Boston Globe Magazine--"The Nonbelievers"

[Mercutio]

I think some of you might recognize some of the contributers to this.

Link (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/09/16/the_nonbelievers/?page=full).

I found the article strangely... unsatisfying. I can't wait for the letters to the editor, though.

[rebecca]

Yep, just picked up my copy. In a bit I'll be blogging about my experience with this.

[fuelair]

Just feeds the fires of those who need to believe that atheism is just a belief
like theirs - rather than a recognition of fact.

[Ichneumonwasp]

20%? That's encouraging.

I can see the point, though. Atheist church is a complete misnomer, but I would love to see more humanist/skeptical clubs. There is a positive side to humanism, after all.

Now that I am stuck in southwest Ohio the chance for such a thing is pretty small.

[rebecca]

I just blogged about my, er, amusing interaction with the journalist in question:
http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=692

[Miss Anthrope]

Thanks for that sidebar, Rebecca. I really dislike agenda driven journalism such as this.

[Dunstan]

There's nothing like being interviewed to make your appreciate how dodgy a lot of journalism is. One time a reporter left me a voice mail at 3 pm saying that he was working on a 5 pm deadline. The story wasn't exactly hot breaking news, either. So every time I read "[so-and-so] did not respond to a request for comment," I take it with a huge grain of salt.

[Wheezebucket]

I dislike Epstein quite a bit.

[Wolfman]

I dislike Epstein quite a bit.I'm definitely on the other side of the debate...while I do not agree with everything he does, for the most part I think he's got very much the right idea, and my own philosophy would be quite similar to his.

For myself, I wouldn't get into that many 'religious' atheist ceremonies; but it would be nice, for example, when getting married, or having a funeral (where I would have no use at all for a Christian pastor), to have some sort of 'atheist' ceremony that was formalized enough that people could use it easily. For some people, this would not be necessary (and they would have no obligation to use it); for others, it could prove very valuable.

But the area in which I agree the most with Epstein is in the aspect of "fundamentalist" atheists (or perhaps "militant"). That is, those who not only are atheists, but who take an aggressive, confrontational role against all those who hold religious beliefs.

A big part of skepticism is deliberate, reasoned discussion and debate. There are many "religious" people out there who are quite open to discussion with atheists...but if those atheists start off by saying things such as "teaching religious beliefs to children is child abuse" and "religion is the cause of most/all evil in the world" (statements I've heard made in these forums on a number of occasions), then what room is there for discussion?

Such attitudes lead inevitably to polarization, into an "us vs. them" mentality; and serves no purpose other than to guarantee that little or no meaningful dialogue can take place between the two sides.

Consider Epstein's role as a Humanist Chaplain at Harvard. What a great way to introduce Humanism to the student body! People who have doubts or questions about their religious beliefs have a place they can go to get another opinion, another viewpoint, without feeling that their own beliefs are being attacked.

Nor do I think that Epstein is saying that all atheists should think/act as he does. If you feel no need for a particular ceremony (marriage, funeral, etc.), then no problem. But there are quite a few people out there for whom such a ceremony is meaningful, and valid.

Thousands of years of human history have more than amply demonstrated that attacking Christianity, or any other religion, is pretty much useless in regards to getting rid of it. Quite the opposite, it causes them to become more defensive, and more radical, in their beliefs.

People are far more willing to listen to and consider other beliefs when they feel that their own beliefs are not being attacked/condemned.

The most important result that comes from Epstein's chaplaincy, in my opinion, is that people see that Humanism offers a clear-cut concept of morality (one that is remarkably similar to the moral teachings in their own religion), but without the need for any supernatural entity. He starts by showing them where the commonality is, and then taking them step-by-step from that point.

As opposed to the more militant/"fundamentalist" approach, which begins by condemning their beliefs, and presenting the two sides as polar opposites.

[Dunstan]

I'm baffled that other atheists would want the trappings of religion such as sermons and hymns, but to each his own.

What bothers me about Epstein, based on this article, is (1) his promoting the "fundamentalist atheist" slur; and (2) that he seems a little smarmy. Like this:

I’m proud to say I want and need to be part of a supportive community. Sadly, this can stir up the emotions of a few atheists who have been wounded by religion and want to distance themselves from it. . . . It’s true that religion has done some terrible, irrational things, but the key question for a humanist isn’t ‘Who am I angry at?’ It’s ‘How can I make this world a better place?’ "

(emphasis mine). Or, it could just be that people have a good faith (pardon the pun) disagreement with you. For a guy who bashes his fellow atheists as intolerant, he should be a little slower to dismiss his critics as emotional and damaged.

That said, merely having a Humanist Chaplain at Harvard is probably a good thing, and perhaps Epstein will grow into the role.

[Wolfman]

I'm baffled that other atheists would want the trappings of religion such as sermons and hymns, but to each his own.

What bothers me about Epstein, based on this article, is (1) his promoting the "fundamentalist atheist" slur; and (2) that he seems a little smarmy. Like this:

(emphasis mine). Or, it could just be that people have a good faith (pardon the pun) disagreement with you. For a guy who bashes his fellow atheists as intolerant, he should be a little slower to dismiss his critics as emotional and damaged.

That said, merely having a Humanist Chaplain at Harvard is probably a good thing, and perhaps Epstein will grow into the role.Well, I'd point out that his comment here was in response to significantly more scathing from others about his work. Compare his comment here to that from Joseph Hoffman at CFI:
If the word spiritual works, they wear it; but if they need to spin things in a secular direction to win friends and influence people, they spin away like sodden spiders. This is Gen-X humanism for the Passionately Confused, and owes almost nothing to philosophy
That does not sound like "a good faith disagreement".

[Dunstan]

Well, I'd point out that his comment here was in response to significantly more scathing from others about his work. Compare his comment here to that from Joseph Hoffman at CFI:

That does not sound like "a good faith disagreement".

It does to me. What's so bad about what Hoffman said? He thinks that Epstein is too quick to use whatever weapon (spirituality or secularism) is convenient, abuses his Harvard status, and doesn't have a consistent philosophy. That's well within the realm of civilized discourse in my opinion.

Also, it sounds like you're assuming that the reporter read him the quotes listed in the article and asked "how do you respond to these?" I suspect that the reporter got quotes from Epstein, pulled the critical ones (like Rebecca's) off the internet, and then assembled the article, so it's not clear to me that Epstein is referring to any specific critic there. And even if Epstein was referring specifically to the Hoffman quote or one of the others, the you-must-have-been-damaged-as-a-child gambit is a rather pathetic response in my opinion.

[ImaginalDisc]

Also, it sounds like you're assuming that the reporter read him the quotes listed in the article and asked "how do you respond to these?" I suspect that the reporter got quotes from Epstein, pulled the critical ones (like Rebecca's) off the internet,

You mean "nakedly misrepresented," yes?

[supercorgi]

That said, merely having a Humanist Chaplain at Harvard is probably a good thing, and perhaps Epstein will grow into the role.
I really wish his title was "Humanist Adviser" or "Mentor" or "Advocate." I really dislike any association of religious trappings with atheism - it only makes it harder to refute those that claim that atheism is a religion.

[PenguinWarrior]

I really wish his title was "Humanist Adviser" or "Mentor" or "Advocate." I really dislike any association of religious trappings with atheism - it only makes it harder to refute those that claim that atheism is a religion.

It's not being associated with atheism, it's being associated with Humanism, which is a philosophy/movement/life stance/whatever that attempts to fill the same niche as religion does. Frankly, as a kinda sorta Humanist (Humanism is a fairly vague set of ideals, so I don't really know whether it's worth describing myself as such, but I think it's quicker than typing/saying rationalist, atheist utilitarian, and it conveys largely the same message [though not all Humanists are utilitarians, I know] so I sometimes do. Atheism alone is only a declaration of what I don't believe, and it's good to have a label that describes what I do) I'm not really bothered if somone wants to describe Humanism as a religion, so it having pastors doesn't bother me (though I'd like it if someone had made the effort to come up with a different name).

[bpesta22]

I suspected as much. The guy was trolling myspace looking for people to answer a 5 or 6 question essay about humanism for his article (this was about 2 months ago).

So, I wasted some time and wrote the answers. The questions didn't even appear in the article, let alone anyone's answers.

Odd, the way he framed the questions, it seemed like he had a different article in mind then the one that came out yesterday.


** Just dug up the questions, I guess these can be used to fish for controversy, if that's what the reporter intended.

1. DO YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT HUMANISM/ATHEISM IS GROWING ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES IN THE STATES? IF SO, CAN YOU CITE ANY EXAMPLES OR STATISTICS?

2. DO YOU SEE A COALESCING OF NON-BELIEVERS INTO A MOVEMENT, AS EPSTEIN HAS CALLED FOR? IS THIS A GOOD IDEA? WHY OR WHY NOT?

3.IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR MIND BETWEEN HUMANISM AND ATHEISM, AND IF SO, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE DISTINCTIONS YOU FIND.


4. DO YOU THINK NON-BELIEVERS SHOULD, IN EFFECT, TRY TO EVANGELIZE – THAT IS, PROMOTE ATHEISM AND TRY TO CONVERT BELIEVERS, ALA CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS?

5.HOW DOES THE RISE OF NON-BELIEF SQUARE WITH THE NATION'S RELIGIOSITY AND THE PROLIFERATION OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES AND WELL BEYOND? IS THIS AKIN TO A MIRROR IMAGE, IN THAT IT'S JUST ANOTHER FORM OF BELIEF, LIKE ANOTHER CHURCH WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS?

[Puppycow]

Sometimes I would like to have the option to go to a church-like thingie and meet other atheists, and have the associated community functions without the superstition.

OTOH, I'm not sure how much I'm willing to pay for it. How much would I be expected to tithe, for example. I actually do like the atmosphere in a cathedral. Once I went and listened to choir practice in a cathedral, and really enjoyed the experience.

[supercorgi]

It's not being associated with atheism, it's being associated with Humanism, which is a philosophy/movement/life stance/whatever that attempts to fill the same niche as religion does.

I understand that by humanism is closely associated with atheism and the fundamentalists that claim that "Atheism is a religion" won't pick up on the subtle difference.