-- Or Atheist?
I agree with most of what you are saying, i.e. that an atheist shouldn't evangelize to christians and try to "deconvert" them. Despite this I'm constantly searching for new angles and viewpoints and I came up with this.
Assume that an atheist believes that his or her system is superior to that of religion. Not superior to the individual, mind you, but to society as a whole. This is what I believe even though I can't prove it for obvious reasons. Can not my situation be resembled with that of a Democrat or Republican. They try to "convert" people using various propaganda.
Of course, one could claim that it's a pain having to watch all those election commercials but if it wasn't for them, one would not know how to vote and democracy would be severly damaged. If a Democrat really believed that the country would be run better with his political system, he would try, maybe even have a moral duty to, gather adherents. The analogy works on the individual/society level too. A very wealthy person would probably benefit more from a republican system than a poor one, but the question is whether society as a whole would benefit.
Shouldn't I therefore try to create an atheist, or at least a non theist, society? Where is the flaw in my analogy?
BTW, I have written quite extensivly to you the last couple of weeks and you have answered every time. I'm currently in between projects and am therefore kinda' bored. I realise that not everyone is "in between projects" though and I would therefore not mind if you didn't have time to answer my letter.
From: "Positive Atheism" <email@example.com>
To: "Grahn, Johan"
Subject: Re: Republican, Democrat... or Atheist
Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:48 PM
I think challenging an individual's religious beliefs on a one-on-one basis is different from speaking one's mind. Both are different from disseminating propaganda, such as what I do on my website. (I use the term propaganda here in its purest sense of advocating a viewpoint, not in the derogatory sense that the McCarthy Era popularized.)
I truly believe that atheism is a better viewpoint for us all, but I have no right to tell people what to believe. I can only challenge claims presented to me, and argue against them (or, in certain cases, accept them -- but never without a challenge, as this is the liberal scientific method, which I loosely apply to my philosophical studies).
In a free society, we all have the right (and some would say the duty) to advocate for what we think is best. This is part of the discussion, which I hope would be conducted along the lines of the liberal scientific method. This is not always the case, though, and there comes a time when a James Randi-type must go out and actively debunk outright frauds that are harming ignorant people. Where to draw the line, though, is a tough one.
I had a friend in the Twelve Step Program who eventually went back on heroin. Meanwhile, I had left the Program and pursued Rational Recovery, becoming, at one point, one of the best in the country at teaching that method (according to RR's founders).
Anyway, I bumped into Gary and he announced that he had found Jesus and was staying clean that way. I'd been there, and spent three years "staying clean for Jesus" -- but never during that time could I tell you how I was staying clean. It was a big mystery, and I admitted as much to anyone who asked (much to the chagrin of my fellow-Christians). Nowadays, I know how to stay off drugs and even know how to accomplish controlled drinking.
When I faced Gary, I had a choice: should I intervene and show him a way that I know works better than the way he was practicing at the time? I took the middle ground and simply mentioned that I had figured out the trick to staying off drugs, and had helped thousands to do just that. I offered to spend some time with him, and he knew how to contact me. He never did.
A little over a year later, I looked him up so I could buy an office chair from him (as that was his business) and discovered that he had died of an overdose almost a year before, leaving a wife, three kids, and Hank the one-nutted wonder pup. Damn! I miss that guy! I still cry when I think about him (I am crying right now). I'm still not sure that intervening (like I could have done) is the best approach, though. Gary made choices and he knew the risks of his behavior.
By the way, this is my "project" that I am sometimes "in between," making time available for other pursuits. My other pursuit is singing, having currently suspended my pursuit of feminine companionship. While this is the worst time of year for the pursuit of companionship, it is the best time to be spending time on Positive Atheism, as many students have some free time to jump into the fray and get some real thinking done.
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
From: "Grahn, Johan"
To: "Positive Atheism" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Republican, Democrat... -Or atheist?
Date: Friday, July 14, 2000 8:11 AM
I can only challenge claims presented to me, and argue against them (or, in certain cases, accept them -- but never without a challenge, as this is the liberal scientific method, which I loosely apply to my philosophical studies).
If everyone followed this philosophy, wouldn't new ideas become scarce? I mean if everyone passively waits for opinions to be presented to them, no new opinions would be propagated. I realise that you do claim certain things on your web site and I guess that can be called "spreading propaganda" but do I read you correctly that you prefer to do it like this instead of presenting it to people on a one to one basis? Or is it only in religious matters you don't push your opinions onto other people.
I'm very sad to hear about your friend. My best friend died of cancer while we were in college. I always wanted to visit him (he was 800 miles away) while he was undergoing treatment but I pushed it of and now it's too late. Neither of us will ever stop thinking about our "missed opportunities." But your comment of RR is interesting. A while back I heard about a new treatment method for drug addicts. The addict got his daily needed dose from a doctor, the only thing he had to do was to show up for the shot. There were several advantages, the spread of AIDS was minimized, so was the risk of overdose, unpure heroin etc, etc. Crime went down too. No other treatment was given in the initial stages. After a while (several months), the doctors tried to talk the addict into lower their doses but they would remain on the program whether they did this or not.
Since you seem to know a lot about these things, I was wondering if you have heard about this method. What do you think about it?
Can you really suspend the pursuit of feminine companionship? Impressive. I don't have to since I've been together with the same woman for almost 8 years, despite the fact that we have been living apart from each other (6000 miles apart) close to two years. I don't even know whether she is religious or not, how's that for positive atheism. So you sing, what kind of music? I play the guitar myself and I therefore tried to teach myself to sing but I couldn't sing and play at the same time so I gave it a rest.
From: "Positive Atheism" <email@example.com>
To: "Grahn, Johan"
Subject: Re: Republican, Democrat... -Or atheist?
Date: Friday, July 14, 2000 2:44 PM
"I can only challenge claims presented to me, and argue against them (or, in certain cases, accept them -- but never without a challenge, as this is the liberal scientific method, which I loosely apply to my philosophical studies).
If everyone followed this philosophy, wouldn't new ideas become scarce? I mean if everyone passively waits for opinions to be presented to them, no new opinions would be propagated.
I am not making any claims as to the existence of the supernatural. I lack faith, and am satisfied that the supernatural probably doesn't exist. I live my life according to this view in that I don't pray, consult mediums, or attend faith-healing revivals.
If I were a scientist, I would study phenomenon and try to come up with new things. I would present my findings to the world and let the others try to pick them apart -- if they could.
As a lay philosopher of sorts, I ponder questions and make my views and findings
available for discussion. Maybe changes will occur as a result, but I am mainly
here for the discussion.
I realise that you do claim certain things on your web site and I guess that can be called "spreading propaganda" but do I read you correctly that you prefer to do it like this instead of presenting it to people on a one to one basis?
I present the atheistic view from many different perspectives.
I do this primarily for my own edification, as a way to open discussion with others.
Close behind, I would like to see other atheists have some of what I have had, and would like to see them have some things that I never had when I was struggling with some of these issues. It's the least I can to do those who took the time to help me out, and it's the least I can do for those who might eventually go much further than I ever will simply because I was there for them at a crucial time in their lives.
Finally, others (theists) are welcome to watch and to participate, although
this is never the purpose of this forum, this website, or this magazine.
Or is it only in religious matters you don't push your opinions onto other people.
This is a tricky one: As a despised minority, it is tough for me to feel open to even mention my views on religion. So, this might color my approach to this somewhat.
What I don't do is attempt to talk people out of their religious views. I do not care what others believe, and I respect that people have their reasons for believing, which they all think are valid reasons. I will answer questions, discuss issues, make the case for atheism, and discuss (debate) various arguments, but I am never trying to convert anyone. If I bump into an evangelist (who is making claims and seeking to change my mind), I will give him or her all I've got. I will tackle any question or problem she or he throws at me. However, I will never approach the evangelist and try to de-convert him or her. Other atheists disagree with my approach, but this is the one I feel most comfortable with; this is the one that I think is the most dignified.
The closest I come to suggesting that a theist give up religion is my challenge to Christians that I will engage in a one-on-one discussion, lasting two years, if necessary, and will convert if they make their case with me. I ask that they be willing to renounce their faith if they don't make their case with me. Many have considered trying to duke it out with me, but no one has taken me on, because it soon becomes evident that we will be discussing claims and that they will have the burden of proof, not me. It will be their job to convince me -- I need only show why this or that is not necessarily true or that there are other more reasonable options to this or that point. Finally, if they cannot make their case, they lose their faith and every social and economic perk that goes along with being a believer or being a member of a clan.
Even at that, I do not seek their conversion, I only seek to show how the "weak" atheistic position works in the real world of Christian evangelism (and this offer, I have found, is a shockingly vivid demonstration). Perhaps if enough people see this, they will change how they treat atheists. The most important way to do this, though, is to help my fellow-atheists to come up with some answers in this area, to popularize these discussions, and to tidy up how we engage in these discussions.
Of course I express my opinion -- all the time! The apartment manager hears from me on various matters, as we hope to keep working toward making this a better place to live. When I go out and sing, I'm often perfectly satisfied with how the place is run, but sometimes I know a better way to do something. When a worker's incompetence (etc.) starts to degrade my experience, I can either: leave it alone; suggest change; leave. And I often make just that progression, first trusting that they will figure it out; later showing that there is a way at least to solve this or that problem; getting out the entertainment guide and finding other places to spend my time and money. The same holds with the apartment and just about every other situation I can find myself in (barring uncontrollable situations like loss of health or freedom).
And yes: I can powerfully impact a theist without actively seeking his or her conversion. To seek their conversion would seem so arrogant on my part.
I will take on, for example, a Creationist on those issues (but not on theism itself, unless they bring it up) and I will take on a Promise Keepers adherent on separationist issues and United States history (but not on theism itself, unless they bring it up). I can and do powerfully advocate for legalized abortion; liberalized drug, sex, and marital laws; stricter penalties for real crimes that actually damage others and many other social issues. But theism is a personal issue, not a social issue. It only comes up when theists wish to impose theocratic rule over me, and I can usually handle these things without having to resort to a discussion over whether a god exists.
Were it not for Christians' tendency to evangelize, I would never find myself
involved in a discussion as to whether a god exists -- except in the realm of
pondering and wondering, as I do with many who are not out to seek my conversion
or who are already agnostic or flat-out atheistic.
A while back I heard about a new treatment method for drug addicts. The addict got his daily needed dose from a doctor, the only thing he had to do was to show up for the shot. There were several advantages, the spread of AIDS was minimized, so was the risk of overdose, unpure heroin etc, etc. Crime went down too. No other treatment was given in the initial stages. After a while (several months), the doctors tried to talk the addict into lower their doses but they would remain on the program whether they did this or not.
The Methadone Program has been somewhat successful in the United States for three decades now. Many are on it for life and will lead long healthy lives as a result. There is a clinic about eight blocks from my home, and I have known many who are on it.
The problem is that it is difficult to monitor whether the patients are abusing it by supplementing their dose with illicit drugs. I am not sure this warrants taking them off the program, because the whole point of the program is to provide an alternative to street drugs, and forcing them to resort to street drugs does not increase the likelihood that they will stop using them (and thus reduce crime, AIDS, etc.).
One celebrated legal case involved a New York bus driver who tested positive for narcotics when the transit authority's drug testing program started. It turns out he had been on methadone for many years and was living a normal life. They took his job anyway, saying that he could not drive while on methadone. Both sides brought out their big-gun medical experts and the court appointed a panel of experts to hear the arguments. It turned out that a person who is physically addicted to narcotics is "normal" when on the narcotics, and the driver got his job back.
I have always supported the methadone program, though it is very controversial both among moralists and among Twelve Steppers and other abstinence-based recovery advocates. Rational Recovery wisely took the middle ground on this one, stating that methadone is a prescription drug: RR urges abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs.
I currently practice a variation of the moderate drinking approaches that are
popular in Europe, and I avoid illicit drugs altogether.
So you sing, what kind of music? I play the guitar myself and I therefore tried to teach myself to sing but I couldn't sing and play at the same time so I gave it a rest.
I don't play, but anything along these lines takes practice. I'd approach it by singing without the guitar (karaoke) and pantomiming the rhythm while singing. I suspect this would be easier than starting with the guitar and mouthing the words while playing. Eventually you should be able to consolidage the two actions into one. Then, start with something you can either play or sing in your sleep and perfect it. Folk songs from the 50s and 60s are great for learning to play and sing at the same time.
I love to sing blues and classic rock and a few old-timey songs. I also indulge in a little Sinatra, Bennett, and Darin, as I have their basic vocal range and this stuff is very popular. My latest songs to learn are "Summertime" in the style of Janis Joplin (keyed down one octave) and "Thunder Road" by Bruce Springsteen (keyed down one whole tone). I also do "Fast Car" by Tracy Chapman, "Beginnings" by Chicago, "The Pusher" by Steppenwolf, "Cry Me A River" in the style of Joe Cocker, and "Tom Traubert's Blues (Waltzing Matilda)" by Tom Waits and probably 200 others. The Waits song was covered by Rod Stewart, and the karaoke is of that version, not Tom's. Rod Stewart keyed the song up six whole tones. If I key it back down four whole tones (since, unlike Rod, I still have all my equipment and can't sing that high!), it fits my vocal range and the music doesn't distort (as it is almost entirely strings). To key it back down six whole tones is impossible in most machines and sounds awful when it is possible.
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.