Gator Freethought

T-Shirts!

2009-11-08T23:56:00.000-05:00

Finally! Gator Freethought will be ordering T-shirts, so that our members can further promote and represent the goals and ideals of our organization. The final design is shown below, and is printed on the front of the shirt.

The cost to you is $10 per shirt, the same as it is to the group. Gator Freethought is not profiting off the sale of shirts.

To order one, please bring $10 to Meeting #5 this Thursday, November 12th at 7:30 PM. (See the post below for more information about this meeting).

If you would like to order a shirt, but can't attend the meeting, please contact a Gator Freethought officer by either sending an email to Gatorfreethought@gmail.com or messaging them through our Facebook group.

Please note that we are only able to order shirts in batches. Therefore, if you miss this first printing, we won't be able to get more printed until there are at least 30 more that need to be made. Don't miss out!

________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Fifth Meeting of Fall 2009

2009-11-08T23:46:00.000-05:00

Our fifth meeting will be held Thursday, November 12th, at 7:30 PM in Anderson Hall, room 101.

Is it really up to you to decide to come or not? This meeting revisits a classic Freethought topic:

Free Will

Does it exist? What is it? What are the implications of knowing it exists/doesn't exist?

Get ready for an intense debate - I know some people in GF are pretty hardcore one way or the other.

It is STRONGLY ...recommended that you at least read the wikipedia article on Free Will before coming to the meeting - it contains a lot of the concepts and terms that people are going to bring up, and it will definitely do everyone some good to have some kind of basic knowledge, so that everyone can better partake in discussion.

Be familiar with the differences between libertarianism, hard determinism, and compatibilism if you want to be able to hit the ground running.

At the beginning of the meeting there will be a 10-15 minute presentation going over the different schools of thought, so that everyone will be very clear on what we're talking about.

This is gonna be really fun! Hope to see you there everyone.

________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Fourth Meeting of Fall 2009

2009-10-25T22:08:00.001-04:00

Our fourth meeting will be held Thursday, October 29th, at 7:30 PM in Anderson Hall, room 101. Time for some fun! This meeting will be about religion (or nonreligion) and humor!

A funny story, a funny picture, whatever floats your boat - this meeting will be about not taking ourselves so seriously and having a good time.

I'm serious about writing down your favorite video - we're gonna show funny videos and discuss them (keep it relevant to freethought!)

SEE YOU THERE!

[possible social outing afterwards]

________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Third Meeting of Fall 2009

2009-09-30T17:07:00.000-04:00

Our third meeting will be held Wednesday, October 14th, at 7:30 PM in Anderson Hall, room 101. We will start by showing the short documentary The God Who Wasn't There.

Note: If we are expecting a large enough crowd, we may be forced to move to a larger room to view the movie. If that happens, it will be very clearly noted on this page and through the facebook group. Unless noted otherwise, this meeting will be held in Anderson Hall, room 101.

This film explores the question of Jesus' existence, and includes interviews with Richard Dawkins, Robert Price, and Sam Harris, as well as the founders of urban legend website snopes.com

The trailer is hosted below, and more information can be found at www.thegodmovie.com.

Afterward, we will host a discussion on some of the key points made in the movie, including not only the potential existence of Jesus Christ, but the public perception of the issue today, and how that effects all of our lives.

Second Meeting of Fall 2009

2009-09-24T18:49:00.001-04:00

Our second meeting will be held Thursday, October 1st, at 7:30 PM in Anderson Hall, room 101. The topic is What does it mean to be a Freethinker?.

Come prepared with your opinion on why you consider yourself a freethinker! We'd like to hear your voice on why you want to be in this kind of organization, and why this kind of forum needs to exist. Things to consider before coming:

Why does an institution such as the University of Florida need a group like ours?
Why/how did you come to consider yourself a freethinker?
What does it say about our society that groups like ours are more or less in the minority?
Who in history should be considered a freethinker?
Should we, and how should we, work to create more freethinkers in the world?
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

First Meeting of Fall 2009

2009-09-08T15:15:00.006-04:00

Our first meeting will be held Wednesday, September 16, at 7:30 PM in Anderson Hall, room 101. The tentative starting topic is Life After Death. If you have a topic that you would like to see covered in a future meeting, this is also a good time to approach one of our officers about it. The sooner the better.

Gator Freethought will also be tabling at Turlington on Monday, September 14th. If you want to learn more about Gator Freethought, or just stop by to talk with us, please come see us there.

This semester, meetings will be held roughly every 2 weeks, on Wednesday and Thursday evenings at 7:30, and should always be in Anderson 101. Click the "Read full post" link below to see the full list of dates.

As always, notifications and information will be provided through our facebook group.

Gator Freethought Schedule - Fall 2009

September 16

October 1
October 14
October 29
November 12
December 2

Unless otherwise noted, all meetings will be in Anderson Hall, room 101, at 7:30 PM.

________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Fall 2009

2009-08-28T15:41:00.005-04:00

The Gator Freethought website will resume updating for the Fall 2009 semester. Information about upcoming meeting topics and schedules will be posted here as soon as it is available. Expect our first meeting of the year to be held in the next two weeks, as we look forward to seeing dedicated Freethinkers again, and meeting new members.

If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to email us, or contact us via our Gator Freethought facebook group.

________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

Videos of GF Meetings

2008-07-04T05:47:00.002-04:00

Since we've now had a few dozen meetings, with only a few of them video recorded, this post will serve as a catalog for those videos. Most of them are multi-part format, and the Google Video link will take you to part one, from which you can find the other parts (listed in reverse chronological order):

FSM and the nature of religion (4/16/08) | GV link
Prof. Twitchell on "Shopping for God" (2/28/08) | audio link at wildvoice - audio only
Dr. Horner on Christianity after Rorty (11/14/07) | GV link
Prof. Witmer on atheism (9/26/07) | GV link
The Green-Price debate (8/25/07) | GV link
The Academy: a student roundtable (7/13/07) | GV link
Prof. Tresan on objective morality (4/21/07) | GV link
Tabash-Friel debate (3/26/07) | GV link
Eddie Tabash talk at UF (3/25/07) | GV link

Recording our meetings enlarges the reach of Gator Freethought; both to members who are unable to attend specific events and to those outside the Gainesville community who want to join in on our constant conversations. Although the quality of some of these recordings is below par, we are glad to share and preserve the quality of the presentations and guest speakers.

GF Spring Meeting 4: The FSM & Religiosity

2008-04-13T15:11:00.011-04:00

Facebook event here. Campus map directions here.

*See the video of this meeting here or embedded below.*

What is a religion? Can it be distinguished from "fake" religions, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What makes a religion fake or authentic? What exactly is the FSM parodying? Guest speakers: two of our graduate students in the religion department—Luke Johnston and Sam Snyder—presented academic conference papers about the FSM and will be leading the fray. Come on out Wed, 4/16 @ 8pm in CSE E121 and discuss these questions and more!

Part 1 of the presentation:

Part 2 of the presentation:

Time to get our freethunk on. This time we'll be discussing something inherently fun: the Flying Spaghetti Monster. For those who don't know, the FSM is (according to "Pastafarianism") the invisible and undetectable creator of the universe who happened to fabricate all evidence for evolution in order to test Pastafarians' faith. When scientific measurements like radiocarbon dating are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

It just so happens that two of our graduate students in the religion department—Luke Johnston and Sam Snyder—presented papers about the FSM at the American Academy of Religion conference in San Diego last November. Luke and Sam have both agreed to lead a meeting this Wednesday introducing us to the FSM and exploring some of its implications for how we understand religious and scientific belief. For instance: What is a religion? Can it be distinguished from "fake" religions, such as the FSM? What makes a religion fake or authentic (cough cough, Scientology)? What is the difference between "good" and "bad" science, and what exactly is FSM parodying there?

Come on out this Wednesday, April 16th @ 8pm to CSE E121 for what promises to be a hilarious and engaging discussion about these and other questions. As per usual, we'll be heading out to eat/drink afterwards, so stick around for even more fun.

We'll also be conducting elections, and this is how it will work. First, we need you to nominate potential officers for next year. To do that, simply send Brandon or me a message with that person's name (no need to specify a position). Then, at the meeting, we'll ask you to rank (anonymously) the nominees in order of how much you would like to see them lead the group. Once we've figured out the group's sequence of preference, we will ask the nominees—in the order in which they appear on this sequence—which positions they would like to hold. I hope this makes sense, but if not, no worries: it's a lot simpler than it might sound.

A few months ago, USAToday and CNN carried the AP wire about our UF graduate religion students studying the FSM. Unbeknownst to these otherwise-esteem news organizations, we have our own resident Pastafarian here in GF, and he's taken to the Plaza before to preach the good news!

I love the juxtaposition against our dearly departed own Joey Johnsen.

From the CNN article, one of the UF grad students' talks is entitled, "Noodling around with Religion: Carnival Play, Monstrous Humor, and the Noodly Master." This makes me wonder if perhaps these guys saw or were influenced by this display at UF, or if it is just coincidence...?

Come find out!
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

GF Spring Social: Wii? Taboo? Beer? A most holy unholy trinity.

2008-03-29T16:27:00.001-04:00

Facebook event here. Google map directions here.

So far this semester we've discussed the intersections of religion with politics and with dating; we've considered an economic analysis of church popularity over time; but, I ask you, have we played Taboo together? Wii? Have we drunk, together and with cheer, our own BYOB beers? We have not.

This Saturday 3/29 at 10pm located on 2340 NW 16th Ave we'll be gathering to correct this egregious error. Come on out for Wii, for Guitar Hero, for Taboo, for games, for beers, for wine, for fun and for like-minded company. Please bring your own beer, wine, etc if you can (just bring a few bucks if you can't).

***UPDATE on Thursday 3/27***: Chris Mueller has graciously offered us his domicile for the party on Saturday night. He is located on 2340 NW 16th Ave. I would offer directions but I think it's better for everyone to just use google maps—just click his address above. It's only a mile from campus so biking is completely doable (that's what I'll be doing). If you're driving, *please* try to carpool because parking might get scant, but I'm sure we'll be able to fit everyone. If you'd like a ride, just post below on the wall and one of us will pick you up. :)

So far we have/need the following forms of entertainment:
- Wii (and Brawl) [Adam]
- Dr. Mario [Holly]
- Guitar Hero [WE STILL NEED THIS!--Volunteers?]
- Taboo [Ryan]
- Beer! Wine! Etc! [Everyone]
- Any other ideas?

Come on out everyone. :) We haven't done this in a long time so let's have some fun together.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

GF Spring Meeting: "Shopping for God" with Prof. James Twitchell

2008-02-27T14:19:00.005-05:00

Facebook event here. Campus map directions here.

*Listen to the audio recording of this meeting here or embedded below*

Dr. Twitchell, professor of English and Advertising in our very own English department, will present next Thursday (2/28, @ 8pm in NEB 101) on his latest book, "Shopping for God: How Christianity Went from In Your Heart to In Your Face," and will lead a Q&A discussion afterwards. The description of his book reads:

"Not so long ago religion was a personal matter that was seldom discussed in public. No longer. Today religion is everywhere, from books to movies to television to the internet-to say nothing about politics. Now religion is marketed and advertised like any other product or service. How did this happen? And what does it mean for religion and for our culture?

Just as we shop for goods and services, we shop for church. A couple of generations ago Americans remained in the faith they were born into. Today, many Americans change their denomination or religion, sometimes several times. Churches that know how to appeal to those shopping for God are thriving. Think megachurches. Churches that don't know how to do this or don't bother are fading away. Think mainline Protestant churches.

Religion is now celebrated and shown off like a fashion accessory. We can wear our religious affiliation like a designer logo. But, says James Twitchell, this isn't because Americans are undergoing another Great Awakening; rather, it's a sign that religion providers-that is, churches-have learned how to market themselves. There is more competition among churches than ever in our history. Filling the pew is an exercise in salesmanship, and as with any marketing campaign, it requires establishing a brand identity. Successful pastors ("pastorpreneurs," Twitchell calls them) know how to speak the language of Madison Avenue as well as the language of the Bible.

In this witty, engaging book, Twitchell describes his own experiences trying out different churches to discover who knows how to "do church" well. He takes readers into the land of karaoke Christianity, where old-style contemplative sedate religion has been transformed into a public, interactive event with giant-screen televisions, generic iconography (when there is any at all), and ample parking.

Rarely has America's religious culture been examined so perceptively and so entertainingly. Shopping for God does for religion what Fast Food Nation has done for food."

This should be really fun and engaging, and certainly a topic we've never discussed before. Dr. Twitchell is an excellent and lively speaker. Come on out next Thursday, 2/28!

Here is the audio to his talk:

And here is the audio to the Q&A afterwards:

________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought

"Love, Sex, and Religion": Second Spring Discussion, this Wednesday (Feb 13, day before Valentine's Day) @ 8pm in Rinker 110

2008-02-11T18:59:00.000-05:00

Join us this Wednesday at 8pm in Rinker 110 for a lively discussion on how our religious beliefs inform our sexual mores and values. What is the ideal relationship to you, now and later? The ideal man or woman? Are certain sexual acts sacred and others merely bestial, and if so, why? Is sexual desire natural or sinful, to be welcomed or avoided?

Essentially we'll be discussing all things love, sex, and religion this Wednesday, Feb 13 at 8pm in Rinker 110. Come on out and join us! We'll try to have refreshments available this time for sure.

**IMPORTANT**: In honor of Valentine's day the following day, we've decided to make this meeting a STOPLIGHT meeting. So if you want, wear red to signify you're taken, green to signify you're single, and yellow to signify... approach with caution. We'll go out for food/drinks afterward as always, so should be harmless fun. :)

Roundtable Discussion on Religion and Politics, this Monday at 8pm in 303 Griffin-Floyd Hall

2008-01-26T14:48:00.002-05:00

Join us in this Monday at 8pm—one day before the Florida primaries—for our first roundtable discussion this semester on religion and politics. How do your religious beliefs affect or inform your political ones? Are ethical issues (abortion, gay marriage) more or less important to you than issues of foreign policy, and is your preference affected by your religious standpoint? Some Republican candidates have declared their support for teaching creationism in schools—whether or not you agree, could something like this be enough to lose (or gain) them your vote? How far should politicians' own religious beliefs affect their political decisions? Do the candidates uphold the separation of church and state—why or why not?

We plan to entertain these questions and more this Monday at 8pm in the Philosophy Library (room 303 of Griffin-Floyd—see map). We'll try to have some form of refreshments as usual. Come on out join us!

Spring 2008 Kickoff Social, 8pm this Thursday (1/17) @ Tim and Terry's

2008-01-16T11:17:00.001-05:00

It's a new year for Gator Freethought, and we've got a lot planned for this semester. Since our new year's resolution is to have more fun, we plan to kick off the new year this Thursday at Tim and Terry's, a casual open-mic / food / beer place, located across University behind Target Copy (see map below). They do NOT card at the door, only at the counter if you buy a beer, so do not use your age as an excuse not to come! There's a huge back porch area where we can set up a few tables and chat and have a good time, so come on out.

(If you have a Facebook account, please RSVP here.)

View Larger Map

Also, if you're interested, here's what we've got coming up this semester:

1/17, Thursday:
First meeting! (This event.)

1/28, Monday (day before the primaries!):
Roundtable discussion on how our (non)religious beliefs affect our decision on who to vote for *the next day*, on the religious beliefs of the candidates, and on how far we think their beliefs ought to inform their political decisions. Should be really exciting and a very important discussion to have.

2/13, Wednesday (day before Valentine's day!):
Another roundtable discussion on... religion and dating! How do your (non)religious beliefs affect what you're looking for in a mate, your ideal dating process, your sexual mores, etc.

More dates/info coming soon!

So come find out what's in store this semester, meet and greet new and old freethinkers, and help us plan out the rest of the semester this Thursday at 8pm at Tim and Terry's. See you all there!

Media Coverage of Our Group

2007-12-21T07:46:00.000-05:00

The following list compiles some of Gator Freethought's media records -- from LTEs, incidental mentions of the group's activities, to interviews with our members on radio shows and full-blown newspaper articles on the group and its activities. We feel that making our voices heard in local media is extremely important to the goals and purposes of our group. This post will be updated as needed.

Because The Alligator's website underwent a great deal of revision, many of the old links to articles there are dead, and the archives are not yet working that far back. According to the editors, it may be a very long time for the pages to be updated. Thus, we have updated this list with links to cached versions of these pages & articles (thank you Google Desktop) so interested readers may enjoy the publications.

Point of Inquiry: Student Freethought Leaders Speak Out, by Blake Tanase, 12/14/07

Campus Inquiry: CFI Campus Leaders Storm NYC, by Blake Tanase, 12/1/07

Alligator LTE: Without a preacher, students are condemned, by Ryan H, 9/28/07 (about Joey Johnsen's departure from UF)

Alligator LTE: Religious frat lawsuit not pious, by Daniel M, 7/12/07

Chicago Reader: article on Hemant Mehta, "The Atheist Who Went to Church" - he gives us props in a brief mention in paragraph 11, "...He likes the University of Florida group that offered “free hugs from atheists” to publicize an upcoming event...", 4-13-07

Institute for Humanist Studies: HNN Article Highlight of our "Free Hugs" Event, 4-11-07

Tabash Events/Video: Tabash Lecture at UF, 3-25-07 & Tabash-Friel Debate, 3-26-07

NinerOnline: "'You're going to hell' says campus preachers: An in-depth look into the practice of campus preachers", quotes Daniel M, 3/26/07

Campus Sun Article: "Atheists give free hugs to fellow students" by Jessica Palombo, 3-23-07

Alligator: What's Happening, "The Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Student Association at UF presents "Who Made Who? God and Man" with Eddie Tabash." 3-23-07

Gator Times: Advertisement, "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?"

Alligator LTE: "Constitution protects religious freedom" by Stacey Kroto, 2-12-07 (Alligator link broken, read it here)

Alligator LTE: "Separation of church and state needed" by Daniel M, 2-9-07 (Alligator link broken, read it here)

Dixie County Advocate Article: "Ten Commandments Controversy goes National" by Terri Langford, 12-7-06*

Gainesville Sun Article: "Plea for a plaintiff" by Karen Voyles, 12-2-06*

Alligator Editorial: "Darts & Laurels" by editors, 12-1-06*

Alligator Article: "Student debates on Fox" by Brittney Davis, 11-30-06*

Hannity & Colmes: Interview regarding Dixie County 10 Commandments, YouTube video, .mpg video (59MB), 11-29-06*

Alligator LTE: "Evangelicals Deserve some Criticism" by Stacey Kroto, 10-20-06 (Alligator link broken, read it here)

Alligator LTE: "Christianity Itself Relies Upon Fear" by Daniel M, 10-3-06 (Alligator link broken, read it here). The next day, a response came in another Alligator LTE: “Preacher responds to campus critics” by Joey Johnsen, 10-4-06.

Point of Inquiry Radio Show: Podcast about the CFI On Campus Summer Conference, includes interview with Gator Freethought member Eric Toedter (5 attended), 7-28-06

USA Today: Interview with Gator Freethought's first treasurer, Chelsae Pavey (article), 7-26-06

Secular Student Alliance: SSA Affiliate Creates some Beautiful Banners, [thanks to Dave Misvel], 4-25-06

Alligator LTE: "Human Life Doesn't Begin at Conception" by Daniel M, 3-21-06 (Alligator link broken, read it here)

Alligator Column: "Intelligent Design not a True Science" by Daniel M, 8-26-05 (Alligator link broken, read it here)

I'll try to keep this updated as much as possible.

*For all of the media related to the Dixie County 10 Commandments display story, see here.

Fall 2007, Meeting 5: "Christianity after Rorty" with Dr. Richard Horner, this Wed (11/14) @ 8pm in BAR 211

2007-11-12T18:08:00.005-05:00

*See the video of Dr. Horner's talk here or embedded below*

Dr. Richard Horner of the Christian Study Center just north of campus has agreed to come speak to us about how philosopher Richard Rorty, who was openly influenced by Nietzsche's proto-existentialism, has led him not to atheism (as it did for Rorty and Nietzsche themselves), but to a strengthened understanding of, and faith in, Christianity. Dr. Horner, who himself studied under Rorty at the University of Virginia, describes his own talk below:

"I'd like to talk a bit about how the neo-pragmatist/postmodern critique of scientism has fed into my own thinking and then reflect a bit on the fact that while this critique is as a-theistic as scientism has been, I still find it pointing me in the direction of Christian understanding rather than in an opposite direction."

Here is part 1 of his talk:

Here is part 2 of his talk:

RSVP: As usual, please RSVP here if possible. Thanks!

Please note: Knowledge of philosophy, Rorty, and/or Nietzsche is not required to understand and enjoy the discussion! Dr. Horner is one of the most casual, well-spoken, and easily-understood men I've ever met, and he'll be explaining to us anything we don't already know. Please do not be afraid to come. This will be fascinating and a great meeting, I promise! :)

After his talk, Dr. Horner will lead a Q&A/discussion on the subject. Come on out this Wednesday @ 8 to BAR 211 for some fascinating discussion. That's Bartram Hall, behind (i.e. south of) Rogers Hall and Dickinson Hall on Musuem Road. See map in pictures for more details, or type in "Bartram Hall" on the campus map (http://campusmap.ufl.edu/). The good news about being scheduled here is it looks like parking might be available right in front of the building.

Hope to see you all there, and bring friends! :)

Fall 2007, Meeting 4: "Can Morality Be Objective?", a discussion with Dr. Tresan this Thursday @ 8pm in CSE E119

2007-10-22T17:45:00.000-04:00

Note: Please RSVP here if possible. Also, remember that our meetings are open to anyone and everyone! :)

Dostoevsky infamously claimed that without God, anything is permissible. But what does that mean? What does it mean for morality to be "objective" or "subjective"? Dr. Tresan, an ethics philosopher here at UF, will lead a discussion on the possibility of moral objectivity this Thursday @ 8pm in CSE E119.

This topic seemed to lurk behind many of the objections to Dr. Witmer's defense of atheism using the problem of evil. Evil?—what's that? It's a good question. Are the words "good" and "evil" different in kind from "chair" and "ice cream"? Can we come up with the "definition" of good and evil? What effect do culture, history, and politics have on this primarily philosophical notion? Does morality need an author-figure (i.e. God) in order for its meanings to be fixed, or even to exist at all?

Questions abound for this controversial topic. For that reason, Dr. Tresan has opted to lead a discussion rather than to lecture on the subject, so we'll have plenty of time for questions and lively dialogue. Come on out this Thursday @ 8pm in CSE E119. We'll try to have refreshments as always. See map in pictures for more details, or use the campus map.

(Dr. Tresan's first talk on this topic with our group occurred back in April; watch him explain objective morality here.)

The Academy, Thurs (10/18) @ 8pm: The Meaning of Life?

2007-10-15T15:25:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, October 18th, at 8pm in Rinker 110, Gator Freethought and Gator Christian Life host The Academy (click to RSVP on facebook), session 2. Inspired by Plato and friends, The Academy sponsors inter-faith dialogue each semester in the form of a panel discussion among students from different (non)religious groups around campus. This time, we're answering The Big Question: what's life all about, anyway? How does our religion, faith, or lack thereof affect our answer? Is life worth living without God? Is it worth living with God? Woah.

And this is only the beginning. Although panelists will begin answering these fundamental questions, they will then respond to your own. Throughout the talk, we'll be collecting questions from the audience to be posed to the panelists by a moderator. The event should last around 90 minutes.

Currently, the following illustrious students make up our panel:

1. BRANDON SMOCK, atheist from Gator Freethought
2. AARON BEATY, from Gator Christian Life
3. LEO STEIN, from UF Hillel
4. KHADER ABU EL-HAIJA, from Islam on Campus
5. MATTHEW BLASI, unaffiliated Buddhist

So come on out Thursday at 8 to Rinker 110 and join the largest and most organized inter-faith dialogue ever attempted on campus! See map in pictures for more details, or use the campus map.

NOTE: Rinker is typically a coooold building. You might want to bring a jacket.

Fall 2007, Meeting 3: Roundtable Discussion on Fate and Free Will, Thurs (10/11) @ 8pm in CSE E119

2007-10-06T10:39:00.000-04:00

Note 1: Please remember that all are welcome to our meetings, whether or not you're a student or in the club!

Note 2: Please RSVP at our facebook event if possible.

This Thursday @ 8pm in CSE E119 (CSE is the computer science building just west of "The Fries", a little bit south of Turlington) we'll be having our first real roundtable discussion on fate, free will, and whether the existence or nonexistence of either ought to change the way we think about life, morality, and the judicial system. The problem of free will, briefly, is this: If we agree that every event in the world is caused by some previous event, how are the choices that we make (which are themselves events) "free"? In other words, if our choices are caused by prior events in the same way that a bird's choices are, on what grounds can we say that our actions are free, or that we could have done otherwise than we did?

Our very own Philosophy grad students Holly Stillman and Jared Poon, experts in this sort of thing, will start the discussion off by explaining what is meant by fate, determinism, and free will, as well as introducing us to the three main stances one can take: hard determinism (free will is an incoherent idea, given the laws of science), compatibilism (free will can coexist peacefully with the laws of science), and libertarianism (our notions about the laws of science are wrong, therefore we have free will).

They will then moderate a discussion about these positions and how they might affect our personal and political lives. If we don't have free will, is life worth living? Can we still tell people they were wrong to do something if they couldn't have done otherwise? What about the judicial system--what sense does it make to execute people if they didn't commit the crimes they did freely? Can we still justify these practices despite believing that we don't have free will? Or if we do have free will, how do we deal with the laws of science? What do we say about causation? And what about fate--what is it? Are our lives fated to be just as they are? If God is omniscient and knows exactly what we'll do before we do it, does that mean we're fated to do what he knows we'll do? Are free will and God's omniscience incompatible?

Many interesting questions! Come on out this Thursday @ 8pm to CSE E119 for some refreshments and casual talk. The room has a capacity of 102 this time, so don't worry about having to stand in the back. Hope to see you there! See map in pictures for more details, or use the campus map.

Video and Notes from Dr. Witmer's Talk, "How To Think About (the Lack of a) God"

2007-09-30T15:58:00.000-04:00

Last Wednesday at our last meeting, our faculty advisor and Philosophy professor, Dr. Witmer, gave a talk entitled "How To Think About (the Lack of a) God." Dr. Witmer argued above all else that we can (and should) rationally inquire into the question of God's existence—it is not a "matter of opinion" or "merely a matter of faith." Such inquiry, he further argues, undoubtedly leads one to atheism. Dr. Witmer also considers atheism in relation to theism, agnosticism, and other labels we might use; he discusses skepticism and the belief that faith ought to end the conversation, both of which he considers potential impediments to rational discussion; and finally, attacking teleological arguments for God's existence and defending the Problem-of-Evil argument against it, he argues that atheism is the most rational position one might hold. For Dr. Witmer's abstract of his talk, see here.

About 73 people attended and enjoyed the talk and ensuing discussion. BUT if you missed out on the meeting, you didn't miss out entirely. Below is a video of the talk, and if you click "Read full post", you can follow along to the accompanying handout. I would recommend you open the video in a new window, so that you can read along in this one. I have also provided some general captions to the video itself whenever I thought it particularly helpful (e.g. for specific definitions and the like).

"How to Think About (the Lack of a) God" [new window]

Also, here is a basic outline to Dr. Witmer's talk, with links to the relevant sections of the video:

"How to Think About (the Lack of a) God"
talk by D. Gene Witmer for Gator Freethought
September 26th, 2007

Introduction
1. Defining one's terms: What do we mean by "God?"
2. Possible positions: Claims of belief, knowledge, and -isms
a. Theism, atheism, agnosticism: What about the terms we commonly use?
3. Skeptical obstacles: Can we ever really know whether God exists?
4. The notion of faith: Does mentioning "faith" stop rational discussion?
5. One atheist's position: How the evidence favors atheism

For information on the "Great Debate" series Dr. Witmer mentions, see here.

1. Defining one's terms: "God"

Sneaky moves and bizarre definitions

Example: "God is the power of love." Compare "Santa Claus is the spirit of generosity."

Stipulation vs. report

Variations in meaning?

God as an object of worship and devotion

A proposed definition

God is that unique thing which created the universe, is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, eternal, and a person (i.e. can be described as doing things, knowing things, desiring things, &c).

The danger of "bloated conclusions"

2. Possible positions

Propositions and three possible attitudes

Believe that P; believe that P is false; refrain from believing either

Epistemic claims

Claims about whether a proposition is known; distinct from the proposition itself. For instance, you could believe that God doesn't exist but also believe you don't know this to be so.

Theism, atheism, agnosticism

3. Skeptical obstacles

Skepticism about the question

Skepticism: either "no one can know that God exists or that God doesn't exist" or "no one can have good enough reason to believe either way."

Unprincipled dogmatic skepticism

Militant agnosticism: I don't know and you don't either! Popular view that certain questions are "obviously" just a "matter of opinion," where there can be no rational way of settling the question. This is mostly an excuse for lazy diplomacy.

"No one can prove either way": what does "prove" mean?

The ultra-demanding sense of proof

Prove that P = show that there is absolutely no possibility that P is false. In this sense, almost nothing (if anything!) can be proven.

Shifting standards

Inconsistent use of the word "prove"; other times used in a more relaxed way, so that "prove" = "show that there's excellent reason to think that P is true". Even if one can't prove in the ultra-demanding sense that God exists or that God doesn't, perhaps you can prove it in the more ordinary sense.

"Proving a negative"

"Everyone knows that you can't prove a negative." Consider: "There is no elephant in this room." Can this be proven? In the ordinary sense, yes. Note that the claim "you can't prove a negative" is itself a negative claim, so it applies to itself.

Intangibility and skepticism

If God is intangible or unobservable, perhaps that means we can't have evidence either way? It's not obvious that God is supposed by believers always to be unobservable. In any case, we can have evidence for unobservable entities in physics by appeal to their effects. God is supposed by believers to have observable effect—miracles, daily life, at a minimum the physical universe is his creation.

Controversy and skepticism

People have disputed the question for ages; but nobody convinces each other. Hence, there's no good reason to believe one way or the other. This argument has some force, but it's important to see there are alternate explanations of the interminable controversy. Compare: the controversy in the 1800s over whether slavery is moral. Here, the explanation clearly is that one side had a vested interest. A similar explanation may be in play here. Note that both theists and atheists might have vested interests, so it's hard to use that consideration to come to a conclusion about who is right.

4. The notion of faith

Common appeals to faith

"You're not supposed to worry about finding evidence for God; you're supposed to take it on faith." "It wouldn't be faith if we had proof." Does the role of faith mean reason and evidence aren't relevant? Well, what is faith in the first place?

The joke definition of faith

"Faith is when you believe something you know ain't so." Those who think of faith as valuable must have something else in mind than believing what you know is false. But what?

The question of value

If faith is something contrary to using reason or evidence, why is it supposed to be valuable? When a particular account of "faith" is given, ask: (a) Is there anything valuable about believing on faith, when understood this way? (b) Does it apply in particular to belief in God?

The mere subject matter interpretation

A matter of faith = a matter of belief about religion. If this is right, then, pointing out that it's a matter of faith tells us absolutely nothing at all that is relevant to the question of evidence or reasons in relation to those beliefs. Compare: "Your belief is about the moon!" So?

Better approaches: special kinds of evidence or special attitudes towards evidence

Special kinds of evidence

"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." This suggests that there are kinds of reasons or evidence that get overlooked by what is usually deemed "reason." And in fact it's a very bad idea to limit the term "reason" to some predetermined set of specific kinds of evidence. This doesn't mean we should accept anything as evidence for anything else, only that we should evaluate on a case by case basis.

Faith as relying on testimony

Sometimes "take it on faith" means believing something because you take someone else at his word. But of course we don't think it's a good idea to always believe what people say; whether we should believe what someone tells us depends on what other evidence we have regarding their honesty, reliability, sanity, and so on. This sense of "faith" is not at all contrary to believing on evidence.

Faith as relying on special experience

Perhaps believing on faith is believing on the basis of one's own special religious experiences. This is still believing on the grounds of a kind of evidence. Why should religious experiences be treated any differently from, say, visual experiences? Despite their differences, they're both experiences and both subject to critical scrutiny.

Must appeal to special experience end the conversation?

Perhaps such experiences seems not to be "evidence" because it's very hard to discuss them. Next question, then: Why is it hard to discuss them? What might that show about their significance? If you can't even describe them, should you be confident in what you think about what they show?

Special attitudes towards evidence?

The trivializing "no proof" interpretation

Faith is belief without proof. In the ultra-demanding sense? Okay, then almost every belief is faith in this sense. And it's valuable, since if you didn't allow yourself to believe in the absence of such ultra-demanding proof, you'd be stuck believing almost nothing. What about proof in the more ordinary sense? What could be valuable about belief without that sort of proof?

No evidence or not enough evidence interpretations

Faith is believing when there is no evidence, or only substandard evidence. What would be valuable about this? Utterly puzzling.

Balance of contrary evidence interpretation

Suppose I have very good evidence for thinking that, say, a particular person is an honest, upstanding fellow; yet there is also evidence that he's guilty of some horrid crime. In such a case, we might think that the evidence is just ambiguous and it makes sense to pick one side and stick with it, at least until something helps tip the scales more decisively. Still, in this case it's clear that assessing the evidence critically is in order. Note that this only applies to theism if the evidence is in this way balanced.

Moral interpretations

Faith is believing because you have a moral obligation to believe. Example: Father ought to have faith in his son. This has some appeal, but surely it has some real limits, and evidence is relevant to assessing whether you've reached those limits.

5. One atheist's position

Minimal evidence for theism; powerful evidence for atheism

The evidence is not at all balanced; it tilts heavily towards atheism.

The best evidence for theism? Teleological arguments

The biological teleological argument: mostly defunct given evolutionary evidence. Contrast: the fine-tuning argument regarding certain values for physical quantities. The argument: best explanation of such fortunate combination of values is that a designer set them with the intent to have a life-permitting universe.

Problems with teleological arguments: a bloated conclusion

Even if we allow that the arguments show that there's an all-power designer of the world (and I'm not willing to allow that, but supposing we do for the sake of argument), there is no chance of going so far as to show that the designer is all good, given the pervasive evil in the world. Note that if you already have good reason to think that the designer is all-good, you might be able to explain away that evil (though see below). But if you're trying to show in the first place that God exists, simply going by the evidence from the state of the world, we have no reason to think an all-good designer is responsible.

The best evidence for atheism: the problem of evil

The problem as an argument, not just a complaint

1. If God exists, he is all good and all powerful.

2. If an all-good, all-powerful being exists, it would ensure that no evil exists unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.

3. There exist evils in the world such that they are not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.

Hence, God does not exist.

[Something is logically necessary if its denial is self-contradictory or incoherent. It's logically necessary that there are no square circles and no married bachelors. A married bachelor is a logical impossibility. Not even God could change what is logically necessary.]

Requirements on an adequate theodicy

A theodicy = an excuse for God. An adequate theodicy needs to specify some good X such that God aims to achieve X and can't try to get it without allowing all the actual evil there is in the world. In other words, the evils must be logically necessary for this good. Further, X must be something sufficiently good that it justifies allowing all this actual evil. In other words, it must be an adequately compensating good. Let "E" be a description of all the actual evils in the world. Consider (T):

(T) God tries to achieve X and does so while making sure that the amount of evil in the world is less than E.

The theist will have to say that (T) is logically impossible. If (T) is not logically impossible, God could do what is described in (T), and he has no excuse for not doing so.

Most commonly overlooked point

Pointing out that some evils eventually result in something good doesn't show that they were needed by God to bring about that good thing. If you bear in mind his being all-powerful, you'll see that it's very hard to explain why he would need to allow some evil to bring about some good. He could only need to do it if were utterly impossible to do it in any other way.

Two big problems with appeals to free will

Justified interventions

One can allow free will while still stepping in at certain points to prevent the worst abuses. Indeed, if you were trying to provide your children with freedom, you would still not hesitate to limit it in certain ways.

The consistency of free will and perfect goodness

A bigger problem (the biggest in my view) is that there is no inconsistency between having free will and being a perfectly good person who always does the right thing. Why didn't God create only people who are like that? He wouldn't be taking away their free will; he would just be limiting himself to only creating those who in fact have such generally good characters that they won't commit evil deeds.

Investigate further

There is a ton of literature on these issues, and I encourage you to look into these matters further on your own. At a minimum, I hope to have convinced you that there's no reason to think the question cannot or should not be approached in a critical and rational fashion.

"God or Blind Nature?": Philosophers Debate the Evidence [Online Debate]

2007-09-24T19:48:00.000-04:00

Dr. Witmer asked me to pass along a link to this online debate to all of you, as he plans to mention it in his talk this Wednesday, and he thought it would interest some people. It is a "four-part series of debates" concerning whether "naturalism or theism is more likely to be true given different kinds of evidence." For more information, click "Read full post" below. Also, don't forget about our meeting this Wednesday at 8pm. We'll have cookies...

Here is a fuller description of the debate series, as sent to us by Internet Infidels:

On July 1st, Internet Infidels released the first installment ("Mind and Will") of a four-part series of debates called "God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence." This "Great Debate" concerns which of naturalism or theism is more likely to be true given different kinds of evidence. We just released the second installment ("Evil and Evolution") on September 1st, and the third and fourth installments ("Science and the Cosmos" and "Faith and Uncertainty") will be released on November 1st and January 1st, respectively.

In the first installment Andrew Melnyk defends physicalism about the human mind, the truth of which he takes to be some evidence against theism, while Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro defend substance dualism and libertarian free will, which they take to undermine naturalism. In section two Paul Draper defends his argument from the biological role of pain and pleasure against the existence of God, while Alvin Plantinga defends his famous argument that evolutionary naturalism is self-defeating. Each contributor critiques the opening case of the other, and each defends his opening case against its critique.

We are soliciting questions to pass on to the contributors on either of the two sides of these debates as part of Q&A sessions to be published online later, and so would appreciate it if you would inform your students in the appropriate classes about this interactive dialogue. We are particularly hopeful that the concerns of average readers will be represented in the question and answer sessions.

Again, the link can be found here. See you this Wednesday!

Fall 2007, Meeting 2, Wed (9/26) @ 8pm in FLG 245: Dr. Witmer Talks Atheism

2007-09-10T21:14:00.000-04:00

[Note to non-students: Please feel free to come! All of our meetings are open to anyone and everyone in the community.]

It's time for our second meeting this semester—this time with air conditioning! This Wednesday, September 26th at 8pm in Florida Gym (FLG) 245 (see images at bottom of post for directions), we'll be eating cookies (please bring your own drink if you want one) while we listen to Prof. Gene Witmer, our faculty advisor and esteemed philosophy professor here at UF, talk about how he thinks that we ought to think about atheism. (Please RSVP here if possible.) What is meant by "atheism"? Is it a disbelief in God, or a lack of belief in him? Is there a difference? Is atheism a "faith" in its own right, open to the same critiques it makes against religion? After his talk, Dr. Witmer will lead a lively and interesting Q&A / discussion on the subject. He describes his own presentation below:

"How To Think About (the Lack of a) God"
"The question of God's existence is one that most people think is of great interest; but it is also one that, for a variety of reasons, many people think of as not suitable for rational evaluation. It's 'just a matter of opinion,' they might say; or 'it's a matter of faith,' where logic, argument, evidence and so forth apparently don't come into the matter. In this talk I'll aim to convince you that nothing of that sort is correct. In the process, I'll argue that there is in fact very good reason to believe there is no God, although, of course, nothing like a comprehensive treatment of the question is possible in this time frame. Still, I aim to provide, as the title says, some pointers on how to think about the lack of a God."

By the way, if this sounds "biased" to anyone, remember that it's not meant to be unbiased: we want our speakers to try to argue rationally for something, which is exactly what Dr. Witmer will be doing. We plan to have speakers hail from different viewpoints from all over the school—which brings me to the next thing we'll be talking about:

We'll also be discussing possible future speakers and topics. What do you guys want to talk about, and who do you want to come speak? Lastly, we'll briefly discuss the upcoming event "The Academy" on October 19th.

Come on out and join us for some casual food and talk. :) Hope to see you all there.

Directions: Below are some images on how to get there. See map in pictures for more details, or use the campus map.

"What exactly is freethought?": Our Official Terminology

2007-09-09T22:10:00.002-04:00

Here's a vocab quiz for you: define "freethought," "weak/strong atheism," "weak/strong agnosticism," "ignosticism," "faith," "religion," "theism," "nontheism," "skepticism," "Occam's razor," "securalism," "empiricism," and "rationalism." Don't feel like it? Don't blame you.

But as we discovered at our most recent meeting last Tuesday (9/4), in order to have a meaningful discussion about (non)religion, we need to make sure we're all using the same definitions of these essential words. This is also especially important for the group itself. We identify ourselves as "freethinkers," but what exactly is "free" thought? And who counts as a freethinker?

We tried to answer those very questions at the meeting, but of course we didn't reach any sort of conclusion. Normally I think it's fine—perhaps even desirable—to leave a discussion with disagreements still on the table; but as I've already said, I think it's absolutely imperative we all speak the same language in order to make those future discussions and disagreements even possible. And that's why I've decided to come up with a (tentative) list of definitions that the group will officially endorse. If you dispute any of these, by all means, either leave a comment below or shoot us an email and explain why. I write this not to end discussion, but to enable it; so please, if you find the following definitions wanting in any way, discuss them with us.

Gator Freethought's Official Terminology

FREETHOUGHT (and FREETHINKERS)
I have found no better definition of these terms than that offered by philosopher Bertrand Russell:

What makes a freethinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem.

-Bertrand Russell, "The Value of Free Thought" (1957)

In other words, a feethinker . . .
- is someone who holds his or her beliefs because he or she finds them, after careful thought and rational inquiry, to be the most reasonable beliefs one could possibly hold.
- does not "know for sure" that what she believes is true; rather, she simply finds what she believes more reasonable than what she does not believe.
- attempts to justify his beliefs as much he is able, continually altering them according to the evidence.
- does not rely on authority, tradition, dogma, or revelation to form his beliefs; rather, he submits these pre-existing beliefs to critical scrutiny. If and only if do these beliefs survive that scrutiny does the freethinker then adopt them.
Allow me to emphasize that this definition does not discriminate based on one's conclusions, but on the way in which one reaches those conclusions. Freethinkers can be atheist, agnostic, theist (whether deist, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, pantheist, etc.), or any number of other religious beliefs—so long as they arrive at these beliefs through the process outlined above.

Back to top

ATHEISM
Atheism refers either to one's disbelief or to one's lack of belief in the existence of gods. It is often split into "strong" and "weak" based on this distinction:
- Strong atheism affirms the non-existence of gods.
- Weak atheism is the absence of belief in gods.
What's the difference? Since a strong atheist affirms the non-existence of gods, he makes a knowledge claim: he claims to know that gods do not exist. (This is arguably problematic, because to attempt to "prove" a universal negative proposition may become logically fallacious.) On the other hand, a weak atheist simply lacks belief in gods. In other words, a weak atheist does not claim to know for sure that gods do not exist; instead, he simply sees no reason to believe that they do.

Back to top

AGNOSTICISM
While atheism refers to belief, agnosticism refers to knowledge. This, too, is often split into "strong" and "weak."
- Strong agnosticism holds that the question of the existence or nonexistence of gods is unknowable. A strong agnostic would say, "I don't know, neither do you, and neither of us ever can know."
- Weak agnosticism holds that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown, but not necessarily unknowable. Therefore, a weak agnostic withholds judgment until (or if) more evidence becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know, but maybe you do, and maybe we can."
Note that agnosticism and atheism are not necessarily opposed. An atheist may be an atheist because he believes the question of God's existence is fundamentally unknowable (strong agnosticism). In this case, he is termed an agnostic atheist.

Back to top

More to come . . .
Ignosticism, faith, religion, theism, nontheism, skepticism, and more to come later. I will update this post soon with those additions, so check back here for more.

Back to top

First Meeting of Fall 2007: Tuesday (9/4) at 8pm in Philosophy Library (FLO 300)

2007-09-03T18:19:00.000-04:00

Come on out to our first meeting of the fall this Tuesday, September 4th at 8pm in the Philosophy Library (Griffin-Floyd (FLO) 300--the building on the NW corner of Newell and Union). We'll be munching on free Pokey Stix, introducing ourselves, discussing what we think "freethought" is, and sharing our thoughts about the Green-Price debate.

(Note: Please RSVP at our facebook event if possible so we know how much food to buy.)

Since it's our first official meeting under the new name, Brandon and I want to start off discussing what you think "freethought" is and how you'd like to see the group define itself. I think we can use this time to introduce ourselves, too. Naturally, everyone has different ideas about what a "freethinker" is, and about which aspects of its "definition" we ought to emphasize with the group. Brandon and I plan to open the discussion explaining where we've been trying to nudge the group lately, and hopefully clarify any misconceptions that may have cropped up. I think this will be a good way to springboard into discussing the future of the group this semester and beyond.

From there I thought we could discuss the debate we recently hosted---what did you think of it? Were you persuaded by Price, by Green, by neither? What holes, if any, did you see in their arguments? I'm attaching the link to the videos here in case anyone wasn't able to attend. If you want, you might want to watch Price's and Green's speeches (videos #1 and #2) before coming; but if not, I'll introduce the topic with brief summaries of their arguments so we're all on the same page.

This ought to be plenty on our plates: food, introductions, general discussion on freethought and the group, and more focused discussion on the recent debate. As always, I'd love to carry things over to a restaurant for food and drinks afterward if people are willing.

Hope to see you all there! This is the perfect time to emerge from the shadows of the group and get to know your fellow freethinkers. Come on out and enjoy some casual food and talk with us. :)

-Ryan

VIDEO: "Is Christianity Based on a Lie?"

2007-08-27T04:03:00.000-04:00

For those of you who missed the Green-Price debate on Saturday evening, you missed a great event. Many thanks go to Ryan, Brandon and others in GF for the work they put in to make this event go smoothly.

The room seated 500 people, and we had them lined along the walls and sitting in the aisles by about 15 after 7. By 7:30, people were turned away as there was no longer any standing room. Thus, it was enormously successful in terms of turnout and participation. Thanks to all of you who made it so.

I finished uploading the raw .mpg files to GV, and will also send them to co-President Ryan, who may use them to create a much prettier (better-edited) video version. When and if he does, this post will be updated to link to the new version. But for those of you who (like me) can't wait:

The video is embedded below the fold:

"Is Christianity Based on a Lie?" part 1 of 5

"Is Christianity Based on a Lie?" part 2 of 5

"Is Christianity Based on a Lie?" part 3 of 5

"Is Christianity Based on a Lie?" part 4 of 5

"Is Christianity Based on a Lie?" part 5 of 5

Video for the debate was filmed, processed and uploaded to GV by Daniel. All rights reserved by GF.
________________
Technorati tags: Gator Freethought