagree with our take, you will at least know where we are coming from.

Find out more:

What up with A+ and the skeptical movement?

There has been a lot of talk about A+ and where the skeptical movement should go. Ethan and Don debate whether A+ is expanding atheism or ghettoising the equality “wing” of the movement. Should we continue to attempt to educate the ignorant (both senses of the term) or cut them a drift as lost causes.

Find out more:

Skeptical Highlights:

Philosophers Cafe:

What does it mean to be an educated person?

The current proliferation of learning resources delivered via technology may suggest that traditional schooling systems, including formal institutions and assessments, may become less relevant. In light of the wide access to knowledge provided by the Internet, and the accompanying difficulties that traditional systems have keeping up with change, what does it mean to be educated in modern society? Will formal education become even more important as a marker of social progress than it is now, or will educational delivery become more flexible and less formal?

When:  Tuesday, Sept 4, 2012, 7–9 pm
Where: Unitarian Centre, 949 West 49th Avenue (at Oak), Vancouver
Who: Moderator: Sarah Fleming is a senior lecturer in the department of Linguistics at SFU. She teaches and coordinates academic programs in English for multilingual international students.
Cost: Free

Lives of politicians – private or public?

A number of politicians have had their careers prematurely cut short because of perceived or actual issues regarding their personal lives. If the issue does not directly relate to their job, is this fair? Does, and should, one’s personal morals or religion reflect upon their professional conduct?

When:  Wednesday, Sept 5, 2012 7 pm
Where:  Nature’s Garden Organic Deli, 8968 University High Street, Burnaby
Who: Jason Carreiro is a PhD student in SFU’s faculty of Education. His life is devoted to literature and the silence unique to it.
Cost: Free

Social moguls, social virtuosos: who among us is capable of driving change?

The world is always changing, usually according to the whim of politicians. But there are those who are shifting the balance in a direction of intention For example, the blogger whose take on the news you return to time and again because they always seem to have the scoop. A quality common to these “virtuoso social actors” or “social moguls” is knowing how to engage with others from more than one perspective and seeking meaningful compromises among the very different ways that others find value and meaning. Do you have some of these skills? Can you learn them? Can you walk in the shoes of others without losing your own personal vision?

When:  Monday, Sept 10, 2012, 7 pm
Where:   Waves Coffee House, 900 Howe Street (at Smithe) , Vancouver
Who: Moderator: Dr. Meg Holden is an associate professor of Urban Studies and Geography at SFU. She is the founder of the Regional Vancouver Urban Observatory.
Cost: Free

CFI Freethinker’s Book Club

Science, Sense and Nonsense: 61 nourishing, healthy, bulk-free commentaries on the chemistry that affects us all,’ by Joe Schwarcz, PhD.  Saturday, September 8th 2012 at 1:00 pm at The Grind & Gallery Coffee Bar, on Main Street, Vancouver BC

Posted in Show notes | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

4th Wave Skepticism – Foundations – Part 1

Posted by Don McLenaghen on September 4, 2012

There has been a lot of talk thrown around lately about atheism, skepticism, humanism, socialism….etc. There have been words attached like wave, plus…etc. Before moving forward we should first come to an understanding as to what these terms mean.  Some will disagree with my interpretation of these movements and that’s okay. The intent of this post is to ensure what it will be clear what I mean when I use these terms and the conversation can continue.

Atheism is a belief system about the existence or non-existence of supernatural divine entities. One can be an atheist simply because you have never been exposed to any ‘religion’. Equally you could be agnostic (weak atheism) because you think some questions are beyond certainty of knowledge and best left answered as “I don’t know”.

Some will be atheist because of a contradiction of theory and practice; I am sure a number of Catholics (for example) lost their faith because they could not reconcile a loving god/church and pedophilic priests…I think I would count Ayaan Hirsi Ali (one of our ‘Awful Atheist’ from an Episode #177) in this category.

And of course, there are those who look at the evidence and conclude that there is no scientific or ‘weight of evidence’ to believe. Now of course you could be an atheist for several or all of these reasons.

Skepticism is a theory of knowledge. It is not so much a belief system in itself but a mechanism for selecting ‘beliefs/truths/fact’. The original philosophical skeptics questioned if knowledgeable humans were capable of making truth claims – the matrix argument. Philosophical skepticism is based on strong logical foundations. Although the strongest argument against certainty, is also the least useful; in a pragmatic sense we must at some point bite the bullet and assert SOMETHING and build a picture of the world upon this.

From here you get what I would call theistic or rational skeptics; those are the people like Thomas Aquinas and Descartes who moved beyond the ancient skeptics. They accepted the logic of the ancients but acknowledged that a rejection of any knowledge seemed irrational. Choosing to take the pragmatic route; they needed to add to their world foundation a rational rock upon which to build knowledge. Aquinas and Descartes chose god as their foundation.

It was not really until Francis Bacon and the scientific revolution of the enlightenment, that scientific skepticism became possible.  Scientific skepticism has as its foundation the scientific method. When combined with logic and reason we get a powerful self-correcting tool to filter competing ideas about the world around us.

 

Humanism is a philosophy about how we should treat ourselves and our fellow humans. Its foundations are in Epicureanism; which essentially said humans are the best measure of ‘good’ and that through moderation and education we become the best judges of ‘good’.  There is the rejection of the supernatural or ‘other worldly’ as our masters. Humanism in the Renaissance could be compatible with religious beliefs; modern Secular Humanism seems to pre-supposed atheism (although belief in an impersonal deity may be possible).

Secular Humanism attempts to move beyond atheism and provide an ethical framework for a ‘post-religious’ society. In this context it tends to focus more on the Secular in an effort to remove religion from the public forum. In this form, Humanists often find themselves allied with Unitarians and other ‘secular’ religious movements who see faith as a personal and not a public exercise.

Socialism is the belief that strength and prosperity are more completely attained through social cooperation. Socialist to this day come from all points of the ‘religious’ spectrum. Unlike the other ‘isms’ we have discussed, Socialism is not individualistic…it re-supposes a ‘group-think’ attitude. One can be individualistically an atheist, skeptic and even humanist; one cannot be a singular and socialist (that would be libertarian).

Okay, but what about ‘waves’ and such?

Well, this post seemed too long, so I will continue my analysis in part 2 later this week.

Posted in Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Let’s see…I’m a skeptic, humanist, atheist…

Posted by Ethan Clow on August 23, 2012

There’s been a lot of discussion lately regarding the new Atheism + group/ideology proposed by Jen McCreight, which I think is great. I wanted to throw in my two cents regarding this, Don has already started discussing the topic as well so you can see what he has to say about it. But to start with, let’s consider what’s on the table here. Jen’s new wave of atheism would expand the circle of previous atheist advocacy to include discussion of social justice issues like racism, homophobia, feminism, political issues and more.

To quote her:

“This new wave of atheism isn’t about declaring “We’ve already achieved something better” or “We’re not like those assholes.” You don’t just get your shiny membership pin and get to say you’re done. This is about saying “We want to work TOWARDS something better.” We need to recognize that there’s still room for self-improvement and to address the root of why we’ve been having these problems in atheism and skepticism. We need to focus on actual change instead of prematurely crowning ourselves victorious.”

I think this will be a great project and I really hope this expanded “big tent” wave of atheism activism takes hold of people and really energizes the movement. Of course I suspect there will be some who will dig in their heels and refuse to acknowledge that atheists can have a position on such “wishy washy” topics like politics or social justice.  Or point out the fatal flaw that you can’t take social justice under the microscope like you can with homeopathy.

That of course comes with a bit of irony since there are plenty of skeptics out there that feel the same about atheism in general. You can’t put God under the microscope.

I pretty much left that way of thinking behind years ago. In fact I’m still routinely face palming every time I see some skeptic/atheist/humanist wag their finger at someone because they are attempting to apply some avenue of free thought to a topic that said finger wagging -ist doesn’t think falls under the limited scope of their preferred -ism.

This debate, the question of what we should be skeptical of/what should we focus our resources on, has been going on since there was an organized free thought movement.

When I first joined in I took a look around to see what the pulse of the various groups and organizations was like. I was surveying the room so to speak. Trying to figure out which conversation I would have the most to say in, and coincidently, which conversation I wanted the most to be a part of.

I happen to love the term “skeptic.” I felt then and now, it most accurately describes what I am. Even though I also identify as an atheist, a humanist, a free thinker, a feminist, a progressive, a liberal and so forth.

See, my background, I was an atheist first, more in the teenage rebellion aspect, but I also had a huge love of critical thinking spurred on by reading books by Carl Sagan. This was all before I even knew there was a free thought movement. When I encountered the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast I had this great moment of realization “holy crap there are people who think like I do!”  That was my first clue that there was an organized effort out there to promote the values I saw as important; skepticism, science, atheism, critical thinking…

Perhaps that’s why I really like the term “skeptic” it was the first way of describing my thought process that I heard. Even though the SGU podcast rarely talked about religion or atheism, or dived into political or social justice issues, I felt that with a mandate like skepticism – vigorous rational inquiry into the world, how could you not being on the side of social justice?

Of course not everyone agrees with me. There are some skeptics who just as vigorously deny any connection between skepticism and atheism. Likewise with humanism. Meh. Fuck them I guess. Okay, that was harsh. No, in all seriousness, I wish them well with their chosen goals. Finger wagging aside, I have long said we need every voice possible promoting this rational movement. Those who do wag fingers… yes they can go fuck off because they are in fact hurting our movement. They push away allies and demoralize the rest of us.

I really have no problem with groups like the JREF not engaging in social justice issues because, well, they would suck at that. Who are the JREF’s experts? Magicians and scientists. These aren’t the kind of people who I want weighing in on social justice. Does that mean that when the JREF puts on a big skeptical conference they should avoid having speakers who are historians, sociologists, harm reduction drug activists, criminologists or whomever? No, because in that case those speakers would be experts on those topics and they there’s nothing anti-skeptical about those topics for a bunch of evidence loving folks to digest and debate.

Of course I do have a problem with groups make statements about the limits of our inquiry (it’s free inquiry for a reason, yes?) Obviously we need these groups to be aware of the effect of making events and conferences safe places and welcoming to people who don’t love to hear homeopathy debunked for the umpteenth time. That’s a given and I’m flabbergasted anyone anywhere actually doubts that.

What I like about this Atheism+ thing is that Jen and her other supporters seem keen on brining in the social justice experts, including them in the conversation, and that’s a great way to expand our diversity of topics. Making a point of talking about social justice is great. Having something intelligent to say on it is better.

Here on Radio Freethinker, we have unequivocally supported the “big tent” mentality. By our twentieth episode we had covered such “big tent” ideas like morality, religion, politics, racism and history. And we were just getting started. We’ve discussed everything from ‘how to debate ghost believers’ to harm reduction drug policy and corporal punishment. (Also for the record, we admit to not being experts on anything. We do research and invite people to disagree with us. Sometimes we’re wrong but we’re doing our best to apply our skepticism.)

I joked on Facebook that I was skeptical everything before being skeptical of everything was cool.

So will I identify as an Atheist+? Sure I guess so. I’ll add it to my list. Let me see if I can get this right, bear with me.

I’m a skeptic, I navigate the world around me with a skeptical method of inquiry, I gain my sense of morality and ethics from humanism and when possible, they are informed by science. I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in gods and this is informed by my scientific understanding of how the universe works. Plus(!) I extend my skepticism to my views of social justice; freedom, equality, and kindness. In that, I not only skeptically investigate what social justice policies work, but that I encourage those social justice policies in my skeptical activism.

There. A bit long for a button or logo but that’s what I think.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

4th wave Skepticism – a prequel

Posted by Don McLenaghen on August 22, 2012

There has been growing talk recently about attempting to evolve the skeptical movement to something like fourth wave skepticism (number not important here). First, I should point out that, in my humble opinion, it’s not (or should not be) 4th wave atheism or Atheism+. I will explain why in a future post, for the moment; grant me your indulgence.

I think 4th wave skepticism is a great idea but, are we ready for it?

The premise behind 4th wave skepticism is to move beyond the past incarnation of the movement and to achieve a new plateau of customs/standards/norms and new goals/objectives/ideals. Of course this does not mean we forget the struggles of the past, nor imply that the fourth wave is ‘better’ or ‘more important’ than the other wave, merely that it is the natural evolution of a movement.

That said, are we ready?

I think it’s never too early to start to discuss such quaesitus-utopia but to ‘move on’ implies that we have achieved the goals of 3rd wave skepticism…that the issues with the 3rd wave have been addressed.

Now, I do not say this dismissively…nor do I mean to imply that once ‘addressed’ such issues should be forgotten, ignored or side-lined; often on the road to utopia (a valuable journey even if the ultimate destination is ever-changing) we must carry the baggage of past battles. And for what I say next, I do not mean to be dismissive nor condescending; to move to the 4th wave we must ‘put behind us’ the controversies of racism, sexism and the other ‘isms’ that have so plagued the 3rd wave.

WAIT! I am not saying that we ignore, dismiss nor diminish the importance of these struggles. They are integral to the long-term health and existence of the movements…they help define the movement. That in the 4th wave, the movement must be able to say that we have learned to deal with those who are sexist…we have eliminated the taint of racism…we have created mechanism to police the inequalities that has so beleaguered great movements in the past.

To claim that our movement is ready for the 4th wave, whatever that may be, we are saying we have moved beyond paternalism/feminism… white/coloured… gay/straight… rich/poor… entitles/disenfranchised; that the movement is no longer at war with itself on these fundamental issues. I am not sure we have reached this point.

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that we must be a unified ideological singularity. There will be a whole new set of issues to be dealt with by the 4th wave. What I am implying is that the next set of issues the movement needs to address can only truly be debate once we have moved past the internally destructive…the ad hominem de-humanizing abusive dissention that has come to the forefront of our movement.

Before we can address these external issues we must be internally united on equality and value of those who are members of the movement regardless of their background or view point. A feminist cannot talk effectively to a misogynist…a white supremacist cannot see as equal a black panther. And NO I am not saying these ‘dichotomies’ are equivalent. I think most feminist are rational, while most misogynist are dogmatic (although both may exist in each camp).

If we are to really move to the 4th wave…if our movement is to evolve, we must first address these issues that have proven to be so divisive.

Sadly, I do not think we have yet finished with the 3rd wave. To use the analysis of Jen McCreight, I think we still have great issues of internal inequality…that is regardless of our opinions of the future of the movement; many in our movement do not even accept the idea that opinions of members of the movement should be heard as equals.

Let me be a little rude and more blunt…I think any talk about moving the skeptic community to a next stage is premature in the light that some people believe if they show up at a skeptical convention they will be raped while others think if they DO show up ‘a little rape’ might set them right. I accept the fears/concerns of women in the movement (sometimes stated but genuinely believed) while also accepting that there are men who would see the worst of these ‘fears’ as normal/traditional behaviour or ‘corrective’ (the classic and horrific – ‘they were asking for it’).

I think it is true that there are extremist on both sides…that the ‘general’ population is ‘generally’ rational…however; it is also true that an ‘extremist’ feminist may create an ‘up-roar’ in the community while an ‘extremist’ misogamist (to use a polite term) could (realistically) result in rape or worse. It is a traditional case of two but unequal sides to an ‘argument’. I, as a man from an older generation, do not think I can trust my ‘gut’ to make judgments on this issue. Until equality is achieved; I think that those who in the disadvantaged position get the ‘commanding heights’ of the argument.

I plan to continue this article on the idea of 4th wave skepticism because I think planning for the next stage of our movement’s evolution is important. That said; I also think it is too early to make any claims that we are ready to make such a transition. Ironically enough; this segment is intended as a rebuttal (vis-à-vis timing) to Blog Hag’s call to ‘move on’ (in a positive way) while I acknowledge that she (and those she represents) and those who are subjected by the bigotry/inequality/injustice by the current skeptic community, are the ones who are to tell me when we are ready to ‘move on’ to the 4th wave.

 

(Update – I noted the Jen has  commented more on the whole A+ that is not reflected here, but it should come up in the next instalment)

Posted in Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Radio Freethinker Episode 171 – Living Wage Edition

Posted by Don McLenaghen on June 19, 2012

This week:

– Chinese rockets,

- Neanderthal painters,

- The crime of atheism,

- Reproductive music,

- The poor and working poor (Part 2 of 2 interview with Iglika Ivanova)

Download the episode here!

Topics: China’s rockets

China launched a manned mission Shenzhou 9 to their orbiting space station Tiangong 1. We talk about the future of China’s space program.Find out more:

Neanderthal painters

Resent research pushed back the date of the earliest cave art to about 41,000 years old. The new twist is homo-sapiens were thought to be the only species to create cave art but humans were not suppose to have arrived in the region until 35,000 years ago. Some people are now speculating that Neanderthals may have been the artist.Find out more:

The crime of being an atheist

An atheist in Indonesia has been sentence to 10 years on jail for professing his atheism. A Kuwaiti man faces 10 years of hard labour in prison and feel lucky he avoided a potential death sentence for blasphemy. We discuss the criminalization of atheist around the world, the need to be vigilant and globally supportive. Find out more:

Reproductive music Research has shown the obvious that sex sells but how it manifest itself in different genre of music and the dubious link to evolutionary advantage make it an interesting topic for the show. Find out more:

The poor and working poor

Don’s sits down with Iglika Ivanova in the Radio Free Thinker virtual studio and discusses poverty and Living wage. Iglika Ivanova is a research economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives for BC. Find out more:

Skeptical Highlights:

Walk for Peace

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Walk for Peace march. In 1982, 35,000 people marched from Kitsilano to the West End calling for world peace. By 1984, the march had grown to 100,000 people. Keeping with the Humanist commitment to global peace, BC Humanist Association invites you to join them in the walk to help raise their banner and the humanist commitment to peace, respect and a civil society

When: Saturday, June 30 at Noon Where: Sunset Beach or meet up at the Sunset Grill around 11:50 am Cost: Free

Humanist Brunch for Peace?

The BC Humanist Association doesn’t want to you walk on empty stomachs, so before the march, they are planning to meet at the Sunset Grill for brunch at 10:00 am. Afterward, they will join the march which departs at noon and wraps up at 2pm at Sunset Beach for entertainment, music, and celebration.

Please RSVP if you plan to join them for brunch (so they can confirm our reservation) RSVPs close on Wednesday, June 27th.

When: Saturday, June 30 at 10:00 am Where: Sunset Grill (Yew and York Street) Cost: Whatever you order off the menu

Aan’s Legal Defence Fund

Atheist Alliance International has launched an appeal for donations to help pay for Aan’s legal costs and to support the Aan family’s living expenses while he is in jail.

CFI Transnational wants to make the voices of those who support Alexander loud and clear to the Indonesian government. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is organizing a letter-writing campaign on Alexander’s behalf, and CFI urges you to take part. They have created a custom letter which you can sign or add to and add your voice to those fighting for Aan’s freedom.

Please support Atheist around the world in their struggle against persecution by donating here.

Posted in Show notes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Blasphemy Against Atheists? What’s Sacred to Us?

Posted by Ethan Clow on June 1, 2012

A few days ago at UBC I attended a CFI talk by Austin Dacey about the future of blasphemy. It was an interesting lecture and while I felt that Dacey was leaning towards the “olive branch” side of the spectrum, I did find his points rather persuasive. Or, at the least, extremely thought provoking. Namely, what is blasphemy and what does it mean to atheists and skeptics in the free thought movement? How do we navigate the new modern view of blasphemy and is there a way that we can take advantage of this interpretation? If we can though, what is sacred to free thinkers?

The main focus of the talk was on the changing dynamic of blasphemy interpretation. In early biblical times, blasphemy was viewed as an affront to God. Literally speaking. If you committed the crime of blasphemy, the victim was God. In most cases, the penalty for this was death.

However as time went on the view of who the victim of blasphemy began to change. No longer was God seen as the victim but rather society. If someone blasphemed, they were harming the community and thus blasphemy was seen as a civic crime.

In modern times blasphemy morphed into a new type of crime, a personal attack on the feelings and beliefs of an individual. In fact, this new form is how the United Nations and various human rights agencies around the world view blasphemy, a crime wherein the feelings and beliefs of individuals are mocked and hurt by the act of blasphemy.

I don’t think I need to go into huge detail about why this is such a troubling and dangerous definition for any law. Subjective emotions and feelings exist in a vague and esoteric dimension guarded by hounds of close mindedness and ectoplasm.

If someone puts up a sign that offends me, how can any just society consider having that person arrested and put in jail for the terrible crime of offending me?

Of course we rarely see someone incarcerated in North America for blasphemy but we do see other forms of punitive action taking place when someone is so offended. A number of atheist billboards have been taken down because some religious person couldn’t stand the fact that atheists exists.

This billboard was taken down because it was too offensive.

Elsewhere people who blaspheme may face more serious action. Sanal Edamaruku, an Indian skeptic was arrested for blasphemy in March. Hamza Kashgari, a Saudi Arabian writer, was forced to flee his country when he was accused of blasphemy under the penalty of death.

Solving the problem of blasphemy laws will be an uphill battle. These laws were put in place by human rights activists to protect against religious minorities being singled out for violence in the way that Jewish people were singled out for violence by Nazi Germany. However as Dacey pointed out, that’s not what these laws do. If anything, they actually empower the oppressor to subject minority voices.

Blasphemy laws seem to be used by the most conservative and holier than thou’s of religions for the express purpose of strengthening their own positions and silencing criticism.

But Dacey said something I had never considered. Perhaps we atheists and skeptics can turn the tables and use these blasphemy laws to our own advantage. The only catch is that we have to have something sacred to blaspheme against.

So the thorny question is: what (if anything) is sacred to free thinkers?

My first instinct is to say nothing. The reason I say that is because when I think of sacred, I imagine something that is profoundly unquestionable. Something that is so important, no part of it could change or be altered or the risk would be its total destruction.

This is where I was having problems with Dacey’s thesis, it would seem that in order to have something “sacred” I would need a definition of sacred that is so watered down as to hardly even make sense when talking with anyone with a more mainstream definition.

Even with such a watered down definition I have trouble with Dacey’s idea as he applies to physical objects. He gave an example of great works of art or old books. But even then, if I was in the Louvre and it was freezing cold and it was either burn the Mona Lisa or freeze to death…I’m probably burning that painting.

However where I found myself thinking that Dacey’s idea could work for me was the idea of human dignity. The idea that human beings shouldn’t be tortured, demeaned, humiliated, wrongfully incarcerated, abused or destroyed. Whether we want to call these human rights or not, I’m pretty sure that they are as close to sacred as I can get.

And of course to blaspheme against them would have to be more than suggest that those ideas are wrong. After all, free speech and free expression would fall under the umbrella of human dignity, to lock someone up for that would seem to be hypocritical.

I think the only form of blaspheme against human dignity would be violations of human dignity. Perhaps the enactment of laws designed to erode the values of human rights or the justifications for egregious violations of human beings. The actual acts of torture etc already have laws on the books to punish such crimes.

But even setting aside the actual blasphemy claim, can we accept the idea of sacred ideas? Even if we decided to include the notion of great art into that category. Would we lock someone up for defacing the Mona Lisa? Would a musician who remixes Mozart go to jail? Under these new laws could George Lucas be arrested for the Star Wars prequels?

Austin Dacey has two books that interested folks might want to check out. The Secular Conscience and The Future of Blasphemy.

 

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Most Unbelieving Place on Earth? East Germany

Posted by Ethan Clow on May 17, 2012

Where in the world would you find the least religious people? If you said East Germany, you’d be right. Of course since East Germany doesn’t exist anymore, you’d be wrong but still, at least you tried.

No but seriously, apparently the geographic area of Eastern Germany is home to the least religious people in the world. This according to a new study out of the University of Chicago, by sociologist Tom Smith.

You can view the study in PDF here.

What sociologist Smith did was look at survey data on belief in God in 30 countries between 1991 and 2008. (Canada wasn’t included) What he discovered was that the citizens of the former German Democratic Republic have by far the highest rate of atheism at 52.1 percent. The Czech Republic is the most atheist currently existing country at 39.9 percent. They’re followed by the French (23.3 percent), the Dutch (19.7 percent), and the Swedes (19.3 percent). Japan is the country with the lowest percentage of people who say they “know god really exists and have no doubts about it.”  (4.3 percent.)

The most religious country in the survey was the Philippines, where 83.6 percent of people are sure God exists and only 0.7 percent are atheists. The United States, not surprisingly has only a 3 percent rate of atheism and 60.6 percent sure that God exists.

This study is based on The international Social Survey Program (ISSP) which asked three questions – do you believe in God (and ranked them on a 6 point scale) and has your believe in God changed over your life? And finally a ‘agree or disagree’ question about a personal God who cares about human life.

The ISSP Religion studies covered 18 countries in 1991 (counting East and West Germany and Northern Ireland and Great Britain separately), 33 countries in 1998, and 42 countries in 2008.

So this isn’t original research in that Smith devised new methods for documenting religious belief or anything like that. It’s a meta-study where he used existing information and compiled it and hypothesized on why the results came out as they did.

Another thing to consider about this study is that it doesn’t measure how secular a country is, only what the citizens in those countries believe. I think this is an important distinction. If we consider how the United States has secular wording enshrined in its founding documents we might get the assumption that it is a very secular nation, of course, as this study shows, the citizens of the United States are overwhelmingly religious.

What’s also interesting is how this data compares to what many of us have thought about previous demographics regarding religious belief. Many of assumed that the Scandinavian countries were the most atheist but Sweden is fifth on the list of general unbelief.

In general, reliable studies seem to indicated a general downward trend of worldwide religious belief, especially in the industrialized west. For example, global poll conducted by Angus Reid in 2006 found that over the past twenty or so years, religious belief has become less important, especially for Canadians and Europeans.

Sweden is interesting because religion there functions a fair bit differently than we might expect. A Gallop poll in 2009 found that only 17% of Swedes consider religion an important aspect of their lives. Despite the fact that about 70% of the population of Sweden are members of the Church of Sweden. What this would imply is that religious membership serves more as a cultural or even community service and seems to have less effect on the decisions people make.

Given the difference in polls and surveys (Phil Zuckerman writes that some figures range from 17% to 85% of Swedes might be atheists) we can probably assume some general things about religious belief for the Swedes, and since the new study by Smith doesn’t include new research we will have to take those numbers with some skepticism as its apparent that any of these figures are estimations and subject to change.

One thing that we should be curious about is why is Eastern Germany so full of atheists? One could make the argument that it’s the combined influence of National Socialism and Communist control over the area for the 60 or so years from the 30’s to the 80’s. Arguably, this is a good answer. When you combine the wartime horrors by the National Socialists (some of the worst which occurred in Eastern Europe) it could explain why a pessimism for religion fostered. And then when you add the Communist repression of religion to the mix, it actually makes perfect sense.

But researchers also suggest that many Slavic and non-Orthodox communities present in the area since the Middle Ages were nonreligious; that the secularization movements during the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) were particularly strong in the states of Thuringia and Saxony; that the resistance of most DDR dissidents to the church was not seen, unlike the way it was perceived in Catholic Poland, as specifically religiously motivated.

Meaning, the people who have lived there for thousands of years were never fully converted. Or at least, we might say never drank the kool-aid.

Another potential explanation would be the historic tug of war Catholicism and Protestantism had over Germany. To this day the country is fairly evenly split down Catholic and Protestant lines. During the Reformation, Protestantism appealed to many of the local authority figures as a way to steal power from the Catholic Church and centralize their own power base. While this process didn’t exactly help the secular humanism angle, it did in a way help by breaking down the imperial nature of Catholicism.

By having a religion that was essentially localized to your community and nation and not beholden to a Pope in a far off place, people were able to take a more direct and active role in religion. One of the first steps in moving towards secularism is breaking that spell of subservience to a higher power. Certainly the Reformation broke that spell in relation to the subservience to Rome and the Pope.

And let’s not forget the devastation of the wars of religion that erupted because of the Reformation. Having three decades of warfare can sour you on belief in God when everywhere you look someone is waiting to kill you for not believing in their version of God.

 

 

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Radio Freethinker Episode 166 – SkyTrain Fare-ness Edition

Posted by Don McLenaghen on May 15, 2012

This week:

- Apostate Norway,
- A most atheist country ,
- Religion and sports don’t mix,
- The Vatican Bubble,
- SkyTrain Fare-Gates.

Download the episode here!

Topics:
Apostate Norway

Norway this week moved to change its constitution by removing reference to Norway as a Christian nation and cutting links between the state and the Church of Norway. A vote to happen Monday is expected to pass easily because even the Christian Democrats and the Conservative party supports this move.

Find out more:

A most atheist country

We discuss the recent meta study that showed the strength of atheism and religion among nations with some surprising discoveries

Find out more:

Religion and sports don’t mix

We give a brief overview about a controversy in Arizona where a catholic charter school refused to play the championship game because there was a girl on the opposition team.

Find out more:

The Vatican Bubble

The Vatican has recently asked board members of its BioEthical committee to resign because the dared to ask scientific advice from non-catholics.

Find out more:

SkyTrain Fare-Gates

We discuss the controversy regarding the soon to be installed fare-gates at SkyTrain stations with the aim of reducing ‘fair evasion’. We discuss how cost effective this tactic is, who is its target and ultimately are there better solutions to the issue of funding public mass transit in the GVRD.

Find out more:

Skeptical Highlights:

Vancouver Earth Run

The 2012 Vancouver Earth Run will focus on the oceans. All proceeds will go to nonprofit organizations in the Vancouver area that work toward better understanding and management of our marine resources.

Where: Jericho Beach, Vancouver
When: Sunday, June 3, 2012
Cost:

$25 for the 5K run/walk
$35 for the 10K race

Tutankhamun: The Golden King and the Great Pharaohs
At Pacific Science Center in Seattle – May 24, 2012-January 6, 2013
The exhibition features more than 100 objects from King Tut’s tomb and ancient sites representing some of the most important rulers throughout 2,000 years of ancient Egyptian history. Tickets range from 24 to $27 depending on when you go.

Skeptics in the Pub – Down-town

Join us on Tuesday, May 15 at 7:30pm for another evening of skeptical fun, food, drinks, and conversation in the Railway Club’s back bar. Come out and discuss skepticism-related activities in Vancouver with your fellow science enthusiasts, rationalists, and critical thinkers, and maybe meet some new friends. As always, if you arrive late and they’re collecting a cover charge at the door, just tell them you’re with the skeptics’ group to get in for free.

Where: The Railway Club, 579 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver
When: Thursday, May 15, 2012, 7:30 pm
Cost: Free

Skeptics in the Pub Richmond

Skeptics in the Pub is a casual social event for local science enthusiasts who value critical thinking and skepticism.

Join us for drinks and food in a friendly atmosphere. It’s a great place to meet local skeptics, make new friends, and get involved and informed about new events and activities.

Where: Legends Pub in Richmond, 6511 Buswell Street, minutes from the Brighouse Skytrain station and Richmond Centre
When: Thursday, May 24, 2012, 7:30 pm
Cost: Free

Posted in Show notes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 248 other followers