🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is a response to an article by Mathew Hutcheson.  In that
article, Hutcheson discussed a poster that the Society for Unbelief put
up around campus recently.

Let me begin by quoting from Hutcheson's article:

>I walked about Cornell the other day and saw a poster entitled 'GOD IS
>DEAD!' After reading it, and feeling disgusted, I thought it equally
>"tasteful" (be warned that this theme plays a role throughout this
>letter) to reply on the evolution listserv.

I take it that Hutcheson was not disgusted merely by the words "GOD IS
DEAD" (for, if so, his disgust threshold would be low indeed). 
Therefore, I shall ignore his comments about "taste" for now, and shall
consider below the actual comments that he makes about the content of the
"God is Dead" poster.

If I can figure out how to do it, I will post this article on the
evolution listserv, though I am not a student in the class.

> The name of the organization that put up the posters is called the
>'Society for Unbelief.'  A catchy name almost like Dead Poets' Society,
>but without the ability to express themselves effectively like the poetry
>which the Dead Poets recite in the cave.

I take exception to that.  I think you will find that the Society for
Unbelief is pefectly capable of expressing itself effectively; indeed,
your apoplectic indignation suggests to me that our first poster has
already done precisely that.

>The title 'God is dead!' makes one ask the question, "Well, who shot
>him?"  The rest of the poster, which I will quote parts of below, gives
>the impression that this 'society' has the belief of unbelief -- that God
>has *never* existed.  A strange first line to say that someone is now
>dead  who they claim has never existed in the first place.

Yes.  The "Death of God" makes sense only if you believe that He existed
at some point in the past.  Which leads us to the blindingly obvious
deduction that Matt Hutcheson fails to make -- which is that atheists did
not coin the phrase, "the Death of God".  Theists did.  The "Death of God
Debate" has occupied Christian theologians for a good part of the latter
half of this century.  We at the Society for Unbelief used the phrase
because it is catchy, well known, and presents the atheist stand in the
terminology of theism.  The subject search "S=DEATH OF GOD THEOLOGY" in
the online catalogue should furnish Mr. Hutcheson with enough information
to remedy his distressing ignorance in this matter.

Also, Mr. Hutcheson uses the phrase "belief of unbelief" to describe the
stand of the Society for Unbelief; which appears to imply that atheists
somehow belong to a religion that "believes" in the non-existence of God.
 This is nonsense; and I would suggest that Mr. Hutcheson listen a little
more carefully to the lectures of Prof. Provine in his evolution class to
figure out why it is so.  If, however, he proves too dense to understand
the material in the class, I do not think a great deal of harm has been
done; for we at the Society for Unbelief have formed our Society
precisely for the purpose of discussing such fallacies, which arise from
a complete ignorance of the nature of the arguments for atheism. 
Hutcheson, and anyone else who wishes to be conversant with such
arguments (whether you agree with them or not) would do well to follow
the publication that we will be putting out this semester, some time
after Fall Break.  Another good source of information is the FAQ (the
list of Frequently Asked Questions) that is posted regularly on
alt.atheism and on alt.atheism.moderated.

>                                                           But it was eye
>catching, I will give them that.

Exactly.  I have posted milder articles on bulletin boards all over
campus in the past, and not one has drawn even a single response.  The
poster that so incensed Mr. Hutcheson was composed in the hope that
taking an affirmative stance would generate more interest, and more
debate, than a simple invitation to debate.  The vehemence of his
response to it suggests that that hope was not in vain.

>The poster says,
>
>          We seek to open an equal, reasonable debate on the
>          existence of "God".
>
>Before that they say,
>
>          The Theistic position is intellectually bankrupt!
>          Those who defend the existence of "God" do so
>          with no proof, with invalid and unsound arguments,
>          and with no moral justification.
>
>It surely made me wonder how such a group could possibly have an open OR
>reasonable debate on anything, especially the existence of "God." 
>They!ve just declared "the believers" out there guilty of believing in
>something that is completely wrong and that they need not bother waste
>their breath because anything that they might say would either be
>defenseless, unsound, false or just plain stupid. 

Wrong.  We have stated our reasoned opinion, based on extensive analysis
of theistic arguments in contemporary philosophy.  Our poster invites
anyone who has reasonable arguments to present to prove otherwise.

Unfortunately, most arguments for theism in the past have been based on
appeals to authority ("The Bible says so"), circular logic ("God exists
because the Bible says so, and we know the Bible is true because it is
the word of God"), or wishful thinking ("I wouldn't have a reason for
living if God didn't exist, so he has to exist").  Therefore we have
described it as "intellectually bankrupt".  We welcome reasonable
arguments that attempt to prove it otherwise, as long as they are
strictly coherent and logically argued.

This serves to highlight a difference between theistic and atheistic
assertions that followers of the debate would do well to keep in mind as
it progresses.  Atheists do not claim absolute knowledge; therefore what
we say is, a fortiori, our opinion.  Possibly Mr. Hutcheson mistook our
assertion above for a claim to some Divine or Revealed Truth, brooking of
no contradiction.  That is the theistic position; atheists do not believe
that we are possessed of an Absolute Truth, which is why we are always
open to debate.

>The poster goes on to say,
>
>           The reason this [debate] has not been done is that
>           the theists fear for the validity of their position!
>
>It seems to me that if a theist even so much as stepped into Goldwin
>Swith 134 on Thursday at 6:00, they would be damned to some proverbial
>"hell."  

I have tried to keep this response on an even tenor, but this ignorant
statement makes me simply furious.  Don't suppose, Mr. Hutcheson.  It is
bad enough that you misinterpret our poster; but if you feel so strongly
about the issue, why the hell did you not come to that meeting and see
for yourself what happened in Goldwin Smith 134 on Thursday at 6:00 ?

If you had bothered to come and instruct yourself on a subject on which
you appear to hold such strong views, you would have learned that the
Society for Unbelief is publishing a newsletter this semester for the
promotion of rational debate on the opposition of theism to atheism.  We
will accept 
any article, whether it supports theism or atheism, on the condition that
it be constructed from logical and rational argument, and not from appeal
to ideology or .  

>        This unbelieving society claims to wish for a reasonable and
>open debate but will probably end up with a room full of "God"-bashing
>atheists instead of a room filled with people who want and *could give*
>an intellectual conversation.

Probably ?  This "unbelieving society" is capable of a great deal more
intellectual conversation than Hutcheson's ridiculous suppositions, which
he pretends to present as arguments.  Once again, if anyone wishes to
know what goes on at the Society for Unbelief meetings, he should come to
them (they are held on Thursday evenings, and the time and place will be
mentioned in the Daily Sun Daybook); failing that, he should read our
newsletter, which will be out after Fall Break; failing that, he should
read alt.atheism or alt.atheism.moderated, or the works of Bertrand
Russell, or of any good contemporary philosopher who has discussed the
issue of atheism.

>The poster then concludes,
>
>           Only through your actions can we bring about a true
>           liberation of the mind of man!
>
>Liberation -- WHAT? Do we have here some evangelistic (or fundamentalist)
>atheist group trying to "save" us?  (with sarcasm)

No.  The word "liberation" was used because of the history of Western
religion.  From the burning of the Library at Alexandria ca. 400 AD to
the Renaissance ca. 1600 AD, religious dogma held the human mind captive,
stifling free enquiry and burning at the stake such brave partisans of
intellectual freedom as Giordano Bruno.  It is the contention of the
Society of Unbelief (and of many atheists not associated with the
Society) that the liberation of our society from the pernicious evil that
murdered Bruno and countless others will not be complete until it can be
discussed with as much logic and freedom from dogma as any other activity
of human society.  

>                                                                    Of
>course, you can!t help but notice that only "man" can liberate his mind. 
>The sexist author of this poster forgot to mention that women can also
>liberate their minds.

Yes, not to mention the sexist author of the "Rights of Man", who was
"sexist" enough to use the word to refer to all human beings.  I suggest,
Mr. Hutcheson, that you desperately require a course in remedial English.

>-Matt
>Some final notes and conclusions
>------------------------------
>(1) The poster is sophomoric!  It is important for atheists to discuss
>their opinions, but the method of communicating that opinion should be
>well thought out, especially if a group intends to seek to open an equal,
>reasonable debate.  This poster was not thought out AT ALL!

After reading my article over, I challenge you to demonstrate that last
assertion.

>(2) The last thing we need is some Jerry Falwell of atheism.

The last thing we need is a Jerry Falwell of any persuasion whatsoever. 
One of the hallmarks of fundamentalism is its readiness to make sweeping
generalisations without any logical support, and without doing any
homework at all.  Mr.  Hutcheson has demonstrated this trait admirably.

>(3) I am not a religious person. I wrote this because I was disturbed by
>the way in which this organization was communicating its message.

I am not sorry that you were disturbed, but I am disturbed by your
apparent ignorance of the nature of philosophical thought on the issue of
atheism.  Do come to the meetings of the Society for Unbelief, so that we
may have the opportunity to prove to ourselves that you are not a moron,
and so that you may have the opportunity to see whether or not we are
closed to reasonable debate.

Rohan Oberoi
Treasurer, Society for Unbelief