But throughout human history, there has also been a magnificent lineage of  thinkers who have not been convinced. For as long as religions have claimed to know about immortality or the supernatural, there have been people who have enjoyed meaningful lives without. Indeed, the tradition of positive non-belief is older than most world religions which survive today. People who cherish only one mortal life, and trust natural reasoning alone, have always – and will always – have an important place in the Universe. So, if you find yourself doubting the truth of society’s religious myths, have hope. You are not alone.

What is Humanism?

This is the first part of a series in which I will profile the backgrounds of some of the great thinkers who deserve acknowledgment and gratitude, for having the courage to rebel against cultural damnation and suppression, and for building the framework for a positive philosophy of life, known in our century as Humanism, or positive atheism. My goal here is to show that Humanism is an important and ancient school of thought, a respectable and venerable tradition. Drawing from the earliest Greek philosophers to various modern thinkers like Einstein, Kurt Vonnegut, Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, the basic tenets of Humanism are the result of thousands of years of philosophy. It is now a bold and powerful non-theistic way of thinking about life, whose waters run deep.

Part One: The Other Garden of Eden

Even thousands of years ago, long before the existence of Christianity or Islam, the world still rumbled with man’s horror and awe about the supernatural. In the days of ancient Greece and Rome, human sacrifice, apocalyptic fervor, and religious division were everywhere. Superstition and myth were the central source of explanations for things, and for the meaning of life. Mankind slumbered in sweet dreams of the Divine.

The basic ideas of Humanism first arose in the Garden of Epicurus, a quiet and thoughtful philosopher, who bravely discarded mythical illusions in favor of waking up. Wake up, he said, to the wonder and mystery of Nature. He taught a naturalist ethics, a philosophy that celebrated human existence, emphasized the necessity of moral health and cherished the crucial importance of intellectual pursuits.

Why the importance of these things? Because he was a Deist; to Epicurus, the gods may have created the Universe, but now they are distant and uncaring. The idea that the soul survives forever is only illusion and wishful thinking. Death, Epicurus said, is harmless and natural. When it’s over, it’s over.

Death is nothing to us. For what has been dissolved has no sense-experience, and what has no sense-experience is nothing to us.

But this by no means enables any dark immorality, as is so commonly supposed. Like modern-day Humanists, Epicurus was no nihilist. He taught that death should inspire us to seek higher justice, pleasure, tranquility and peacefulness. He was one of the earliest thinkers to point out the Golden Rule, which is present in most religions as well.

The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness; neither to harm one another nor be harmed.

 

No pleasure is a bad thing in itself. But the things which produce certain pleasures bring troubles many times greater than the pleasures.

 

The just life is most free from disturbance, but the unjust life is full of the greatest disturbance.

He also considered reason and philosophy to be of prime importance. Using our intellect gives us control over chance, over the chaos of the world. Only by thinking carefully about the big issues of existence – by thinking for ourselves – can we gain control and power over our lives, which would otherwise be dictated by the whims of blind culture. Though his theories about the natural world lacked the power of modern scientific method, and thus seem quite absurd and outdated, Epicurus was inspired with scientific curiosity…

Chance has a small impact on the wise man, while reasoning has arranged for, is arranging for, and will arrange for the greatest and most important matters throughout the whole of his life.

Years later, Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 99-55 B.C.E) wrote a beautiful ode to Epicurus that changed the world – according to a new Pulitzer-prizewinning book by historian Stephen Greenblatt, this poem revolutionized and modernized the Western way of thinking. “The copying and translation of this ancient book fueled the Renaissance, inspiring artists such as Botticelli and thinkers such as Giordano Bruno; shaped the thought of Galileo and Freud, Darwin and Einstein; and had a revolutionary influence on writers such as Montaigne and Shakespeare and even Thomas Jefferson.” (Amazon.com). Many of the names in this list are well-known as part of the lineage of Humanism inspired by Lucretius and Epicurus.

Lucretius speaks of early (though admittedly flawed) atomic theory, complete with hints at evolutionary biology. In his epic and beautiful poem, On the Nature of Things, Lucretius seeks to free mankind from the terror of the gods and the priests of ancient Greece and Rome – to soothe the conscience of mankind (and, surprisingly among the male-centered Greeks, womankind) after so much supernatural abuse.

When in full view on the earth man’s life lay rotting and loathsome,

Crushed ‘neath the ponderous load of Religion’s cruel burdensome shackles,
Who out of heaven displayed her forehead of withering aspect,
Lowering over the heads of mortals with hideous menace…

Now this terror and darkness of mind must surely be scattered,

Not by rays of the sun, nor by gleaming arrows of daylight,

But by the outward display and unseen workings of Nature.

After shaking his head at the terrors religion had caused to Rome, such as the “darksome deed” of child sacrifice of the virgin Iphianessa, Lucretius considers positive alternatives offered by a materialist conception of things. He works around the atomic theory of earlier Greek thinkers. Lucretius calls atoms “seeds of things,” and continues to describe a primordial form of evolutionary biology – and the human morality which it implies.

Childrens’ caresses too easily sapped the proud spirit of parents.

Neighbors in those days, too began to for friendly agreements

Neither to inflict nor receive any hurt, and asked for indulgence

Towards their women and children, as with cries and gesticulations

And in their stammering speech they tried to explain to each other

That it is right that all should pity the helpless.

And although harmony could not be won in every instance,

 Yet did the greater part observe the conventions uprightly;

Else long since would the human race have been wholly abolished,

Nor could their seed till this present day have continued the species.

With these ancient minds, we see the birth of non-religious “spirituality” long before the rise of Christianity. In the earliest days of mankind’s civilizations, some thinkers dared wonder at the gift of one brief mortal life, a Universe without fairies and ghosts and gods. Immortality and supernaturalism, the great legs of religion, are not – and have never been – necessary for a sense of wonder and meaning. In this naturalist tradition, Humanists continue today to hold the torch.

(To be continued…)

Dealing with Death for Nonbelievers
By Liz Emery

When I was sixteen, a very good friend’s young mother was diagnosed with an aggressive form of lung cancer and died four months later. This was the first time I really had to confront the idea of death—until that point, dying had been something that happened to unlucky pets, great grandparents, and strangers on the news. At the time, my religion was a great source of comfort for me and gave me the answers I needed to justify a tragedy that was otherwise unjustifiable.

Just a few weeks ago, another good friend’s even younger mother was diagnosed with the same disease. This time, neither I nor my friend have a religion to buffer the ugly reality of death. This drove me to ask the question: How do you comfort a nonbeliever who’s grieving?

Although everyone deals with loss in their own way, there are some guidelines to remember and respect when you’re comforting someone you love who does not believe in an afterlife.

The most important is that, even though a religious worldview may bring you consolation, it can come off as arrogant and insulting. This may sound strange, but if you’re religious, imagine a nonbeliever trying to comfort you by saying, “I know you’ll never see them again.” You’d feel awful, right? The same idea works conversely by saying, “I know you’ll see them again,” to a nonbelieving person.

A woman named Torrie shared with me her reaction when her brother committed suicide and a congregation member trying to comfort her told her, “He is not in a happy place right now. He is still suffering.”

“I wanted to slap the woman,” Torrie told me, even though she knew the woman meant well. “But you know what? I didn’t, because I knew my brother was dead. He was gone. And he wasn’t sad; he wasn’t happy. He wasn’t in a better place; he wasn’t in a worse place. The matter that made my brother was no longer functioning in the form that I knew as Dave.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself; and when this is what you believe—that death in its finality is not to be assuaged by ideas of afterlife— there are clearly much better things to say than the woman in Torrie’s example.

A wonderful article on alternet.org called “When it’s not God’s plan: 8 Things to say to Grieving Nonbelievers,” has some great ideas, the most popular simply being, “I am so sorry.” No wordiness, no creativity, just plain and simple human empathy.

Another suggestion is to just say, “This sucks,” because it does suck; no matter how you deal with death, it’s hard to avoid the cold, hard fact that we suffer when someone we love dies. Rather than offering cliché platitudes that really don’t mean much, let them know you’re suffering right along with them.

Share stories of good times about the deceased; ask how you can help, with the sincere intent to do dishes for a week if that’s what it takes. Or better yet, don’t say anything and just listen. Companionship goes a long way when alleviating the stark loneliness of grief.

When it really comes down to it, none of us know what happens when we die. We believe, we hope, we resign ourselves to reality; and in the end, we all deal with it in the way we know best.

Atheists, agnostics, and others who may not believe in the afterlife still get angry about death; but when I asked atheist and agnostic students at Utah State concerning the matter, the overwhelming sentiment was not of sadness but of hope and happiness. Rather than waiting for an afterlife to provide the comforts of paradise, they all focused on creating a piece of heaven on earth and leaving the world a better place.

Ann Druyan, the wife of the late astronomer and agnostic Carl Sagan, said it best after her husband died. “Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again… But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting…the way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don’t think I’ll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.”

About two weeks after filling out this survey, my Drill Sergeant came into the bay and called for me. I responded with the “Drill Sergeant moving Drill Sergeant!” that is programmed into you from day one, and ran to my Drill Sergeants Office trying to imagine what I had done to warrant this. Going to the Drill Sergeant’s office was normally a sign of pain and suffering to come. After knocking on his door and identifying myself I was told to enter. In the office there was my Drill Sergeant and the Chaplain. My Drill Sergeant quickly told me that the Chaplain wanted to speak to me, and then stepped out of the office.  Now I don’t remember the conversation word for word – I was running on 4 hours of sleep a night for the past 4 weeks and was in one of the most stressful situations someone could be in- but it went something like this.

Chaplain: “I understand from your survey that you’re an Atheist.”

Me: “Yes sir.” (The Chaplain, being a Major, got the title sir.)

Chaplain: “Well Private, I’m worried about you. Without a strong religious faith to support you through basic, I fear for your safety.”

After this I was starting to see what was going on. This Chaplain believed that me not being religious made it more likely that I would commit suicide. I will admit, it made me angry that I would be singled out for my beliefs, or lack of beliefs, in a nation that was based on secularism and freedom of religion (in this case lack of religion). It felt like a betrayal of what I had sworn to fight and protect. I had sworn to protect the constitution of the United States of America, and this Chaplain was spitting in the face of the most important document of this country. With my anger boiling I bit my tongue and replied.

Me: “You don’t need to worry about me Sir. You may need to worry about the Catholic kid in the bunk next to me. He cries for his mom every night.”

As a lowly just-in-the-service private, a major was a scary person to talk to. I “remember” saying this next part, but I find it hard that I would, so whether or not I actually did say the following is unknown to me. Nevertheless these were, and still are, my feelings and I would like to say that I did in fact present them to the Chaplain.

Me: “As an atheist, I only have one life to live. If I die thats it! There is no resurrection, no halls of Valhalla, no seventy virgins, no reincarnation. when I die I die, why would I want to commit suicide? It makes no sense.”

After our conversation the Chaplain asked if I would like a blessing, which I declined. I have  been to multiple Chaplains since then – it’s required for different things like deployments etc.- and while none have been as upfront as the first with their dislike in my lack of faith, they have all shown alarm and concern over it.

So how does this tie into the phrase “there are no atheist in fox-holes”? I’ve been to war. Now I may not have had people shooting directly at me but; I had mortar and rocket attacks almost daily; I drove one of the most deadly routes in Iraq (route Irish) 4 times a day as a gunner; I drove the 300+ miles from Baghdad Iraq to Ali-al-salem Kuwait. I had tense moments, moments when I was scared, but never once did I thank “God”, or ask for protection from a “higher power”, unless you consider my chain of command a “higher power”. To me “God” was the men and women who operated the CRAM (counter Rocket Artillery and Mortar), the soldiers who manned the towers and checkpoints, the route clearance teams whose sole job was to blow up IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) by driving over them before I did,  the inventors and scientists who developed my body armor, and the engineers who created the MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle that I drove down the road. These were the people keeping me alive, these were the people who deserve my thanks, not some “God”.

Too many people thank God when something good happens,when a medical treatment works, when a car’s airbags deploy to save their life, or even just when the airplane they were in lands safely. But the real thanks should go to the men and women who developed the technology, who went to school to learn about their fields, who sacrificed their time and energy to make us safe. Too often people forget about thanking these people. The idea of thanking “God” for what these people do never crosses my mind.

I was an Atheist in a fox-hole. I don’t owe thanks to “God” for my survival, I owe thanks to the men and women who came before me, and who developed the technology that kept me safe, and most importantly to the Soldiers who risked their life beside mine everyday. These were my “Gods” my “higher power”, the achievements of the human mind and the strength of my brother and sisters in arms.

Build a new machine? The only thing left to do is to stare ahead into a universe of parts; bolts and nuts, questioning even their own eyes. Wandering away from the pile of busted bolts and trashed tinkering, they feel the a sense of quietude at the senseless cosmos peeking over the treeline at night. The sound of the flies gets louder.

When the machine of God is gone, when all our tinkering around idols stops, steps might lead back into the jungle and the drum-beat of ancestors, which (for no reason) now sounds dangerous and wrong.

The builders cry for more music of the gears, a performance of the big finale – a sweet serenade about the meaning of life, a concert and comedy to light up our simian minds with certainty. Hands moving in remembrance of complicated motions to build up a new machine. Without the grinding of gears, the rancid whisper of steam, frightened by the void of space, the trap of biology, the lovely recurring nightmare of Spring and Winter. Reality hits, like a train. Everything is algorithmic, chaotic, pointless – suffering is everywhere, competition, survival, pedicured sun-basted modern masked animals who deign themselves meta-Gods, feasting on the bones of dead beasts, hidden under clothes and makeup to disguise the despicable truth, lost in the rotting skeleton of God, a concrete maze.

But what should they do? Abandon hope, smelt the gears into bullets, stare up at the sky with nausea? Step backward into the jungle or try to fix the machine – put the gears back in order, shine the cathedral windows, rewrite the books?

When the machine of religion has died, morality, meaning, purpose – it disappears underfoot. No longer can anyone build false purposes and bring them flowers of worship. All paths open. The builders are the machine. When all idols are broken, what remains but empty midnight?

Dennis Potter (left) and Blake Ostler debate baptisms for the dead at UVU.

On Tuesday, Utah Valley University hosted a lively debate on the resolution: “Resolved that the practice of proxy baptisms for the dead is neither a rational nor an ethical response to the problem of the unevangelized.”

Affirming the resolution—that is, arguing that baptisms for the dead are ineffectual and offensive—was Dennis Potter, associate philosophy professor at UVU. In opposition was Blake Ostler, a lawyer who has been widely published on Mormon theology.

With Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, Mormonism and some of its more controversial tenets (like baptisms for the dead) have come under increased scrutiny. So this debate couldn’t have been any more timely or relevant. Unfortunately, the turnout was rather poor. But if you were unaware of the event or unable to attend, you’re in luck—I recorded it in full. Click the links below for audio to the debate and the Q&A session.

Baptism debate

Baptism debate Q&A

The debate coach in me is tempted to disclose whose case I felt was more compelling, but I’ll hold off. I don’t want to bias your opinion going into the debate. Please listen to it first. Suffice it say for now, though, that Potter and Ostler are both capable thinkers and each made good arguments.

I may post my analysis later, but until then I look forward to reading your thoughts in the comments!

“One hand on this wily comet. Take a drink just to give me some weight. Some Uberman I’d make; I’m barely a vapour.” – James Mercer

Some things that are useful aren’t necessarily true. A good religious friend implied that insistence on a world of hard facts and knowledge shows that I am really just afraid of feeling the truth of those things which reside outside the realm of rationality, such as the existence of God. Maybe secular humanists, atheists and free-thinkers are just scared to admit that some feelings are beyond reason, telling us eternal truths about life.

The implication here is that my feelings will lead me to God; that I’m only blocking Him out using mortal tactics of scientific submersion and avoidance, through a pithy world of shaky human constructs. A very touching argument – but far too cute to survive in the real world. There’s more to it than that.

Yes – there is an important axis of human life which extends far beyond the scientific or rational, into a world of the mythical, creative and experiential; and we all salve or feed this daimon of feeling, sometimes with help from native stories, myths and fables, other times with art, music and sex. Regardless, it’s part of being human.

Maybe this part of life could be called the spiritual, the emotional, the artistic or the Dionysian: no matter how we cut it, there is a vista which appears to transcend all rationality with brute natural force.

But how is it, as we begin to muddle the lines between truth and feeling, that this necessary condition of humanity must lead always to faith and religion? This is, after all, what they’re saying.

There are at least eight giant religions that rule the world. The title of religious studies professor Stephen Prothero’s book makes it clear: God Is Not One. This collection of clear, fair and academic religious studies information shows us that the world’s religions are not spiritually compatible, as many assume. He shakes off the wave of 1970′s universalism ideas (“All roads lead to the same God”), calling them religiously-illiterate “Godtalk”.

All roads don’t lead to the same God. These are very different religions, and very different gods. So if irrational feelings can tell us truth, such as “My God is the true God and So-and-So is his only Prophet,” we are in a hell of a lot of trouble.

Can we not, instead, say that the myths behind the transcendent are merely signposts to realistic things? God is a word for guidance, Jesus is a word for compassion, Buddha for perception. Now they are useful ideas; we can humanize the myths of religions to learn to focus our spirit. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that we know anything about anything, as religions and theists would have it; that there really is a God lurking in omnipotence, or that Jesus returned to life, or that Buddha was born from a lotus flower. (More on this later with Jefferson and the Bible).

Without going into it much further, I’m going to coin the term Mythodipsia to describe it. Thirst for myths. We all have that parched throat for the mysterious, the transcendent – the explanatory; the guidance, the compassion. Everyone needs a story. What would human life be like without it?  But mythic usefulness does not need to transcend naturalism. We can humanize myths without de-humanizing reality. We can quench our creative thirst with wine – without believing a man magicked it from water.

Okay! – is the first thought inside my simple, middle-class, white, non-religious brain. Jesus condoned and justified slavery and racism for thousands of years of Western history! Therefore the state legislation naively supports a year of barbed-collar whippings and lines of rock-chipping chain-gangs by ‘christening’ 2012 as the Year of the Bible. Wow! Points taken, American Atheists! Congratulations on your successful advertising! – (sincerely, other white disbeliever).

Okay. So I’m with you so far, AA, I really am. There’s some kind of cognitive dissonance happening with a Year of the Bible. It’s no book of bedtime stories, to be used in courtrooms as some kind of moral weight, nor declared a righteous piece of glowing compassion, flown on public wings by a draft of praise, above sparkling smiles and parades, etc. etc. Yes, there are issues here that should be openly spoken about; namely, Christ, slavery and the worldviews of the Western world.

(Now, someone looking deeply enough, with a good enough microscope, might be able to discern what I think AA was trying to say, or at least should have been saying. It is in there somewhere, squeaking weakly between the lines: the implication that such a holiday tramples constitutional American freedom of religion. I doubt many people saw it, but that’s okay, because these atheists accomplished the main goal: changing people’s deepest integral philosophical and Western religious world-views – with under 20 words!)

But, on a billboard? The bigger issue is good advertising. Here’s the kick to the face…

The reason I’m okay with this billboard’s messages about religion, is because I’m a white, active disbeliever who has studied the Bible. But hey, for the sake of advertising, let’s look at it from a black Christian’s point of view, who just thought he or she was threatened somehow while driving down the road.

And then it turns out that it was just that the American Atheists—those predominantly white, know-it-all obnoxious people bashing the religion which probably forms a significant part of your identity—were just taking Bible verses “out of context” to try to change your whole worldview. That terrorizing scare they carelessly gave you by “ironically” threatening you with an appeal to the Bible and a depiction of your enslavement was just an attempt to get you to change your hermeneutics! – Dan Fincke

Ah, just a simple plea to change your entire world-view based on someone’s interpretation of a holy book on a billboard, using the victimization of your ancestry as leverage in an argument to degrade the pivotal literary heritage of Western civilization in less than 20 words! How noble!

Why would anyone be offended by that? Shouldn’t black Christian Americans be at home, telling their family about how the Bible might not be really true, and that atheists are now worth listening to, because of this thing you saw on the freeway?

“Apparently offended black folk just weren’t intelligent enough to grasp the sage lesson that American Atheists, prominent champion of anti-racist social justice, was trying to teach them. Instead, some “misconstrued” the message as racist, concluding that, in a country where white nationalists have issued a clarion call to take back the nation from the Negro savage/illegal alien in the White House, “slaves obey your masters” probably still means them.” -Black atheist activist Sikivu Hutchinson

“But the AA was just talking about the Bible! How stupid the Bible is! Don’t you get it! It’s…the Bible! Atheism! Bible!”

“…even if you’re not laughing about how they got you good with their clever irony that put a chill in you for a second there, and even if you’re not taking some time alone to reexamine your epistemology and hermeneutics of the Bible (you know, like normal people do after reading a billboard), at least you should not be so obtuse or hyper-sensitive as to assume the worst of what must be well-meaning white people who think nothing of prominently displaying a symbol of your humiliation for leverage in an argument.” – Dan Fincke

Anti-Biblicalism mixed in a pot with race issues is a patently stupid marketing ploy. America’s secular movement can do better than this; can we let our little vitriolic hatred of the Bible go away, if such sensitivity strengthens the bigger fight for our equal secular rights?

African Americans for Humanism

“Only connect! And the beast and the monk, robbed of the isolation that is life to either, will die.” E.M. Forster

The logic of our ideas is not as crucial as the quality of our conversation. After hearing  talk about the club (and about non-theists in general) I felt I need to clear some things up for the sake of our dialogue with religious friends and neighbors. Who are we, what are we doing and why do we do it?

The premise that brings secularists, humanists, atheists and free-thinkers together is the lack of religion. This is at once a hallowed freedom – but it can also be a cursed negativity, giving everyone the wrong impression.

You just don’t believe in God and have nothing positive to say.

We’re not about the hatred or absence of religion. Rather, we have a positive goal: to give USU students an open playing ground to discuss matters of spirituality, faith, science and reason beyond religion.

Imagine the beauty that our pumping hearts and thinking minds are literally made out of the dust of ancient stars. Comprehend the stark magnificence and special humility of the human condition, if we are the result of billions of years of free-form natural phenomena rather than some mere god’s design. Ponder the trillions of planets and the probability of distant life-forms: are we doomed to loneliness in the galaxies? Is this special species only a branch on a tree of life, a wisp and a tiny blotch in a sea of vast dark? What’s the mystery behind all this?

Now we’re talking, right? Beyond religion, the view is spectacular, and there’s work to be done.

You hate religious people.

No, we don’t. How else can I say it? Religion is a great force in the world, a powerful weight on the shoulders of believers and disbelievers alike. This blog may be infuriatingly skeptical, focusing our powers on poking and prodding religion, but it hardly qualifies as hatred to do so – it’s actually something more akin to bravery, to stand up for such a hated minority viewpoint.

It is our right as human thinkers to ask questions, even if the answers are difficult. The courage to stand up for one’s religious or political differences cannot be called hatred toward those who disagree.

We have many perfectly reasonable, kind and intelligent religious friends and neighbors.  But calling a religion into question is not to hate everyone involved in it – this is a horrifying and wrong accusation.

This club gives students an opportunity to get together in a collegiate environment to examine problems with religion – but more importantly, to explore interesting alternatives to the supernatural, by feeling free to think for ourselves. Our tools? Science, reason and dialogue. If that involves carrying strong opinions on religions, poking and prodding their ideological weak spots and investigating their dark corners, so be it.

But be clear: it isn’t hate.

You want to abolish and destroy the world’s religions.

Religion is beautiful. It is one of the pillars of our civilization on this planet, giving us breathtaking works of art, music and literature. The Bible itself is a massive monument to the human condition, full of parables whose loss would be devastating to human literature. Many of the greatest minds in history were religious. The guy who invented Calculus? Total occultist.

I won’t lie: Some atheists do want to abolish religion, saying that it is a delusion that poisons everything. But this is not really the goal of all non-theists. Many of us just want the world to know that it’s okay not to be religious. As the most hated minority in America, just above rapists, we can certainly hope people become more accepting of secular humanists, atheists and free-thinkers in days to come.

Secularists simply don’t want various gods to be taking part in politics and government, for obvious reasons. Groups like the Secular Student Alliance and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are defensive movements whose goal is not to destroy religion, but to keep it from influencing the lives of those with different beliefs. These ideals were hammered out during America’s infancy, by some of the most respectable humanists in history. ———->

Ultimately, we have our work cut out for us to rise above the status of haters, demagogues and anti-theists. ‘Beyond religion’ is a negative statement; its says what we are not, leading to the assumption that we have nothing else to say but bad stuff about religion.

But the lack of supernaturalism itself invites a mouthful of thinkers: naturalists, rationalists, realists, secularists, atheists, humanists, free-thinkers, skeptics, agnostics and a whole mountain of other -ists and -isms with widely varying meanings. While we may stray into skepticism and even bitterness, or into argument and debate, most importantly we have entertained an open conversation where the answers are weighed by reason and friendly dialogue – not closed shut by revelations or declarations from one man, one group or one mere God.

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere Aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!” – Immanuel Kant

Like everyone, non-theists want answers to the questions that frame our mortal hearts and minds. Finding truth and goodness requires analyzing existing theories. This certainly makes for a brutal conflict of interest against religious thinkers, but our conversation should not be hindered by our differences, but enhanced by our mutual yearning for what is right and what is true.

“If you pray, you will know that this book is true.”

This is a really important statement, and it calls for another perspective – we have to be a bit skeptical and look into it a little deeper. Finding the truth of things is important to everyone. In life, it doesn’t matter who you are – Buddhist, Mormon, Atheist, Hindu – we all share the common goal of seeking after what is right and what is true. But how do we go about getting good answers? The meaning of the word ‘know’ versus the word ‘feel‘ is crucial in the context of gaining true knowledge and developing right spirituality.

So, when we talk about feelings, we talk like this: “I feel happy,” or, “I feel that hamburger coming back up.” Feelings describe bodily sensations and emotional phenomena. Nobody gets to argue with what you feel. Take this conversation:

“I feel like getting some food.”

“No, you don’t!”

This doesn’t make any sense, because feelings are totally subjective to each of us. 

Knowing things, however, is much different. Knowledge comes from many different people, all discovering the same facts about the environment we all share – the Universe.

‘Knowledge’ describes natural things in a way we can all agree on, and we can all discover for ourselves in the Universe we all share. You can go out and do experiments, getting the same results as anybody else. This is real human knowledge, which is constantly updating.

So we can do scientific experiments to induce how the Universe behaves, and anybody can come back and repeat them to see for himself, or prove them wrong. After enough repetition, we just say we “know” things behave in a certain way (if we can ignore the whole Humean induction problem and not split hairs over probabilities). Just because someone feels like apples fly around like birds, or that monkeys are secretly small Japanese warriors from space, doesn’t mean these things are true.

Feelings are personal, but human ‘knowledge’ is Universal, and constantly updated.

Mormons often say that if you read the book, and pray about it, you will know that it is true. This would be fine if the book was only about subjective things: what sort of things smell nice, which color is the prettiest, what kinds of sports are fun. But the Book of Mormon, the Bible and the Koran are not making those kinds of claims.

For example, the Book of Mormon makes multitudes of claims about the Universe; that there were steel weapons used by North American Jews who sailed across the North Atlantic, etc. The Old Testament clearly says that the Universe was created in 6 days, give or take 4004 years ago, and the New Testament says that a virgin gave birth to a baby. They all claim that there is an invisible being who watches your every move.

To date, there is absolutely no evidence that any of these claims are accurate – beyond feelings. These aren’t feelings, though! They’re scientific claims about the Universe, an environment we all share. They infringe on the territory of biology, geology, archaeology, physics and more, giving us the current war on science in American classrooms. This is why we have to talk about what it means to “know” stuff.

It’s almost rude to go saying you know such-and-such is True without any evidence or reason; it questions the intelligence of other people to think we’ll all believe scientific claims purely from feeling. Instead, we need reason and enlightenment from reality.

To really know if these claims are true, we need to consult a wide variety of sources, providing and defending the scientific proof or logical arguments that back them up. Otherwise, anybody can write anything they feel and we might as well just grant it. I don’t think any of us want to live in that world…

If things are true because people feel them to be true, then the Muslim extremists who flew planes into the World Trade Towers were right to do so – their truth is arguably much stronger than anyone’s. The people who poured suicide-kool-aid into cups for their children in Jonestown were not doing anything terribly stupid, if feelings are what we should rely on to answer the big questions, rather than logical arguments.

Furthermore, if religious experience (prophets receiving revelations, the feeling you get at church, speaking in tongues, bearing testimonies) is a guide to the truth, experiments like the “God Helmet” and the influence of psychedelic chemicals really bugger things up. If the brain can be stimulated in a certain way that causes a religious experiment purely with magnetic or electrical impulses, or with chemicals, there is no way we could ever really know that it’s God talking to us. It may just something happening in the brain. No matter how powerful the religious experience is, we would have to have some doubt of its “truth”.

Prayer doesn’t do us much good, if we want to discover the truth. For one thing, to have a prayer rather than a moment of crazy-talk, one must already think that there is someone out there who not only exists, but can hear you, and also has the answer! That’s a pretty big assumption to begin with, a circular argument that begs the question of how you know there’s a God in the first place.

When people make claims about the world involving their feelings rather than knowledge, we usually tend to put them in insane asylums. However, if they are a member of an official religion, we give them tax-exempt status and can’t talk about it without being called jerks.

But this isn’t to disqualify feelings from the conversation. We wouldn’t be human without emotions and feelings that guide us to make certain decisions. We’re not robots, and we shouldn’t reduce all our behavior and meaning to pure scientific theory; there’s always room for experience and emotion. The point is that we must never allow feeling to trump scientific knowledge – that makes us crazy, similar to being drunk and out of control, opening the floodgates for ghosts, crystal skulls, fortune-telling, transcendental meditation and whatever else we can imagine.

Science is a candle in the dark. As we gain knowledge and understanding of the Universe we live in, our feelings become more mature, because they are more accurate. Our real spiritual depth matures based on universal information, discovered by wonder and curiosity about the whole world and verified by the human community – not through the feelings of one group.

So please – next time you say you know something, make sure it’s not just something you feel.

Saturday, March 24, 2012.

TSC 2nd-Floor Center Colony.

6:30-9:00PM.

Food will be served and club members will give fascinating 5-10 minute projector lectures/presentations about their research on science, history, and anything else which shows appreciation for the wonder of nature, and human ingenuity, creativity, speculation and accomplishment.

Also, we will be creating a large colorful mural to be presented on campus somewhere. Everyone will have free reign to write the things that make non-theists awesome, good-hearted people too.

Here is a preliminary lineup of subjects. Thanks so much to all the volunteers! If you would like to present something relating to the natural world or human accomplishment, please sign up now by contacting us!

-History of the Universe
-Planetary Science (Origins of Solar System to Now)
-Hypothesis for Origins of Life
-Evolution of Life from Origins
-Fossils through Time
-Evolutionary Psychology
-Game Theory
-History of Math
-History of Economics
-History of Secularism
-History of Humanism

• Celebrate Your Mind! March 24, 2012. TSC, 2nd Floor Center Colony. 6:30-9:00pm.

Note: SHAFT has voted to update our club name to USU-REASON. Officers are working through this process as we speak. Thanks for your patience and support!

“Must not all things at the last be swallowed up in death?” Plato, Phaedo

One night, in the dark of the tunnels, a learned old Professor leaps in front of a speeding train. The Sunset Limited is right on time. Before the train sends him to his sweet oblivion, a protective and good-hearted Christian man grabs him – saves him, and takes him under his wing, back to his clean, well-lighted place for coffee and discussion, in an act of mercy.

The Sunset Limited is a deep and mesmerizing work of literature that delivers a final harrowing thrust to the heart of the religious debate, spilling its bleeding guts, revealing its shady inner diamond eye that stares back at us out of the Abyss of death. Cormac McCarthy uses these characters with erudite metaphor and symbolism to send light into some terrifying black corners of philosophy, like the morning sunrise that spills into the Christian’s home.

I imagine Camus’ ghost was hovering above McCarthy while he wrote the Sunset Limited, whispering:

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.” – Albert Camus

It’s true. Whether we like it or not, you and I are helplessly entangled in this conversation about Salvation and Death, about religion and non-religion, about God and nothing. Whether we have time to spare from carving our tunnels in the human anthill or not, whether we care to worry about it, we must choose if we prefer the Afterlife or the Abyss, the Eagle or the Serpent. They will enlist and enthrall us in their battle eventually.

“A blast of muttering thunder, burst in far peals along the waveless deep… Around, around, in ceaseless circles wheeling With clang of wings and scream, the Eagle sailed, Incessantly—sometimes on high concealing Its lessening orbs, sometimes as if it failed, Drooped through the air; and still it shrieked and wailed, And casting back its eager head, with beak And talon unremittingly assailed, The wreathed Serpent, who did ever seek Upon his enemy’s heart a mortal wound to wreak.” – Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Revolt of Islam

The sound of the battle between abyss and afterlife crashes against the bricked church-house with its high cross. Religion’s so-called sweet purpose is to provide shelter from the black lightning of the Void. But McCarthy is prodding us toward a strange question: Is shelter what we really want?

Those who do not believe in immortality must stand outside, and face the troubles that come with a true death. Is there any reason to live? Is there such a thing as goodness? Is life any more than a biological prison? The biggest question, above all the flutter of angels and flapping of jaws, resonates and rumbles our bones. What are we going to do with DEATH?

To answer this question, we have to consult the ancients. Once upon a time, thousands of years before McCarthy wrote the Sunset Limited, a learned man without wife or child struggled against wretched kidney stones until he finally passed away. He collapsed in the shady green of his well-kept garden. The pain of this disease, we are told, is one of the most excruciating things a man can experience, especially before modern medicine He was a man who held no belief in an afterlife, but you won’t believe what happened…

(continued..)

The cheerfulness of my mind, which comes from the recollection of all my philosophical contemplation, counterbalances all these afflictions.

This sage reportedly died with a smile, recording his last day as a happy one. He was concerned about nothing more than the state of his friends and thankful for the last breath of life, and the excellent taste of bread and water. His name was Epicurus.

A different and more popular elder faced his death centuries before, executed by the state of Athens. The punishment was death by conium, a poison that causes paralysis of the entire body (death by suffocation). But he, like Epicurus, faced his last day as a happy man, sharing laughing contemplation of the hereafter with his sorrowful friends and companions. He was the Socrates we all know. Another wise man who faced the mysterious final end with an exuberant but modest bravery.

These men were both well prepared for death. The difference between the deaths of Epicurus and Socrates is a matter of preparation, to which we would all do very well to pay close attention. They were both phenomenal human beings who changed the history of the human species, but they were no different than you and I.

This is what brings us together today. Choosing humanism or religion, we postulate about unknowns. Our knowledge of the afterlife is no more than a signpost in the desert of Time. Even our philosophies will die with us – so rather than bickering among them, we must choose which one allows us to face death properly. We share our fate with Shelley’s Ozymandias, the Great King.

`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Time takes no prisoners, and this is why we must choose. Do you choose a natural death or a religious immortality? Do you take after Epicurus or Socrates?

Epicurus wrote over 300 books and taught students about peace and morality in his quiet little Garden. He may be the first Humanist in recorded Western history. (I’ll take McCarthy’s lead and set Guatama Buddha aside.) His main teaching was that the gods do not have any bearing on our lives, and thus we are not immortals. Its impermanence is what makes life so sweet.

Accustom yourself to believe that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply awareness, and death is the absence of all awareness. Therefore a right understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life an unlimited time, but by taking away the yearning after immortality. For there is nothing fearful in living for those who thoroughly grasp that there is nothing fearful in not living. Foolish, therefore, is the person who says that he fears death, not because it will pain when it comes, but because it pains in the prospect. – Epicurus

‘Epicureanism,’ as a word, has devolved to mean a sort of riotous, orgasmic pleasure-seeking by today’s terminology. But Epicurus himself taught and practiced quite the opposite. He was a man whose highest pleasure was bread and water. A man who said the greatest gratitude was owed to nature itself, for providing all that was required for existence. He was a man who abstained and warned about sexual stupidity; one who stayed out of politics and the social life, quietly tending his Garden and seeking peace with the world as it was, rather than planning for an afterlife. Epicurus fed water to the seeds of his garden and furrowed the soil of his mind, which bloomed into such beautiful passages:

“Friendship goes dancing round the world telling us all to awake to the recognition of happiness.”

“A person who is least in need of tomorrow will meet the morning most pleasantly.”

Some would say that one without gods must be a miserable nihilist. Some might say Epicurus should just jump in front of a train and be done with it. What good is he who wanders life afore, as McCarthy put it, “the Real Death,” in which there is no God, nor afterlife, nor Heaven or Hell? Is life not a “Forced Labor Camp” from which death would only be sweet escape?

Thanks to Epicurus and his progeny of humanists, I’m laughing even writing it (though it’s such a dark topic). It seems silly that truth without faith always has to be so miserable that we go jumping in front of trains.

Epicurus taught us that humanism is a hopeful affirmation from his little old Garden in Athens. By his natural wisdom he won against the Serpent, with bravery and acceptance. This was not a man who stared into the Abyss, nor one who took Camus’ suicidal pains to heart and took a “free ride” on the Sunset Limited.

But some do not want to worry about the Abyss, because there is also the Eagle. Religion, spiritualism, immortality – it is at our fingertips, to fly us up into another world after death. Plato, who recorded everything we know about Socrates, was also a fantastic poet who created magnificent and beautiful lines as well. Socrates faced death with a smile, because he was absolutely certain that he would be immortalized with the gods. (And if he wasn’t, death would be painless sleep anyway!)

Socrates prophesied that he would be “released from the regions of the earth as from a prison…up to a pure dwelling place.” He would be sailed down the river Styx, perhaps, to join the Gods in their philosophical contemplation. His followers mournfully whined and wondered how they should bury him. Socrates laughed quietly and said, bury me, “If you can catch me.” (Plato, Phaedo). Soon he would be upon the River Styx, sailing toward immortality.

For centuries, Platonism influenced Christian and Islamic theology. This ancient theory of immortality invites us to soar up to Heaven after death to join the Saints and our lost family and friends. Breathtaking artworks were inspired by the power provided by Socrates’ belief that “the reward is beautiful and the hope is great.”

We can see immortality in filtered in streams of color through Catholic windows, flickering in the candlelight of an altar to Yoruba deities and Santeria Saints, carved in the precious Jewish clay box that contains ancient passages, curled in the tusk of the Hindu elephant god and curved within the Arabic lines of Muslim mosques. All of it speaks like the bubbling sweetness of the River Styx, shoring on our dreams of returning to lost family and friends.

So! There are really only two routes, and they may both be beautiful. Either the religions are right, and you can take wing after death and live forever. Or, you must tangle with the Serpent, stare into the Abyss and learn to tend your Garden.

Secular humanists, atheists and freethinkers must deeply consider the question. Do we walk the walk, or just talk the talk? Do you really want to live forever?

Which will it be?

The topic that I’d like to discuss is something that is very important to me and I thought my voice might add a different perspective to the questions at hand. So, I’m taking a break from the screenplays for a little while to write this for all you lovely people.

For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Mike Patton. I’m one of the original founding members of SHAFT. I was the main officer for the first year of our creation. I wrote the constitution of the club, organized meetings, courted professors, registered with the campus, and spammed every atheist, agnostic, non-believer, or just any all-around interesting people I could find within a 30 mile radius to join.* I was taking 18 credits at the time and it was a lot of work to build a club from scratch, but I sure did enjoy every second of it. As the club took off and became more and more exciting, I regularly spent more and more time on the club then I did on my classes. Eventually I stopped going to classes altogether…which is probably why I ended up dropping out? **Haha. But looking back on it now, I couldn’t care less about the homework. When I try to think of my most memorable times throughout my college experience, the only thing that comes to mind is all the fun I had being involved in all the clubs.

The History is a Mystery

I’ve been an atheist my entire life, well I guess since I’ve been able to think on my own, although I did read all of Nietzsche’s works several times as a fetus. I was completely ambivalent to the concept of a god for the majority of my childhood. I wasn’t raised in a religious home and those ideas couldn’t have been further from my mind. I’d go over to friend’s houses on Sunday and not understanding why they couldn’t come outside to play and ride bikes. Their behavior just seemed extremely odd to me and I didn’t understand what they were so afraid of. And I’d hope for hell that whatever it was, I wouldn’t catch it. For all I knew, the Black Plague probably comes out every Sunday simply to annihilate little boys on bikes that leave the comfort of the insides of their dwellings.

I remember the first time my father told me about god. He had been dating a new lady and was about to be remarried. He was terrible at it!! Haha. I knew he didn’t really care, he was just trying to do whatever he could to keep this new lady around. This was the same man that showed me Terminator 2 when I was 4, and let me taste beer when I wanted, which wasn’t very often. *** The same man that would teach me how to curse and tell a good joke. And even the all-important lesson of how to throw mud at girls.

So when he told me there was this God dude that lived up in sky somewhere, that loved me and had this friend named jesus that died for me, even though I had never met the guy, I naturally thought he was pulling my leg. It didn’t make any sense to me and seemed completely ridiculous. But no, it’s true he says and he would tell me all these random stories about a whale, a lion’s den, and two guys named Noah and David who just loved to hang out in the desert. I liked the stories, but I didn’t see how any of them were connected to each other. And I certainly didn’t believe them. I was old enough to know by now that Peter Pan, Dumbo, Batman and all my other heroes weren’t actually real people.

He told me about how all my sins could be washed away and wouldn’t I want that because it could bring me more happiness. Finally. We were getting to the good stuff. Of course I wanted that, for as my Mama said, I was a wild thing and was nothing but trouble. All I had to do was to make friends with God and it would wipe my slate clean. I quite liked this idea for I had heard about my permanent record at school and I couldn’t let it get too out of hand, because the principal would throw me in jail. Jail isn’t a place where you want to be, Batman is always throwing lowlifes in there. So sure, I would be friends with this invisible man to get me off the hook of going to jail. Easy. It’s not like he would tell other people that I didn’t really know him.

I found out later that wasn’t how it worked and it was about heaven and hell, not jail. So I didn’t really worry about it too much after that. Especially because I could just have the slate wiped off right before I died. Easy. Peasy. But to this day, my absolute favorite thing he ever told me, was when he showed me a quarter with “In God We Trust” on it. Hahaha. Oh, it’s in on a quarter so that must make it true! The Missionaries came by a couple times. At first they were pretty cool. They brought me free books!! Little did I know that they were super boring and the one with pictures didn’t even have any superheroes in it. Who would want to read that? Answer: The Trash Can.

After a week or so, I became very bored with talking about all of this. It was very frustrating to me, because at the time, I had a full time job of watching Batman: The Animated Series after school and all this talk was starting to cut in to my crime fighting time. Being the stubborn little kid I was, I finally wouldn’t listen to anymore and wasn’t going to hear it. My dad never tried to talk to me about it after that (Until much later) and he let me think what I wanted to think. My Mom had told me about other cultures and each of their different stories, but I didn’t really understand that’s what religion was at the time. My older brother James, The Human Encyclopedia, told me that there were people that just didn’t feel like believing in God. Alright, I guess I’m just one of those people then.

I didn’t really think about any of it until high school. Then, it became the only thing I thought about. I finally realized how different I was from all my other friends. They were all my best friends, but no matter how hard I tried or how much I wanted to fit and not have to worry about any of it anymore, I knew I would never be like one of them. I could take an infinite number of actions, but I would always come to the same boulder in the road. I could tell they looked at me different and it would always be that way. It was like everyone I knew was in this special club and I had no chance of every getting into it without radically changing who I was a person. I could never do that, nor did I want to. My brother was the only other atheist I had ever known. It just came to be something I finally accepted and then I was fine with it. I was happy with the man I was becoming.

And then it was senior year and everything was awesome. Nobody had ever told me that the last year of HS was way more epic then all the previous 11 years cummitivley combined. I was planning on graduating a year early at 16 and head off to college, because I already had all my credits from never having taken institute. But then at the last minute, I decided to just stay and take all AP classes. I’m really glad I did. The classes were way more exciting and we actually got to talk about religion, science, politics, and philosophy is much deeper ways that I had never done at school before. Usually me and The Human Encyclopedia would do the real learning at home on our own time. But this was just something that was completely invigorating and it blew my mind in ways I didn’t even realize it could. This is when I met Jordan, David, and other new friends and the atheists I knew tripled to 6. Things were getting exciting.

So I graduated and started summer school at USU five days later. That summer was great. I took astronomy and got to submerse myself into other fascinating subjects that I loved. The fall schedule was completely opposite. I had to start taking my generals and became bored out of my mind within the first couple weeks. I made it through the first year, attending class regularly, but I was always a million miles away. I took a year off to figure out what had happened and if I was really in the right major. I started again in the fall of 08, when SHAFT would be born. That semester I became much more active on campus and joined a bunch of clubs. I realized that enjoyed the clubs and really wanted to start my own club. I still hung around my group of heathens, so a club of non-believers was the first thing that came to mind. But I didn’t think we would have enough people for a campus sponsored club, so I didn’t pursue it any further.

One day, I randomly came across an article in the Statesman by Mr. Jon Adams about his experiences as an atheist and I couldn’t believe it. I thought I had hit the motherload my senior year when I finally met people like me that weren’t my brother and weren’t just people I had read about in books but would never meet. I really didn’t expect to find new people on campus so quickly, especially someone so vocal as to write for the paper. That sounds rather silly now when I say it like that. Haha. But it had took me my whole adult life to even find a handful more people. I didn’t realize it would be so exponential.

Mr. Adams’ articles in the newspaper became very controversial, much to my great delight. Numerous angry responses were published in the weeks after. I contacted Jon to see if he had ever thought about starting a club and if he thought there would even be any interest in something like that. He was very excited about the idea and we all decided to meet. There was me, my brother James the Encyclopedia, my high school chums Jordan Daines and David Heiner, and Jon. After that meeting, the wheels were in motion.

The first year went better than any of us hoped for. It was overwhelming and fantastic to see the response we got. We found so many new comrades that helped us market and build the club. For our first major event, we held a debate between Prof. Kleiner and Prof. Huenemann, our two Philosophy teachers. They had to defend each other’s positions and it evolved into a wonderful debate with over 200 people in attendance. The rest of the events were very diverse. We hosted speakers on every topic under the sun, cohosted activities with other clubs, had delicious bonfire cookout parties, and started my favorite biannual Atheist Bake Sale to raise money for charity. ****

The main objectives of SHAFT are below, but our most important goal was to gather a group of non-believers.

(a) To foster a socially and intellectually engaging community of nontheists;

(b) To promote tolerance and understanding, address negative stereotyping, misconceptions about, and discrimination against nontheists, and

(c) To advance the knowledge of the University community by contributing to the marketplace of ideas.

I don’t think I can express how very very very proud I am of SHAFT. The club is my baby….A baby that was created when I had a consensual lover affair with 8 other dudes at once. ;) I’d like to take this moment to personally thank everyone that made the club what it is. There is way too many names to list, and you all know who you are anyway, but the club would not have existed without your hard work. So thank ye kindly! I think SHAFT is quite possibly the most important club at USU (Along with LIFE!!!) Its weird living in a culture as a minority and it’s nice to know there are places where you can go to meet amazing new people without having to put on a mask to pretend to be different then what you are. While I certainly don’t think that us non-believers have it as bad as our LGBT friends (we still have rights that they justly deserve but haven’t received), I think there are a lot of similarities between the two. Both clubs fill a huge need among students who feel like outcasts and are vital to the common wellbeing of any school or university. The majority of my friends I have today, I met through SHAFT and then later through LIFE. I’m not sure what my life would look like if I had never have met any of these people, but I’ll be eternally grateful I did.

SHAFT was the first atheist club of its kind in Utah. There has since been a plethora of like mind clubs popping up like heathen daisies throughout the state. All of them with ties to us in name and spirit. We are a nationally recognized club and have been mentioned on PZ Meyer’s infamous blog, Pharyngula.  We are members of the Secular Student Alliance and the Center for Inquiry. The CFI even has an annual Student Leadership Conference every year in the summer. Jon and Jordan attended it for several years. The first year, SHAFT was even voted the best club name among all the other university clubs throughout America.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/news/student_leadership_conference_2011/

http://www.secularstudents.org/affiliates

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/another_student_groupin_a_chal.php

So I was very surprised recently when I heard that there were talks to change the name. The name has a history and image built up behind it and has simply become bigger than just a five letter word. A name change is completely unnecessary as the club has been run efficiently and effectively for 4 years. Now, I’ve been away from the club for a while and am not aware how the club functions today and the issues that it currently faces. Since activating my facebook again, I’ve read through the entire debate about the name change and have narrowed down each reason that I’d like to address individually. I think these concerns are mostly valid and should be solved immediately, but as someone who ran the club for two years, I think a complete name change is entirely unjustified.

The Scarlet Letter

Atheist. It’s a very polarizing word in today’s culture. Just like any other word in the English language, it is attached to numerous definitions. It is still an ugly, negative word to a lot of people but can also be a beautiful word full of optimism and possibility. I’ve always associated it with the later. When I think of an atheist, I don’t associate it with a hateful and uncompromising person. To me, it’s someone who looks at the evidence at hand and makes a rational conclusion from it. It’s someone who peaks behind the curtain of the universe and pokes and prods for all the hidden meaning, while constantly being enraptured by its greatness and its beauty. An atheist is not a spiritually bankrupt person, but in fact the complete opposite. The spirit of skepticism, learning, and imagination are always at our disposal. While the rest of the world is closing their minds in fear, we open ours even farther. Seeing the natural world for what it truly is and instead of fear, we can only view it with awe and admiration.

It’s not someone who berates another person’s beliefs to the point of cruelty, but someone who takes their hand in friendship on a grand adventure to explore a wonderful world of ideas and science. Even if they choose to keep their own beliefs, an atheist would still be overjoyed to call them a friend and not look down on them as intellectually inferior, but just simply different. There is nothing more important than an individual’s right to their own ideas in quiet contemplation. An atheist understands this and will always defend a person’s human rights.

No matter how you look at it, if you’re an atheist, agnostic, or non-believer in America, then you’re involved in a battle of civil rights. It’s a different kind of battle then others; there are no protests, sit-ins, or court battles. But there is still discrimination going on and we are still the most hated and untrusted group in America. There is no way an atheist would become president today and there are still only a handful of self-proclaimed atheists in higher government positions. I’ve personally lost friendships, relationships, close family members, even jobs because of my outgoing atheism. It doesn’t really matter to me. I’m happy with who I am and I know there is a lot of misconceptions about it. Even during my darkest most lonely times, I’ve always worn Atheist as a badge of honor. But I know that I can fight to change it and I’m not going to abandon the word until there is no longer discrimination, emotional and physical abuse, and death to individuals based on their personal beliefs.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Our public image alone is a good reason to keep using Atheist. Also, the fact that SHAFT was started as an atheist club, it doesn’t make since to get rid of it.  I agree it is very odd to be defined by your disbelief in something, but that’s way it is at the moment. I would rather I didn’t have to even use it, and perhaps we can get rid of it once and for all at some point in the future, but that’s not anytime soon. It’s also the word that most clearly reflects our views of subject and that will be recognized by likeminded people. Remember, the main purpose of SHAFT has always been to its members, not to pander to the people that oppose the word we use to describe ourselves. Those people would react the same way no matter what word we chose.

But there is good news. We can change the perception of the word so it properly reflects the wonderful people we are. We do this, not by running away from it, but by embracing it.  By improving our actions and our character so they have no choice but to take us seriously and to treat us as equals. Things will only get better with time. We never had any objection to that part of the name of the club and were always able to have meaningful debates among our peers.

Size Doesn’t Matter

This is the most interesting of the all the reasons and also the most ridiculous. I find it absurd that on a renowned college campus, that someone would be against joining a group only by the fact that its name is a slang word for male genitalia. I’m not going to discuss the origins of slang terms, but SHAFT was designed to be effective on several fronts, and considering how every other campus club in Utah is a variation of our name, I think it was wildly successful. This might sound crazy, but when I picked the word, I was very much aware of the connotations that came with it.

It was specifically designed to be funny. Not specifically phallic, but in several humorous ways at once.  I’ve done standup comedy several times and all the original officers and members are very hilarious people. We are all huge believers in the power of laughter. Laughter conquers all barriers created by our social constraints. It is the undisputed grand champion of bringing people from every walk of life together to a level of equality and mutual respect where new ideas can then be discussed without trivial opposition. As atheists, we already have an uphill battle of talking to new people. How great would it be if we could have them laughing and more open before a first word is even uttered? It would be amazing and that’s exactly what happened. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me they liked the name or how many times it had people laughing and happier to chat with us. The name is also very unique, so it sticks in your mind and is very hard to forget. Plus it comes with its own theme song!!! *****

Let’s talk about sexism for a bit. I think it’s easily the most important thing to talk about in this entire letter. I would consider myself a very staunch feminist. I am a very strong support of women’s rights and  think it’s absurd the way women are still treated in this day and age. Anyone who fallows the atheist community on a larger scale knows that sexism is a problem in our community. (Rebecca Watson anyone?) But I never felt SHAFT was a victim of that. When we started the club, we knew that statistically women are likely to be more religious than men, so we knew we were already starting from a weaker position then we’d like to be at when it came to marketing. It was extremely crucial to us that women be a major part of the club and we spent a lot of time actively running campaigns specifically targeted at them. It paid off and worked well. At most of our meetings, nearly half the members were women. Our main objective of the club was to make everyone feel welcome no matter who they were or what they believe in, so it was very important that women always felt comfortable there. I personally never heard of any complaints about the matter, but if there ever are any issues of harassment or sexism of any kind, I would urge you to let the officers know so it can be addressed promptly. That kind of behavior is not allowed anywhere and it will not be tolerated in our club. I hope that the atheist community changes on a larger scale soon and I hope even more that SHAFT can always remain above it.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/01/sexism-in-atheist-community-we-have.html

http://www.mallorienasrallah.com/skeptic

http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-religious-men.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201009/why-are-women-more-religious-men-ii

But there is an obviously bigger underlining problem about SHAFT being too inappropriate of a name. And it’s this, if someone can’t get past the name and giggles like a 12 year old every time it’s said as nothing more than images of reproductive organs swirl around in there head, how do you expect to discuss the greatest philosophical questions of humanity with them? Is that someone who is intellectually mature enough to be able to talk to even if the name wasn’t there? The fact that professors and other professionals have no problem attaching themselves to the club with their reputations on the line, really speaks volumes about this issue.

My Brother’s Keeper

The third question is a question of PR. Is SHAFT even marketable to people? Can we successfully get people to be active in our activities and dialogue? In my experience, yes. SHAFT is a very marketable name. It’s memorable and direct to the point. You know exactly what it’s about by the time you are done finishing the acronym. I also already discussed the humor of it that personifies our own and cuts through objections. Overall, SHAFT is a fantastic name that accomplishes every goal we need it to. You can market anything; you just have to know the right methods to use.

We never had any problems in the previous years marketing the club. When we chatted with people, the name was never a barrier we had to cross. Even if they completely disagreed with us, they were happy to chat and have some candy. We were respected by all the other religious clubs on campus. Me and Jon regularly attend the other Christian groups and they regularly attend our meetings. We became good friends with them and the conversations were always civil and exciting. All of the officers were specifically invited to a lunch discussion with the institute and some other clubs. We were very happy to go and it was a wonderful event to be a part of. We accomplished all of this without having to give up atheist or change who we were. One of SHAFT’s most surprising and favorite friends is Eli. Eli is the eloquent Christian speaker that has frequented USU for many years that loves to stir up the Mormons for debate. He was always a regular attendee at meetings and even ran a weekly bible class with some of the members. There were numerous times when his sermons would get very heated among the lds students, with yelling and threats of altercation. I’m glad he always felt safe among SHAFT and it’s important that our club always protects all the minority voices on campus, even if they aren’t ours.

I’m not sure how this became an issue. But I do know most people don’t have any hang ups with talking to an atheist and that nobody likes to be talked down to. There is no reason that we need be aggressive, arrogant, or cruel when talking with people with different beliefs, even if we think they’re opinions are completely ridiculous. We’re not trying to deconvert anyone, but to create a mutually respectful dialogue where both parties can learn something from the other. I’m glad people have been posting the vid with Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson because it illustrates this issue beautifully. There was a reason everybody loved Carl Sagan so much. He would tell anybody and everybody what he knew about Astronomy and the Universe. It would be catered directly for them and related in a way that they would easily understand. But he would never dehumanize them or treat them unjustly about what they didn’t know. He was always polite and knew that everybody learns differently. It doesn’t make them more of an idiot, just different. And it made his passion for all things scientific shine through and infect everyone he talked to. And Neil has that exact same talent. It’s pretty astonishing how many people have become obsessed with learning science through them. That is the exact way that we should talk to others, not only about religion but about all topics. Chances are the person you are talking to is a professional on a topic that you don’t know and will gladly tell you about it if you are nice to them. That way, everybody wins!

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

It’s important to note, that even if we change the name, none of these issues will automatically be corrected. Sexism will still be an issue that we will always need to be aware of. The way we treat others that are different from us will always define our club and our character. People will still find ways to make immature jokes that will become just as old, just as fast. We can use any word we want to define atheism, but it still means the same thing and we will still be just as discriminated against. It seems to me that instead of changing the name and creating more problems, we should spend our time on other things that need our attention more. Like solving these problems outlined, marketing the club to new members, reaching out to other clubs and creating partnerships that will benefit the entire university, lining up new exciting events and speakers that attract and keep people who attend. The greatest thing about SHAFT, is that we can take it absolutely anywhere. There is no limit. I think everyone has really great ideas about the future and I’m excited to see what happens, as long as we remember what SHAFT stands for, there is no doubt that it will be very bright for everyone!

Obviously it’s not really my club anymore. I’m just an old relic now.  Nothing but an ol’ has-been at 23 that’s been blown away by the winds of time. Haha. I’m way out of the loop and haven’t been to a meeting in ages. But I would urge all of you that care about SHAFT as much as I do, to vote against changing the name. SHAFT is something that we all spent countless hours building. We put our blood, sweat, and tears into building a club where non-believers would feel welcome to come and meet new friends that care about their troubles and the pain they’ve experienced growing up as a minority in a culture so dominated by religion. SHAFT has become so much more than its name. It has a history behind it. An important history that shouldn’t be forgotten. It has a specific personality that can’t be recreated. Sure, we could switch the name to REASON, which is a good name, but how many other atheists clubs are already called that? Do you really think that there are no other atheist groups who are fans of the world famous Sam Harris’ Project Reason and chose not to use the same name?!?! haha. There are no other clubs named SHAFT or have a personality like ours!  That’s a great thing that makes a unique among the rest of the community. Changing the name would erase that history and the image we spent so much time to build and that is not worth what we would gain from changing it. I will still love the club unconditionally no matter what happens and I won’t try to stop a name change if that’s what the members want to pursue, but if there is only one thing you take away from this rather lengthy prose of mine, it is to remember that SHAFT is so so much more than a simple phallic punch line in an over told joke.

Oh, and about the color scheme. Red, White, and black are the most powerful color combination. There is a reason baby toys are only in those colors and The White Stripes are so badass. haha

Thanks for reading and thanks for caring so much about our club!

*I remember one guy I sent a message to on facebook said that he just put “atheist” under his religious description as a joke and then sent a rather lengthy reply about how he could not conceive how anyone could (not) believe in something so stupid. Haha. I responded back that he had entirely missed the punch line.

**I somehow managed to pass all my classes my last semester even though I only showed up a handful of times. I still have no idea how that happened. I’m not sure if the professors mixed me up with another student or just took pity on me because I was so retarded. Or maybe they just totally dug my batman costume I wore on the last day of the semester. I guess I never find out, not that it matters. But either way, Thanks Karma!!!1!!

*** Which was utterly disgusting!!!! It was the nastiest thing I had ever put in my mouth up to that point, including that one time I had bragged about eating dirt to the other kids. I have long since learned the error of my foolish ways. Oh, the naiveté of a wee lad!!

**** Most of my ideas for events were deemed “too offensive” by the other officers. Haha. I always tried to have a Jesus fashion show on the quad. Who wouldn’t want to see Jesus as Elvis, George Washington, and Cher? Absolutely no one, that’s who. It’s fun for all ages! And they especially squashed my dreams of SHAFT After Dark, the underground terrorist arm of the club who was responsible for nefarious actions of extreme hilarity. (Like sending 10,000 copies of Brokeback Mountain to Chris Buttars’ house) So I had to concede and settle for cookies and a glass of scrumptious Not Poison instead.

*****There were many a time me and the advertising committee would be chalking stuff or putting out fliers while enthusiastically singing this song. But I won’t comment to the possibility there were karate kicks and ninja rolls performed as well.  Chicka wokka wicka chocka wicka wokka wokka SHAFT!

The Latin word humanitas was coined by Roman philosopher Cicero as an equivalent of the Greek paideia. This entails a well-rounded, mature cultural education, and by no accident humanitas evolved to suit our modern colleges of Humanities. This is due in large part to the dangerous artistic rebellion of Renaissance thinkers against iron-handed medieval Christian schools.

History reveals that such repression can not last; we see the rise of the Freethinkers during the French Revolution as well. The thoughtful animal will not be suppressed, and we should not be stopped. The pumping blood of the human heart will always be the fountain of art, music, philosophy and literature in all forms, from escapism to realism. With its lineage in the classical era, the worry about the purpose and design of our existence lights a candle at the shadowy core of true education. The inward spiritual struggle is part of every human being, and it is what brings you and I together today.

We all seek after two things: what is good and what is right. This is our unsatisfied need, and it has led to a wealth of experimentation through the ages in many forms, all conjoined in the tormented bliss of experience. Our goal in studying our lives, and developing words to suit our philosophies, is to share with each other our private contributions to these questions. Should we choose to sever ourselves from conversation, we eliminate the value of our own precious contributions.

Our ideas procreate in a pool. Because we must labor our ideas through the work of others, the quality of our beliefs hardly matters as much as the quality of our communication. Words are used to anchor us, within and without, to who we are in a world of fighting ideas. Words have the most value when they bring us together into groups, defining our contributions to the big questions, and we can share our ideas effectively – we are the most symbiotic species.

Atheism, the word, has a fluid lineage as long as anything we know about Western civilization. As I hope we can agree, it entails “Denial of any gods.” Historically a pejorative for those who do not contribute anything to the aforementioned spiritual struggle, from the Greek Atheos to Atheism, the term has been used when in relation to a particular God…

Atheism is useful when surrounded by a particularly deafening religious culture who threatens both reason without and the humanity within. Growing up insulated in wretched-holy Utah, we children are driven to extremes. If this horrific mind-eating beast of white-toothed sex and fear is the God which religions speak about, I want nothing to do with it; I am an Atheist now.

This, however, is far too easy, and has not addressed either of the big questions. After the scarring of a religious upbringing, scrambling to shut the doors and bolt the windows to all ideas of “God,” the vaguest term in all of human history, is a mistake, especially if one wants to remain a really good skeptic and contribute to a world of human spirituality. Atheism is entirely unhelpful, given the widespread definitions of God – a word with more meanings than the amount of rivers in the world.

If it is communication that makes or breaks our ideas, this word will not help us, and it should be discarded as a core philosophy to denote what we’re all about in this conversation.

I’m interested in the answers to these big questions. When the world outside the monist religious community of Utah is revealed, we no longer need to call ourselves Atheists to study the many vague billions of human spiritual explorations from everywhere on the Earth and back through time. We can do this with skepticism, logic, reason and science quite well without labeling our core philosophy as a blunt denial of anything anyone has called “God” or “Theism” from East to West. We breach our own intellectual ethic by denoting ourselves as deniers instead of investigators, and giving in to petty word games and adolescent rebuttal.

Atheism itself is the defiance of the ideas of anyone who claims a higher power of any kind exists. But defiance is not always healthy rebellion. When viewing the vista of the human experience, in which we find answers by opening ourselves to ideas but using reason and theory to determine our choices, Atheism, as a denial of this and that, seems like something less worth investing energy in than a clear evaluation of the giant universe of positives.

Atheism, the word, is empty and negative, a way of hanging on to the troubles and evils religion has caused by investing energy in hopeless anger and backward-looking. If this is the goal, which sometimes it nobly and righteously can be, then we are better to call a spade a spade, and a Hitch a Hitch, with the more accurate Anti-Theism.

It is my opinion, then, that the word Atheist should be left in the archives of religious persecution, as a pejorative to mean someone who is spiritually uninvolved. If our goal is the pursuit of answers to the questions above – about what is good and what is right, then investing so much energy in the denial of religions is something of a cancer. We can let religious ideas go, but we must truly let them go.

By no means does this open the acceptability of all religious thought; in fact, I still feel the same skeptical attitude toward all things magical or unreasonable. Instead, losing the word ‘Atheist’ is a step in a positive direction, a graduation toward educational analysis of bigger problems, and a conservation of energy to be invested in answering these questions cooperatively amongst rational people of all stripes.

It is not so subtle that I used humanitas, the ancestor of modern Humanism, to denote what I believe is the correct term under which similar thinkers can gather, if we need one at all, to participate in the human conundrum:

We know what isn’t. So what is good, and what is right?

“The free, independent spirit who commits himself to no dogma and will not decide in favor of any party has no homestead on Earth.” – Stefan Zweig

Atheists are dogmatic, but not in the caricature we usually get.

Notice the name of the group. We have four different words that are trying to hint at the same thing, even without throwing in Agnostics. Why so much fuss and bother? Terms are ambiguous, and it causes us trouble.

We’ve all heard the argument. Atheism is only, “Not believing in gods.”

First, “gods” doesn’t tell us anything. Our first question, before even addressing dogma, is, “What do we mean by gods?”

Even naturalists can describe mere Nature as “God,” or physicists could describe the Big Bang as “God,” or meta-physicians could describe the underlying immaterial mathematical systems of our Universe as thoughts of “God,” or Eastern ideas about eternal change and suchness as “God.”

We shouldn’t split hairs about what it means to be an Atheist. With a bit of common sense, Atheism should be better known as the lack of believing in the world’s many mythic, supernatural religious characters drawn from sacred texts.

Atheism refers to this guy.

1. I am known through scriptures, prophets, prayers or revelations.
2. I am all-powerful and all-knowing, but also benevolent.
3. I am the source and judge of your Morality.
4. I can be loved, and love you back.
5. I require worship and faith.
6. I provide an immortal afterlife.
7. I take a direct hand in human affairs, such as superbowls and wars.

If God has any of these characteristics, I say, “No, thanks.” Because the world’s gods almost always do, it’s just easier to just say I’m an Atheist and go on with my life.

I left “Created the Universe” and “Immaterial/Supernatural” out.  What if the world is a massive computation on a supercomputer? Some questions we can have fun reasonably speculating about. We can think openly about these things without having Faith-based gatherings to show our support.

Atheism is open-minded, but proudly closed-minded when it comes to anti-scientific claims of sacred texts, such as virgin births and six-day creations. Atheist claims are mainly a denial of bad scriptural claims by other humans.

Atheists are misunderstood or caricatured as those who dogmatically close their minds to any theories of how the world began, and what principles are or are not material (such as numbers or souls).

Furthermore, Atheists are caricatured as those with some deep down hatred for parental figures, or who are angry at God, or who only read books by the new atheists, and simply don’t know anything about theology. Now, this certainly describes some. I do think atheists are dogmatic, but this sort of thing is like saying, “Being Christian means you believe God Hates Fags.”

When Atheists turn down these religious deities, do we necessarily replace that with some dogmatic statement? No, absolutely not. Even if a world without gods infers a naturalistic Universe, some Atheists don’t even know what that means. They only know that they don’t believe in all these religions. We need not automatically become naturalists or materialists or any other -ists, besides Atheists – people who don’t believe in the religious myths.

But here’s the kicker. As human beings in public, atheists are dogmatic. We tend to be materialists, naturalists and so forth. We lean toward being liberal. We are certainly a collective of people with similar interests who gather together and sell T-shirts. Realistically, atheism has its own cultural tinge, but that does not define us. To make this argument is similar to saying, “All Mormons are conservative woman-haters.”

Who cares who’s dogmatic? I’m proud of the group, and I’m glad that there’s one on campus where people can get together and share our similarities.

Would we call it a Life without suffering? Why not let a Divine dictation despise the qualms given us by nature? Let it lead us as sheep into pastures of ultimate joy, forgiveness, calmness and Infinite Existence…

It appears at first glance that human history is nothing but suffering. Yes, I’ll play the pessimist tonight. The history of humanity is a dirty, forsaken, joyless fight against hardship. I relish and welcome the proof against!

Before the advance of enabling technology, before the domination of a so-called peaceful government, before the fortitude of a self-satisfactory cosmic order, did humans have any peace? This disguise was not donned so long ago; has it ever been?

Don’t feel too heartbroken, nor allow yourself to feel so sunk that you abandon the hope which I am trying to get to, when I say that life is – horrendous. If you deny this, you must stand and attest to the millions of years of struggling survival and bloody difficulty that led to your existence. Doubt the news, then! And look up at the stars and tell me you aren’t curious about your own deep difficulties.

These nameless years of struggling for survival – could this be the design of an omnipotent creator? Can we only hope? – It would appease our common instinct to think so. It would make everything so comfortable to release our pains and place them upon another. It would release these pains of hard reality to allow a supernatural vengeance upon them, to disguise the Human from what it is:

A good fight against its reality!

Life, living: can we do such a thing without the benefits of suffering?

Benefits of suffering – you must be insane, say the Buddhists. Suffering is the significance of the lacking of life. If you are suffering, you are doing it wrong. You must be insane, say the Christians, not to allow your suffering to lay itself on the shoulders of another. You must be insane, say the Hindus, not to let your actions be the designation of your beautiful reincarnation…

But if life is so much suffering (I dare you to disagree)  we must, as excellent people, make a good out of suffering, if we’re to proclaim that life itself is good?

I have another solution. How can we reason around the idea that suffering is not such a bad thing? We need hope – we need hope to survive. It might be the best of things. Rather than allowing our mental stimulation about supernatural orders cloud our vision, we might see that suffering has some inherent values, just as anything else:

When we say something has value, it means that it provides for us. It gives us something we didn’t have before. So when everyone says that suffering is the exact opposite of this, in being the taking away of whatever we care for, how could I dare deny it?

Suffering is the mechanism of life’s purpose, which is to survive. If we had no suffering, there would be no fulfillment of our nature in fighting back against it.

The only absolution from true suffering is suffering itself, which can be habituated to be a rather enjoyable fight! If a dog sits in its kennel day after day, it has more suffering than if it were tracking wolves.

Enjoy your suffering out there in the horrendous world – it is the function of human beings to face great hardship.

We must truly fear the deeper horrors we face when avoiding any hardship.

These are true evils worth fighting against, not any make-believe ghosts and devils and ghouls. Do not be drawn into the nihilistic pessimism of religion, which tells you that suffering is always bad and that it should be avoided. Instead, suffering is a beneficial facet of living truly and naturally. Realize, when suffering, that you are facing your most internal instinct and fulfilling your true purpose.

Fight, and fight well; it is in our nature to do so.

How does this small American culture shift fit into a bigger picture? Mormonism is a handy microcosm to see the future of secular humanism around the globe. My prediction is that, thanks to the Internet, it’s inevitably and unstoppably a great future. Religions face an ungodly predicament in the Information Age.

All religions have histories and philosophies that are troublesome when researched deeply. Non-violent Buddhists are at war as we speak, one presidential candidate prays for rain, another slips on his spiritually protective super-stockings, a horde of former molested children accuse their Catholic priests, Hindus sacrifice hundreds of thousands of endangered turtles to a fire-god, and anyone with access to a computer can Google the names of Brigham Young’s young, younger and youngest wives.

Young interest in Brigham Young, as it were, is on the down-turn.

Consider the importance of the Internet in relation to these kinds of issues. In a matter of minutes, photos of American riots can incite zeal in places like Egypt – twenty years ago, it would have been days, months or never. I can look up the weather right now in Beijing in less than a minute. With this kind of freedom, and the quick exchange of information, it’s getting harder and harder to convert people to religions based on select, limited premises. Take for example the oft-made remark that “Joseph Smith found golden plates that belonged to a white race of American Israelites.”

Someone sitting at a computer with a mild curiosity about a religion tends to find its arguments less persuasive than, say, from smiling missionaries with good news and cute matching name-tags, who’d really, really like to help you out.

Even though it sounds like kind of nice story if you’ve never read, say, a different book – it’s dealt a severe blow by the further investigation, which inevitably leads to the discovery that Israelites couldn’t possibly have imagined sailing to America, nor is there a geneticist on the planet who would dare say so, for the risk of getting beat up by other geneticists and demoted to dishwasher.

What does this mean for new generations of people weened on the Internet? They have the freedom to research almost anything instantly, and get a variety of viewpoints rather than just one. If there is dirt to be had on any topic, then beyond a doubt you will find it heaped into mountains on the Net. Now, for the LDS church in particular, whose history is nothing but jaw-droppingly fascinating absurdity, this is not good news.

When a guy from Cleveland sees Mitt Romney running for President, watches the Broadway musical The Book of Mormon, and reads about gay rights in the news, he’s led to spend maybe five minutes clicking links online to find out more information about Mormonism itself.

The same goes for any religion. When people research religions online, my money is not on life-changing moments of conversion – my money’s on jaws dropping. SHAFT is in for a good year.

They are encouraged to imagine the shining husband and family they will have in less than a decade who will, of course, cheat biology and survive well beyond the grave. A few parents performed a delightfully weird musical number called, “The Men in my Little Girl’s Life,” which I assume originated with Helen Mar Kimball, who was 14 when her life got its first man, among the flock of pubescent children wrapped in prophet’s sheets. Full stop.

Needless to say, non-Mormons might differ on what’s wrong with this picture, but the  reason it’s important to mention is that it addresses a very crucial bigger issue: the moral rights and wrongs about educating children on things like marriage.

If children are being educated wrongfully, is it the business of society?

I can already hear mumbling and grumbling about who gets to say what’s “Right or Wrong,” in a situation involving another person’s children’s education. (Secularists hold a belief in the separation of church and state – that everyone has the freedom to think for themselves about such things. My opinion, however, that child-brides and pedophiles are vile and hard to look at will remain the same.)

So why do we educate children about marriage, or anything else?

I think we’ll all agree that the purpose of education is to protect children, to guide them, and to ensure they have a safe, successful and happy future. I’m hopeful that anyone, whether secular or Mormon, would agree with this claim.

The next claim I will make is that there is a certain point in life when children stop being children, and they are adults who make decisions for themselves based on the information they have available, in order to have that same safe, successful and happy future. This, too, I hope all sides agree upon naturally.

Could the purpose of education on matters such as marriage  be described, “To ensure that future adults have enough information so they can make responsible, informed decisions that lead to safe, successful and happy lives?”

If I’m not wrong here, my next proposal is that anything which willfully and needlessly removes safety or threatens the success or happiness of another person could be described as morally wrong, similar to my earlier post about the golden rule. I hope this makes enough sense that we can agree.

So, if parents are purposefully withholding a rightful education from children, they are committing an act that could be described as wrong, since it threatens the ability of their children to have a safe or successful life.

What would you say a rightful education about marriage actually entails?

 

I’ll get the ball rolling by pointing several things that, being absolutely essential information to having any sort of good education about a thing like marriage, should not be withheld from a child’s education before her encouragement to get married.

•   An academic Religious Studies understanding, in which all religious systems are discussed and appreciated on a neutral level.

•   An understanding of Women’s Rights, feminism and gender roles in America and around the world.

• An understanding of the difficulties involved in child-birth and marriage.

• Thorough and non-biased church history.

This is the only way to protect these children from the dangers of rushing into marriage.

What else am I missing on this list?

What do children need to know to make safe, successful decisions before marriage?

We forget that the essence of humanism is to allow and appreciate the freedom of others, while expecting the same in return. It is an exciting aspect of naturalism, provided in the constraints of certain moral theories, to be able to allow our inventive, creative, wonderful nature its full blossoming.

It is easy to be willing, out of fear for scorn, whether personal or (more despicably) politically, to put a cage around our minds and hearts in the name of some standard of conduct, or out of some respect for an invisible punisher. We do this by disguising our emotions – our brilliance, our love, our passion, especially our most human trait, sexuality – under acceptable clothing, mannerisms: How you doing and thank you very much.

Do we walk in within these boundaries because it is good to do so? Or is it true that we walk in line because someone has told us, “Behave, or else.”

We look upon ideals of conduct as valuable maps for our lives – schematics for robotic behavior that ensures we will be accepted by the bigger machine. But why? Given you are not causing any suffering, are there not untold riches to be found when you have elbow room to express yourself naturally? I believe this healthy rebellion and freedom is what gives us all the humanities – what reveals that we truly are fascinating, talented creatures rather than quiet, efficient automatons.

We are a suppressed creature, and naturalism can give us the key to health by establishing a moral standard like this:

The human being is only rightfully constrained by ability and material nature, and that there is no such thing as a victimless crime – there is no act, which when it has caused no suffering nor loss, that can be reasonably described as wrong.

This freedom is in contrast to the whims of the omnipotent and supernatural beings, who would have us appreciate a poisoned freedom from within their regulations – Gods who would make themselves exceptions to the Golden Rule so often preached by their devout by placing others within a caged and non-free system while they remain at large.

Any restraints against the freedom of victimless human expression, experimentation, cognition, opinion, art or activity go against the values of the humanist.

But some would have us believe that you can be religious and also stand up against these wrongs – but I don’t believe that’s true.

They would have us actually consider the freedom of those who crouch under an otherworldly dictator (whose government is conditional love), those who are seeking warmth in a supernatural source of validation and acceptance of their miserable state, seeking to be owned as a form of currency or loved conditionally or within a system or rebirth in which our future is deliberated – can these people, who so desire to be controlled and systematized  that they imagine supernatural beings to do it, say anything at all about what it means to be free?

The essence of freedom can not be had by any organization that says “As long as it is within our guidelines, or else.” So when religious organizations tell us that our actions are to be judged in the afterlife, or as some do, that life itself is empty and meaningless (to be transcended through magical thinking by extended meditation, prayer or other practices), we have the essence of immorality: a breach of the golden rule, performed not by men and women but by our supernatural beings.

We are to honor the world as a place conceptualized by these otherworldly spirits such as God, Vishnu or (as religious Buddists would have it) the reincarnated ghosts of the Wheel of Suffering. They tell us these magical processes do indeed exist, have a supernatural origin, and do have magical properties outside space and time – but they don’t stop there.

A supernatural hierarchy with men as vassals, slaves, serfs, sufferers and potentials is, for some, the ultimate guide and anchor to morality. This is not only not right – it can not possibly be right, given the golden rule has anything to do with morality.

Yet, if we are to agree that the golden rule is a basic aspect of morality, these creatures of our imaginations must be immoral. A worldview that perceives reality as a deliberated supernatural hierarchy is morally inferior to one that allows for true human freedom. Within a system of all-powerful spirits and their cosmic destiny for the Universe (a cosmology which has been designed or has some intrinsic mind-made purpose) it easily follows that no one could possibly be free by any definition of the word – we are playing by rules which have been made by other beings for us, far and above our material ability, trivializing the golden rule.

And so the gods who have made this decision to create rules for you, to set boundaries for you, and indeed to create you at all, while they remain omnipotent and free, break the Rule themselves.

Do not do unto others what you would not have them do to you.

So often is the golden rule preached, strangely enough, even by religions whose standards are dictated by a Punisher on High who has little concern for whether eternal punishment would ever be reflected back upon Him.

So we find the golden rule to be a core seed in moral religion, though by no means should it be considered to bloom only out of supernatural water. Take some of these (often hypocritical) passages to heart – these passages make up the room in the house of religion which is not decorated with bloody wallpaper and echoes of magical thinking.

Christianity – All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1

Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2

Buddhism - Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah

Judaism – What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Taoism - Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

Zoroastrianism -That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.

Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

• Do you agree with the golden rule?
• If so, is the true freedom to make the choice to behave by the golden rule even possible if there is any sort of a God who has designed this Universe with you in mind?
• What about an Eastern (Buddhist, Hindu) Universe that is understood to be itself an illusion?

Far off in the distance, the wail of a siren and the pop pop pop of a gun. Another hit and run? Another dimestore robbery?

The smoke from your cigarette makes curls around acidic raindrops. You sigh, drawing yourself into the shadows of the City that Doesn’t Sleep In On Sundays.

You think to yourself – Just another night in Logan.

It’s a rough town. You grew up on the East Side, where Johnny Nametag and the 3^rd Ward kept things calm for a while after Hootie strung up that kid for using the Lord’s name in vain – but it wasn’t long before Big Ezra and the Relief Squad came up hard from across the tracks. They were packing sugar cookies (real sugar cookies!) and everybody in town wanted a taste. They called those the Bake Days, and you don’t want to remember them. Thinking back hurts too bad.

Logan’s a sugar town. Everybody wants a taste of the sugar. There’s always a drug war going on somewhere – whether it’s the 8^th Ward with their Oatmeal Squirts or Don Ephraim importing ice cream from Hyrum (it keeps the Aggie Ice Cream crew up at night). The stakes are high, and don’t be surprised if you run across some poor kid with a bullet wound headed for outer darkness. Just walk on by – just walk on by.

The cops are nowhere to be found – they gave up or sold out a long time ago. The town’s too rough, and the State has given up on Logan (I hear the politicians are calling it “The Jungle” up here) and we only have one, maybe two cops left. Sometimes I think about leaving this place, but there’s nothing for me out there. Once you leave Logan, where can you go?

Seriously, though – Logan is a rough town for a non-believer. Every Sunday, a black and white stream pours out of the churches by the thousands, and the empty dystopian city appears to have been eaten by zombies. A massive majority of people are LDS – these are the people you work with, the ones you date, the ones you order your Baconator from, the people signing your checks and teaching your classes.

What brought you to Logan? Did you grow up here? What experiences have you had with the pressures of living within a very closed community with rigorous (ridiculous) divine moral standards, from which not even our gas fumes can escape?

Logan has a veritable army of churchgoing police officers with their eyes out for anyone in a black T-shirt. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Would you prefer to live in a secular city with a higher crime rate? What about the influence the church has on gender roles, dating and relationships?

How has such an environment shaped you and your experiences?