Background: Freethought

Many people consider “freethinker” to be a euphemism for “non-theist”. In particular, the Campus Freethought Alliance, as well as Maties Freethinking, defines “freethinking” as “free thought combined with doubt or disbelief in the supernatural”. (My paraphrase.) I suppose “naturalist” would also be a useful label.

The society is meant to be a place where atheists can vent some of their frustration, without being responded to with Bible quotes, Christianese and dogma. At the same time, it is also a society where science is promoted and discussed.

On Hypocrisy, Anti-theism and Education

Yes, scientists are “almost certain”, and scientists “believe” this or that theory. This is very true. And good scientists are aware of it, and humble about the limitations of science. That is what makes the scientific method so powerful: the humility to challenge every theory and test it thoroughly.

Johan knows this. I believe what he is responding to, is the kind of approach he sees too many “atheists” take. Or the approach I see, rather. In this country, the label “atheist” refers to a particular niche population. All too often, those representing the “atheist” label have a habit of brutally attacking belief not based on evidence. (Or it looks that way, at least.) Much the same as those representing “Christianity” to the atheists: the most vocal and outspoken groups.

I suspect the hypocrisy that bothers Johan, or rather, that bothers me, lies in that. You cannot ridicule the “religious people” for rejecting evolution when they don’t know anything about it. You can, however, teach them about it. Hence the question: is this going to be a society for another exclusive group thinking they’re better than everyone else, or a society that honestly and humbly, and with the necessary understanding, seek to promote scientific understanding?

On Objectivity

While it is his blog, reflecting his opinions, not a piece of impartial journalism (the same goes for my blog, my past is also littered with melodrama and strong rants), I still think his summary of the evening isn’t fair.

He observed a group that was watching a film. There was no real interaction after the film, there was no opportunity to see how the audience really felt about the film. In many cases, the laughter could also have been about realising the silliness or uncomfortableness of some of the statements/jokes. I think jumping to the conclusion that the laughter is the same as the laughter in creationism seminars*, is a rather hasty and uninformed judgement call. Or maybe Johan is just better at interpreting an “atmosphere” and the nature of people’s laughter? He was sitting one row further back, and was probably observing the audience in greater detail than I was.

On the Movie, Education, and Questions

The movie wasn’t exactly advertised as “let’s prove evolution to the evolution deniers”. I don’t think the event was intended as an educational event. (Was it?) I suspect the majority of the audience already accepted evolution, and was there for the social gathering, and to learn a little bit more about Darwin. (An uninformed suspicion, sure.) Yes, it was preaching to the choir. It was entertainment.

What I’m more curious about, would be the “massive number of unlogical statements” he saw in the documentary. (I’m not denying they’re there, I just wonder if he has something interesting we can discuss.) I’m curious about having some nice discussions about any questions anyone might have.

Which is the big problem really: watch a video, ridicule some religious people, chase everyone out because of time pressure: not good PR, unless your purpose is to feel better about yourselves at the expense of others. I’m sure there will be an opportunity for some informal discussion at the next event, at least.

To Johan du Bois, Chairperson

I know you say you’re a do-er, not a thinker, but your society is called a Freethinking society. I hope you can eventually learn to refrain from ridiculing people that differ from you. That is not conducive to thinking, it is not conducive to teaching. I know you’re not interested, you’re gatvol, but give the other Freethinkers a chance. Thanks.

On Societies

Johan, earlier you mentioned maybe we should just start our own society and be done with it. (A humanism society, for example.) Do you think there is a place on campus for yet another society? What would its purpose be? (For those that are interested, there is currently a Stellenbosch Humanists Facebook group. Let me know if you don’t like my group description.)

Yesterday, Freethinking Maties aired a PBS documentary on Darwin and his life. Attendance was good (read: more than 20?). The evening ended with time pressure chasing us all out, so there wasn’t much time for any kind of discussion or interaction. As such, it was also hard to determine what perspectives were present, but a number of “my” friends also turned up (read: 4 specific people). The biologist (working on her PhD in behavioural ecology) writes:

The biological elements in the documentary were adequate and quite interesting (especially the research done on the evolution of HIV, on which I am trying to get more info actually…). Not so thrilled about the other elements though…;)

“The other elements” were re-enactments of Darwin’s life. Humorous… Another of my friends, with a good sense of humour, commented that it reminded him of “Faith Like Potatoes, for atheists”. (With reference to the acting, in particular. )

Rehashing my tired old sentiments

The chairperson of Freethinking Maties echoed the young earth creationist perspective that evolution and “religion” is incompatible. *sigh*. One hypothesis: he is spewing anti-religion in order to chase any “Christians like me” away through frustration. Alternative hypothesis: his knowledge of “religion”, or lack thereof, has him defining “religion” as “belief in Intelligent Design creationism” (with a good pinch of homophobia). Either way, this kind of sentiment could turn Freethinking Maties into a group for anti-religion people, occasionally rearing its head for public battles that reinforce “religion versus science” stereotypes.

Of course, this is a perfectly valid choice. Many non-religious people do have a desire to find a place where they can “fit in”, where they can rant and rave and let out all their “anti-religion” frustration. Using this approach, they could increase their membership by preying on insecure people that “want to belong”, providing them with an identity and a support group. It won’t be the first group on campus that does this. For the quote lovers, a “Rob Carle” wrote this on Facebook:

A story worth considering: Mother Teresa was asked to join a protest against the war in Vietnam. She declined, saying that she was unable to protest against war, but if there was a protest for peace she would be pleased to attend.

I still choose to believe it will become more of a pro-science group, rather than an anti-religion one. This belief is based on input from other committee members. I’m sure the committee’s official focus and policy is good, just please realise that at a meeting where only the chairperson ever really speaks, his opinions can easily be assumed to be “official society position”, rather than his own personal sentiments.

Shalom, friends.

Here is an opportunity to learn more about evolution:

Greetings Freethinkers!

Tuesday 12 February is Darwin Day. Charles Darwin, one of the founding fathers of modern science, was born on 12th February 1809 – thats 199 years ago on Tuesday!

As with many intellectual, scientific, and freethought societies, Freethinking Maties will be marking the occasion with a modest celebration. We will be hosting a small video presentation about Darwin’s most enduring theory – the theory of evolution by the processes of natural selection.

Date: 12 February 2008
Place: Music Department (Konservatorium), corner of Neethling and Victoria str (use Neethling street entrance)
Time: 19.30 (with allowance!)
Cost: Nothing!

The Music Department have kindly agreed to host us for free in the Endler foyer. Please bring along any interested parties or curious friends, and spread the word! For more information on Darwin Day see www.darwinday.org.

Hope to see you there…

FREETHINKING MATIES

I will be there, I hope it is a good video…

There are churches that join in on the celebration of Darwin day — last year they celebrated “Evolution Sunday” the day before. The clip below is a news report on the “Creation Museum”, just after half-way through is a brief interview with a clergyman that is teaching Darwin in Sunday school to counter the creationists’ undermining of science.

While I seriously doubt any churches in Stellenbosch or South Africa can take a strong pro-evolution stance, there are indeed churches that do not have a problem with it. Typically, the more educated the church leadership, the better.

For those that understand Afrikaans, Stephan Joubert has a post on ekerk that gives the kind of response that could work in most situations. In this country, at this point in time, I would be really hesitant to advocate a strong pro-science stance in churches. An alternative to avoiding the question in that manner, is to emphasize the acceptance of diversity in the congregation, that everyone do not share the exact same opinions or interpretations.

Three weeks ago, I experienced what some might call a synchronicity (a concept introduced by Carl Jung). Wikipedia defines it as follows:

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally unrelated. In order to be synchronous, the events must be related to one another conceptually, and the chance that they would occur together by random chance must be very small.

A “fundamentalistic atheist” (sorry about the label, can’t be helped) will typically assume that synchronicity is nothing other than observational selection, i.e. bias. We remember and notice the interesting coincidences more than the uninteresting ones. The “fundamentalistic theist” will typically assume that synchronicity is definite proof of the existence of their God.

The scientist? What will the scientist do? Ideally: neither. The scientist would think: “Hey, this is interesting! Can’t we test it? Let’s test whether it is nothing other than coincidence, or something more…” (assuming funding could be found for such experiments). A scientist that would love to “prove” it, should ideally try his or her best to disprove it, in order to avoid his or her own bias. (See What is Science?)

Incidentally, the Wikipedia page seems to indicate this matter is not yet satisfactorily settled. (Not that you can take Wikipedia’s word for it, though. Wikipedia is not God after all ) The (ideal) scientist would go look for literature on the matter, to find out what experiments have been done, and what can be learned from them. He/she will then design another experiment, possibly improving on previous ones, or otherwise re-testing previous ones, to test whether this is merely coincidence and observational selection or sampling bias, or whether there really is some unexpected and unpredictable coincidences that we can not yet explain.

If the scientist finds these coincidences, the conclusion is not “Wow! There is a God!” If the scientist finds it is nothing other than sampling bias, the conclusion is not “See! There is no God!”

In the first case, the conclusion is just: Ah, there is some surprising but measurable effect that we don’t yet understand. It would seem there may be some form of “connectedness” between things in the universe. Whether that “connectedness” is God or not, is not relevant to science. (Jung, for example, believed synchronicities occur too often to be random chance, even after controlling for observational selection.)

In the second case, the conclusion is ah, it would seem accounts of synchronicity really are nothing other than a case of sampling bias. Even if the sequence of events are purely random chance, I think the subjective experience of meaning behind a random sequence of events, can still be attributed to “God”. Why not? What’s wrong with that?

In this sense, I’d argue there is no way of either proving or disproving “God”. In this sense, God isn’t within the realms of science. In this sense, I feel I must agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of “non-overlapping magesteria”, though I have yet to read any of his books.

Enjoy.

ps: So the discussion of such experiences is then not in the realm of science. (I wonder, does that put such discussions outside the realm of the “Freethinking Maties” society?) If it’s not a scientific discussion, what is it? Theology perhaps? Or something similar at least?

I haven’t had time to read through all your myriad posts on your blog or the emails you’ve sent us, but already a clear and thus far unanswered question is forming in my mind:

What exactly is your beef with us? We have not threatened to expel you from the society. We have expressed our willingness, nay, desire to work with churches in Stellenbosch on matters where we share a standpoint. We view you (with your obvious religious connections) as someone who can facilitate such cooperation. Yet in some way we have consistently offended your sensibilities. I would thus like to invite you to a meeting with the committee, which we will confirm with you later. But first I would like to respond to some of the ways in which you have expressed your disapproval of our society and what you view as “fundamentalist atheism”. I would like you to post this on your blog as a preliminary response from the Acting Chair of Freethinking Maties. It is not a description of what the society is, but rather an examination of some of the names that we have been called and their merit.

You have thrown around the labl (you’ll noticed I’ve made it a four letter word for you) “Fundamentalist Atheists” without clear cause, while consistently refusing to be clear on your own beliefs or why we are deserving of such an obscene title. Your beliefs are, of course, your own business and you are entitled to believe anything you want. Read the constitution of the RSA. You are even entitled to refuse to enter into open discussion of what exactly it is you stand for. The point is, you seem ever ready to labl others in simplistic terms while remaining convinced (just my impression) that you are the only person with a frame of reference that cannot be summed up in a few syllables. This is an unfortunate standpoint to assume, and is likely to cause great difficulties in communication throughout your life, as it already has. Please keep in mind that when someone calls themselves an atheist and fails to say “you can’t label me”, this does not mean that you can project onto this person the idea that you have formed of people-who-call-themselves-atheists and leave it at that.

What seems to offend you, (and this is pure speculation, seeing as you haven’t come clear on the subject) is that not everyone is willing to adopt your post-modernist, post-structuralist standpoint on religion. For someone who claims that you “would have been an atheist if it weren’t for the atheists”, you have expressed marked intolerance towards people who reject religion. Ironically the source of your unhappiness with us is that you seem to perceive us as intolerant towards religious people. On my own behalf, I don’t see where I have lacked this quality. The commitee (including myself) recognize the strong emotional aspect of religion, and the central role it plays in many people’s lives. We do not intend to approach the matter in an insensitive way. But you must accord atheists the same rights as you do Christians. I am entitled to believe that religion is nonsense. I am allowed to believe that its only redeeming properties are the secondary services it sometimes provides; being a platform for charity and community. I am entitled to say that I envision a world without superstition as being better than one where people believe in vampires, Jesus and the tokkelos, even if only because these things do not exist. I am allowed to seek to bring together like-minded individuals to further my dream for (what I perceive) as a more reasonable future. These are my personal rights. If I am a reactionary, then so are people fighting against famine, AIDS, use of children for mhuti and the common cold. I respect religious people and do not wish to offend anyone, but I perceive religon to be a viral meme which is not to the advantage of humanity. I acknowledge your right to believe whatever you want, but not everyone can be right. A fundamentalist post-modernist might disagree, but I am certain that some beliefs have more merit than others. I would like people to pay more attention to the merit of their own ideas.

Does the following offend you? (this is me speaking in my capacity as just a guy):

Religious belief is not based on evidence. I have never come across an argument for the existence of supernatural phenomena (including God) that took very much effort to refute. From a rational-empirical standpoint, beliefs in the supernatural are false.

The above statements are not argued for emotively. They are simply the conclusions (so I believe, and I defy anyone to prove me wrong) that one would draw were they to examine religious claims with a good understanding of logic and a rudimentary knowledge of the relevant facts and available research on such matters. They are always open to new evidence or arguments. I am ready to get down on my knees and start pleasing (any nice version of) Jesus as soon as it can be shown that his existence is more likely than his nonexistence. I am willing to accept knowledge gained through clairvoyance as soon as it can be demonstrated that such knowledge is likely to be accurate. I am always ready and willing to listen to any argument that any person presents for whatever claim and examine the facts as objectively as I can, consulting the relevant literature where I am uneducated on the matter. I would (if I had AIDS) feast on garlic, sure of my impending health and happiness; if there were reason to believe that it was an effective cure.

Is this the register of a Fundamentalist? I would like you to make clear to me exactly what we have done to earn this title.

With regard to Freethinking Maties’ membership requirements, you have in fact contributed to the future effectiveness of our society, and I thank you for making clear certain weaknesses or lack of clarity in our public relations and image. The committee is still in discussion on how the matter may best be dealt with. Clearly there has to be some coherence amongst our members. Our membership should reflect the values of the society and vice versa. The fishing club, after all, is not for those whose only outdoor activity is jogging. What seems likely at this stage is that we will not sift our members, but will make sure that our advertising attracts people who share the values of the society.

As stated earlier, this is a preliminary response from me, acting on my own initiative. We are sure that your grievances towards the society have been a result of miscommunication and that is why we would like to meet with you. In the future we would like all members to resolve their conflicts directly with the committee before making a spectacle out of it on the infratubes.

May the FSM touch your heart with his noodly appendage ,
Rudolph Basson

p.s. Keep in mind that the ideas I have expressed regarding religion are my own, and although I stand by them (pending further evidence) they are not at all an indication of what Freethinking Maties expects our members to be like. If anyone wishes to discuss what I have said or ask me a question regarding this message or the society, email me at bloodyrudhz@gmail.com. Please refrain from sending me abuse, as I am sure that all of us (no matter our metaphysical convictions) can agree that this would not be nice. Also, none of that “you’re an angry atheist” stuff. This idea of an angry atheist ( I find it rather amusing to picture one in my mind) does not apply to me, assuming that it refers to someone who rejects religion as a result of emotive arguments, is generally in a foul mood or gets angry at religious expression. My views on religion are based on critical examination. I don’t think religion is all bad, but I can say the same about Heroin. If you want to criticize my message, please focus on the content, not the tone.

p.p.s. This thing was far too long to proof-read.

Please note, dear readers, that the comment that prompted my excessively passionate rant, was not made by a committee member. It is in no way representative of the policy of the society. Do not let this one bad apple frighten you away from joining. I actually hope his comment was trolling, in which case he understands me well and just wanted to provide me with an opportunity to get that off my chest. I’m not sure. Him and I do have somewhat of a history, and I have no reason to assume one above the other (troll vs serious).

The comment/rant is long, and is liberally peppered with excessive swearing and insults, you have been warned. It is all pre-meditated and self-aware. I am attempting to demonstrate a point, which I do think some aspiring members dearly need to hear. The comment follows below the Dear Freethinking Maties letter, and is not for the faint-hearted.

I look forward to hearing from the committee. Should they like to make a formal statement, I would happily post it on my blog. It could be a brilliant marketing opportunity. Any publicity is good publicity, and besides, the publicity provided by the Dear Freethinking Maties letter is completely unrelated to formal society policy. I repeat: the individual I responded to, was one single individual, not acting in the interests of the society. The table is now completely clear. I have effectively revealed all my cards. I am completely in the open, completely honest. No need to fear any other imminent revelations. Any uncertainty, any curiosity about my motives, strategies or plans, just ask. I will try my best to answer as clearly as I can.

Please let me know if I am welcome to become a member. Thanks. (Do bear in mind, this might give some like-minded individuals the courage to join as well. Do you want that? If I am a member, I will gladly ensure, with all my heart, that the society sticks to what I believe the agenda of a CFA society should be.)

Hugo

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Some of my friends and I were concerned that the Freethinking Maties society would really just be a front for anti-religion sentiments, an “atheists anonymous” if you will. There were some angry atheist memes running rampant in previous meetings. This meeting was different. Possibly because two of the more vocal a(nti)theists were not present, but hopefully because the executive committee is discovering that there is a need for a Freethinking society that is not anti-theistic. Anti-theism is not how you de-stigmatise a post-theistic world-view.

A number of the new people were wonderfully vocal, and in my perception quite clearly anti-anti-theistic. I felt no need for me to play devil’s (God’s?) advocate, it felt as if there were people there walking with me, helping me carry the weight I had on my shoulder… even if they were unaware of it. This is all just my subjective experience. A friend that attended with me, also agreed he felt hope, where he previously felt none. (Previously he felt there was no hope of influencing the strong atheistic direction the organisation was taking.) There is hope.

It could possibly all come down to the fact that two of the more vocal atheists (or even anti-theists) were unable to attend. However, hopefully it is a case of the committee at last discovering that there is a need for a group of Freethinkers that are not necessarily anti-theistic. The majority of the non-theists, post-theists, agnostics and Freethinkers out there, are not interested in joining a society of angry militant atheists. If that is the direction the society takes, they want to remain uninvolved.

Either way, if you are interested in joining Freethinking Maties, take a look at the current constitution. Bear in mind constitutions can be amended. You can join the Freethinking Maties Facebook group. For information on formal membership, email freethinkingmaties@gmail.com.

If push comes to shove, and Freethinking Maties turns out to not be what you are looking for, there is also a Stellenbosch Humanists Facebook group. This group is explicitly meant for all humanists, including secular humanists, religious humanists, Christian humanists, whatever. Metaphysics is not important in this group. Please join if this appeals to you. See the quote in On Labelling Myself a Humanist for a good explanation of humanism.

An acquaintance brought to my attention another website that may be of interest to you: South African Skeptics.

Modern skepticism is the method of using scientific principles to evaluate claims or ideas. This is a positive action, to separate sense from nonsense. Skepticism is therefore not to be confused with cynicism.

If Freethinking Maties is not quite your cup of tea, you should hopefully be able to find what you are looking for, somewhere between a skeptic organisation and a humanist organisation. Or hey, who knows, maybe even Stellenbosch Gemeente. Keep an eye on this blog through December/January…

The group looks likely to become an affiliate of the Campus Freethought Alliance. Take a look at the CFA Affiliate Group Organizing Guide. What I really like about the CFA’s position, are little details like these: “The CFA respects the personal freedom and affirms the right and responsibility of persons to give meaning and shape to their own lives.”

Below are some highlights from the guide. All of it is “© 2001 Campus Freethought Alliance”, I assume duplicating it here constitutes “fair use”?

The CFA Minimum Statement:

The Campus Freethought Alliance (CFA) includes campus groups and individuals that promote rational thinking, defend and cultivate an individual’s right to unbelief, and enhance the presence of freethought, skepticism, science, and secular humanism on campuses worldwide. The CFA respects the personal freedom and affirms the right and responsibility of persons to give meaning and shape to their own lives. The CFA is an inclusive union that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

The CFA List of Purposes:

• To encourage freedom from superstition, irrationalism, and dogma.
• To further the acceptance and application of science, reason, and critical thinking in all areas of human endeavor.
• To challenge misrepresentations of non-religious convictions and lifestyles.
• To create a campus community for freethinkers and skeptics.
• To cultivate in ourselves — and others — a sense of responsibility to, and compassion for, humanity.
• To counter all forms of religious political extremism.
• To defend religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
• To defend individual freedoms and civil liberties for all persons, regardless of race, sex, gender, class, creed, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability.
• To unite freethinkers, skeptics, and humanists and consolidate campus resources to these ends.

What is freethought?

The concept of “freethought” must be distinguished from the concept of “free thought.” Free thought is critical reflection that does not depend on appeals to tradition, authority, or dogmatically held positions. Many reflective people are free thinkers in this sense, including many religious believers. Freethought, however, is a historical tradition of thought and discourse that traces primarily back to the Enlightenment and combines free thought with doubt or disbelief regarding supernatural views, particularly traditional religions.

CFA Goals

In fulfillment of its purposes, the CFA pursues various goals:

• Advancing the public understanding and appreciation of science
• Exposing pseudoscience
• Upholding the separation of church and state in public education
• Investigating claims of the paranormal
• Safeguarding the freedom of expression and opposing censorship
• Defending academic freedom
• Challenging academic fads and orthodoxy
• Debating the philosophy of science, skepticism, and theism
• Stimulating meaningful dialogue among religious and nonreligious students
• Exploring secular and humanist ethics
• Fighting racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, and heterosexism
• Constructing positive social networks for those who dissent and question

The Campus Freethought Alliance believes that these goals can often be best pursued by asking some fundamental questions: What are the effects of superstition and dogma on educational environments and on society in general? How can the ideals of freedom of thought and expression be realized in schools and colleges? How can students promote science, critical thinking, and humanistic values in our societies? How can we work to effect positive change in our societies and deal with pressing problems without recourse to a transcendent realm? Can we lead good and fulfilled lives without the belief in the supernatural?