Rachel’s Musings

Ken at Open Parachute pointed out a post on Uncommon Descent that tried to show the absurdity of the claim that Darwin was necessary for the Holocaust. DaveScot pretended to call for papers that could be published in a science journal. As DaveScot stated in a comment to Ken’s post, even though the blog is promoting intelligent design, he intended to show “that the theoretical connection between Darwin and holocaust is not science, no legit science journal would ever publish it, and every rejection would be valid.”

     Continue reading this post » » »

Atheists are routinely asked if there can be morality without religion. I am pretty tired of this question because the influence of religion has created a lot of immorality. It is time to turn this question around: Can there be morality with religion? I would say “no.” Religions provide a list of things to do or not to do but they do not train us in ethics that go beyond these lists. Critical thinking, which is very important to ethics, is suppressed within religion.

If religions were bastions of morality, their followers should be especially moral and ethical. That is clearly not the case. All too often, religious arguments have been used for immoral acts. Here are a few examples going beyond the witch hunt, the inquisition, and “honor” killings, which clearly were immoral and religiously motivated.      Continue reading this post » » »

In the United States, we almost seem obsessed with finding happiness, which is rather ironic because “it is not something to be sought or pursued, but a result of how we live” (Richard Eckersley. Well & Good. 104). From early on, we are taught that we will find happiness once we’ve found our soul mate. We’ll “live happily ever after.” What gets lost in this matrimania myth is teaching on how we can create a life that invites happiness without demanding that someone else be responsible for it.

Eckersley gives us some hints based on his review of what the “wise and famous” said (104):

• Focus on others, not ourselves.
• Balance wants and means.
• Be content with what we have.

     Continue reading this post » » »

Reading on the Frame Problem about yet another attempt of sneaking ID into classroom reminded me of a discussion I watched yesterday. Akeel Bilgrami, a philosopher at Columbia University, raised an interesting question during an interview on the Humanist Perspective (a show put together by the Center for Inquiry; also see this comment for another link): What is it about the US that makes it such a fertile ground for things like creationism, ID, and other non-scientific nonsense? New Zealand supports evolution. In Europe, evolution is not under attack (as far as I know). So, there might be something rather unique about the US. Bilgrami suggested that a possible reason might be the lack of any social democratic tradition in the U.S. (he mentioned unions in particular that were not offering a secular community). The attitudes that have prevented such things as universal health care might tie in there as well.

Bilgrami calls on us to investigate questions like this rather than spending our time to point out irrational thinking (he says it’s very obvious that ideas of God are irrational). Religion bashing doesn’t get us anywhere. We need to start looking at the needs met by religion and religious institutions. I think answering these questions is an important next steps in making secular humanism a viable option in the U.S..

Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart have written about religion in Europe and contrasted it with the US. They touch on similar themes as Bilgrami.

In the latest issue of free inquiry, Paul Kurtz published an editorial about his idea for multi-secularism. Now, I know that Kurtz is a very important figure in the secular humanist movement. I certainly appreciate all the work he has done for us. But what is he trying to say in this editorial? It is a rather confusing read - and I must admit I read the piece in parts, so maybe I missed the connections. As far as I can decipher he is distancing himself from atheism, or what he calls negative atheism, and he is arguing that we should reach out to moderately religious folks to build a multi-secularism. These two themes are intertwined to a point where the message is becoming muddled, which is Kurtz’s call for multi-secularism:

However, secularism needs to be adapted to diverse cultural conditions if it is to gain ground. [...] Accordingly, multi-secularism seems to be the best strategy to pursue: that is, adapting secular ideas and values to the societies in which they arise.

     Continue reading this post » » »

Apparently, there’s a debate going on in the non-religious community about what we ought to call ourselves: atheists, humanists, freethinkers, brights, somethings… Since I’ve never really been too keen on labeling myself as something forever, I usually take the labels more lightly. So, I am an atheist. But that’s not all I am. I am also a freethinker (sometimes freely associated thinking). I am also a secular humanist. However, I realized that there is more to a label. Take “atheist” for example: I am an atheist - I think there is a very, very low probability that there is a God or any supernatural force/being/something. However, if I am just that, I am stuck in defining myself in opposition to something (theism in this case) and I might end up simply with religion-bashing. While that is probably an important step in my human growth, it would be sad to get stuck there. Bashing something might be fun but it is not very constructive. That’s why I like the label “secular humanist.” This implies the search for answers of the fundamental human questions (e.g., what is the purpose of my life, what happens after death). Rather than bashing someone else’s answers, we are looking for our own answers, knowing that the answers from religions, for example, are not meaningful to us.

Note: I removed the label of a Bright from my original post: I think that the danger of implying “brighter than you” is just too great. I agree with those who think that we just can’t redefine how others call us, especially with a term that already has a clear definition. I don’t see any reason why I can’t say that I am an atheist (and many reasons for doing so as outlined above). To me, there is no need for a new term, especially not an umbrella term coined by two people (which seems a contradiction in itself).