Okay, I Don't Get It.

[the_gneech]

Social/religious (sorta) post here; scroll on by if you'd like to avoid the topic.

This morning in The Washington Post, I happened upon a four-column advertisement which had a picture of some guy in a Santa hat with a sort of cartoon shrug on his face, and the caption read:

"WHY BELIEVE IN A GOD?
Why not be good FOR GOODNESS SAKE?"

The ad was placed by the "American Humanist Association," apparently for the purpose of proselytizing the cause of secular humanism. A little digging around on the internet reveals that this is part of a larger ad campaign that cost something along the lines of $40,000 and includes signs on buses, ads in other major national papers, and so on.

Well ... um ... okay. But I have to ask, "What's the point?"

I mean, I'm pretty much a secular humanist myself [1]; but as such, it's no skin off my nose if people believe in God or not. Is it really worth spending $40k dissing God? Particularly when that $40k could house and feed, say, families displaced by catastrophe, or possibly refugees fleeing from violence in far too many parts of the world?

Seriously, American Humanist Association, where are your priorities? I'm used to the forces of Big Christianity [2] driving around in limos while they cry about the starving children in Africa and blame (gays/liberals/foreigners/etc.) for everything bad that happens ... the last thing we need now is Big Atheism. :P

-The Gneech

[1] I do have religious beliefs of a sort, but my philosophical standpoint is that there's no way I can know whether they're actually true or not without dying, so they don't provide much of a foundation for moral or ethical behavior. That has to come from intelligence guided by experience (as Rex Stout would say).

[2] Fortunately, the era of the televangelist seems to have run its course. But for somebody who grew up in Jerry Falwell's home state, the bad taste will always linger.

Comments

[barberio.livejournal.com]

I call this Evangelical Dawkinism.

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

I think that the point of the campaign is because quite a lot of people (of a religious upbringing) are possessed of the notion that it isn't possible to be good or moral WITHOUT the guidance of a higher being.

There are a great many people who are impossible to convince otherwise, but probably quite a few who were just taught this and accept it, but mostly because they never considered an alternative. I think that they are the target audience.

I'm not sure it's the best way to get the message across, but religion's got a few thousand years of PR behind it, while atheists (as a cohesive group) are relatively new on the scene. The atheist route takes more effort and responsibility, you've gotta decide what is moral, instead of just subscribing to somebody else's decisions on the matter. (possibly decided several millennia ago) That can be a hard sell, especially to their target audience, but they're trying.

I've taken courses on ethics, and it can get quite difficult quite quickly, but the most important thing that i took away is that you can't ever just set down certain things as moral and ethical, other things as not, and then walk away and assume that such matters will always hold true in the future, while the world changes around us.

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing that confuses me is, why care if they have that notion or not? I understand (and applaud) fighting against religion being taught as if it were science — but if people are doing good, who cares if they do it because they think God says so?

Lots of my friends and relatives draw a lot of strength and comfort from their religious beliefs; I can't imagine wanting to take that away from them even if I suspect they may not have their facts straight, as long as they afford me the same courtesy.

Plus, like I say, there are much better uses for $40,000 if they really claim to care about being good.

-The Gneech

[kit-ping.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing that confuses me is, why care if they have that notion or not?

Because it is all-pervasive, especially off the coasts, and if you wish to work in a profession that carries (right or wrong) moral weight- say, as a completely hypothetical example, teaching?- it affects your career. Badly. With massive teacher shortages across the country, it's an attitude that prevents people from serving society.

And then there are the kinds of hell that "good Christian believers" are willing to dish out when presented with someone daring to raise their kids without indoctrination religion. (Or that their kids are willing to dish to secular peers on their behalf. The hate can be scary.) And a lot of it, at least on the surface, is justified by concern for the children- after all, how can they possibly be grow up to be good people without [insert mythology of choice]???

There's more, but I'm late for work. What it boils down to is that prejudice rarely, if ever, disappears on its own. Removing its harmful effects from society and individuals is worth spending some money. Whether this is the best way to do so is a different debate, but at least the effort is being made.

A slight correction

[roninotter.livejournal.com]

I'm someone who came from a Christian upbringing, and evolved into a belief system which is much more "secular" in nature. I do not like "Big Religion" but I still feel strong ties to my faith. But since I used to be deeply involved in the Church in the past, I have to make a correction to your statement.

Christians do not believe it is impossible to be good or moral without God. However, they do believe that you cannot have your eternal soul saved without God. Christians (at least, the ones who actually follow Christ's teachings of love) hold Christ as an example of what we should try to be: Loving, forgiving, strong, faithful, just. However they fully believe that you can be all of those things without Christ. So the whole notion that you can't be "good" without "God" isn't really a description of their beliefs at all.

However, most Christians also believe that all the good works in the world can't get you into heaven. You have to be "Saved" or "Born again" (depending on whom you ask) to save your eternal soul. So again, Christ is held as an example of the kind of moral choices we should make, but He is also the savior of our souls, and vital to our "survival." There are some Christians who believe as you say, however the true nature of Christ's teachings are different.

I don't think that the "Atheist route" takes any more responsibility or effort at all. I know plenty of Christians who are thoroughly immoral. It takes the same effort and responsibility to do good works no matter who you are because we're all human. We all have the same weaknesses.

What this sign signifies is only one thing. Bitterness. There are a lot of humanists/atheists who are upset that they haven't had the "limelight" and are stooping to new lows to get there. I'm seeing more and more Atheists gathering into organized groups (I'm almost tempted to call them churches) and beginning to do their own "preaching." I'm seeing them pay for billboard space like the megachurches do, trying to "advertise" their own particular unreligion to people. It's sad really, because it's just as sad seeing the billboards for God in the "Bible Belt." My question to them is the same to Christains: "Why can't you believe what you believe and let it be?" But the answer is also the same for both sides: "Because people need to know this!" Interesting, no? Both sides are on a crusade.

As kit_ping below me has already commented, religion-driven morality is something which can be a serious problem to those with alternative beliefs. Thankfully we live in a country where it isn't nearly as bad as other parts of the world. I just read a news article about a 13-year-old who was stoned for "sins" in Pakistan. Those kinds of atrocities aren't socially accepted here, thankfully. However it still becomes a social problem for us since Christianity has such a strong hold in our system. This is more motivation for the "counter-witnessing" by the atheist community.

For all the complaints about Christians trying to shove the Bible down peoples' throats and "witness" to people, I'm sad to see it spreading to other belief systems. Atheism is just as much a belief system as Christianity, and I think that if you're happy with what you believe in, you should be allowed to believe it. Frankly, I'd like to see a time when the only way we'd know what someone believes in is if they are asked first.

I know many good, excellent, moral people who believe in God. I also know many who don't believe in God. I respect everyone's beliefs, even those who subscribe to insanities such as Scientology. Everyone has their own reasons for believing what they do.

The most ideal situation would be one where we could all believe what we want to, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. No billboards, no door-knocking, no advertising. Unfortunately, humans don't work that way. When we believe we're right about something, we have a compulsion to tell the entire world about it.

What happens after we die isn't something we can know for sure. But since we're all here together until we do, we'd better learn to get along.

My 2 cents.

Re: A slight correction

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

I also, was brought up in a christian (Catholic in my case) faith, but eventually walked away from it, as I had decided that it just wasn't for me. I agree with you that there are any number of people who are quite capable of reconciling morality on their own, (I know a lot of them, too) I've just also met people who have told me to my face that without divine guidance, all would fall into sin, depravity and immorality, and that it's impossible to be moral without being religious, too.

I understand some of the feeling of the atheist groups and why they might try to "preach" their own philosophy. I'm not saying that what Gneech was commenting on was the right way to go about it, but in all fairness, one philosophy is as valid as another, yet religious groups (of any flavor) have a long tradition of proselytizing and evangelizing, where atheists really haven't had a forum to discuss their own thoughts on the matter. Partly it's due to atheists not being a cohesive group, partly it's because nearly any critical discussion of faith (or the lack thereof) in a public forum has a tendency to quickly devolve into some version of a flamewar.

This begs the question: if religious groups can promote their own messages about the benefits of peace, love, fairness, self-sacrifice and kindess to ones fellow man in the service of (Deity of choice here), is there anything wrong with an Atheist group doing the same thing, but in the name of Enlightened Self Interest?*

*Or any other non-religious moral philosophy

If nothing else, it's certainly sparked some discussion on the matter.

Re: A slight correction

[athelind.livejournal.com]

I, for one, am not sure who you're correcting. Only one person in the preceding comments even mentioned "Christians" at all, and no one that I saw made any sweeping statements about the beliefs of ALL Christians (unless kit_ping added the "irony quotes" as a later edit).

On the other claw, YOUR sweeping statement that "Christians do not believe it is impossible to be good or moral without God" IS an overly broad and inaccurate generalization. There are MANY Christians who DO believe just that, who insist that atheism is dangerous because it provides no motivation for moral behavior and will inevitably lead to amorality and wickedness, and they are not shy about saying so loudly and publicly.

I have even heard it claimed that good, decent people who publicly proclaim atheism whilst exhibiting impeccable moral and ethical behavior must "really believe in God" somewhere deep down inside, and are just deceiving themselves and those around them.

(This neatly turns the claim of atheism itself into a morally-questionable act, since, if you're an otherwise-decent person, you're at best a liar.)

Do all Christians think like this? Certainly not. Most Christians? I couldn't say? But some Christians? Most definitely -- and they are among the most vocal of the lot.

Of course, you could argue that they don't count as "REAL" Christians, but I'm not going to get NEAR that particular can of wyrms.

[the-sedgwicks.livejournal.com]

The reason is that they want to be seen and heard. They want to be different, an individual, just like everybody else.

As a Christian, I have the same problem with "Big Religion," but I realize that enerything has a branch with "Big" in front of t. People want to seem good, because they're afraid they're not. The ones who really are just do good things, without needing to call attention to it.

[vverevvolf.livejournal.com]

I find it more ironic that they're using a character based on a Catholic Saint to say not to believe in God...

Logic Failure !!!

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

Nah, real irony would be a Catholic Saint based on a Norse God.

[maxgoof.livejournal.com]

Why not be good for goodness sake?

How do they determine what is good?

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

How do they determine what is good?

By thinking.

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

What sirfox said. Believing in God does not equate to a having a monopoly on Doing Good Deeds. People think atheists are immoral, but that's not true—having different morals doesn't mean one doesn't have any.

My brothers and I once asked my late grandmother why she never went to church. She said she didn't think it was necessary to go to church to be a good person. I agree with this.

This is in no way meant to dis religion; it's very useful and provides structure to people's lives.

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Of all the tools Satan has at his disposal, none is as damaging as the Televanelist - for he misleads the faithful and drives away those who would otherwise want to find God.

[roninotter.livejournal.com]

Amen

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear!

[susandeer.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting message, but perhaps not the best wording.

[hantamouse.livejournal.com]

But a 'better' message wouldn't have gotten noticed, and you don't spend $40k on ads to not get noticed. Its all marketing.

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

Despite unfortunate wording, as others have mentioned, the point of the advertising was probably to win converts to their organized group and increase the size of their community. That activity is no less valid, no more pointless, and of the same reasonable priority as the same activity conducted all the time by religious organizations.

From an atheists' perspective, it can't be said that the $40K was spent to diss God because there's no such thing. :)

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

I'd say that it was a very effective advertisement...

It got you to talk about the American Humanist Association, didn't it?

[kyhwana.livejournal.com]

vs the $70 million spent on just prop 8? 40k is chump change.

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the $70M crowd are those from whom I don't expect any better. Everything in my post about doing good works applies to them in stereo, but I can't imagine them ever actually listening.

-The Gneech

E G O

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

You make an Excellent point, me friend..

"Is it really worth spending $40k dissing God?"

Most likely because people have EGO, and those who do not manage it, allow it to manage them, and thereby inflict misery and intrusion upon other's lives.

It goes on and on, just as even those most angelic will yet be criticized. It is one of life's unfortunate disappointments. Perhaps an allegory wqould be Jefferson's warning, that the price of liberty and freedom is vigilance... because just resting completely can allow the wicked to nibble away at it.

Re: E G O

[kyhwana.livejournal.com]

You mean just like how "God" spent $35million dissing gay people?
"Most likely because people have EGO, and those who do not manage it, allow it to manage them, and thereby inflict misery and intrusion upon other's lives."

See christians who voted to ban gay marriage.

Zing.

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

...footnote:
Just to be clear, since naturally someone could misinterpret it... this is meant to apply to *both* sides of the issue.