Friday, August 04, 2006
Dissenters wanted?
Les Reid of the Belfast Humanist Group wonders what ever happened to all the Dissenters and makes a pitch for humanists to occupy at least some of that space. He also points us in the direction of the Humanist Summer School later this month in Carlingford.
From Les Reid
We read and hear references to ‘Protestants, Catholics and Dissenters’ but the last group never seem to hold any meetings. Who are these Dissenters and where do they hang out? Many of us have either outgrown or got fed up with the old sectarian dichotomy of Catholic or Protestant and would like to find a Third Way out of the sectarian rut. But how do you become a Dissenter?
The Humanists must have a good claim to the Dissenter mantle. Humanists reject all religious tales of the supernatural, including gods, goddesses, angels, demons, miracles and the hereafter. They are atheists and agnostics, but they do not merely reject religion, they work together to advance the cause of a secular, liberal society. Famous Humanists include Richard Dawkins, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Noam Chomsky and Jonathan Miller, to name but few.
Humanist organisations can be found North and South of the border, in Belfast, Dublin and Coleraine. The Belfast Humanist Group website (http://www.humanists.net/belfast) has links to groups throughout Ireland and Britain.
The Humanist Summer School which will be held in Carlingford 25 - 27 August is a joint venture by groups from NI and RoI. The theme this year is “Freethinking and Diversity” and the main speakers will be Justin Keating, former RoI Government Minister; Robin Wilson of Democratic Dialogue; Jeff Dudgeon from NI Gay Rights Association and Paul Rowe, Director of Educate Together. Details of the full range of activities and discussions can be found on the website. It is hoped that there will be a good turn-out of Dissenters of all shades of opinion and that there will be lively debate and friendly contact among all those searching for a Third Way.
Mick Fealty @ 02:49 PM
“We read and hear references to ‘Protestants, Catholics and Dissenters’… Who are these Dissenters and where do they hang out?”
The dissenters referred to by Wolfe Tone were Protestants that did not belong to the established church at that time (ie Anglican, with the Church of Ireland being the local branch). These were Presbyterians,Methodists, Baptists etc.
Tone’s remark was purely in the context of religion.Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 03:03 PMPeking, of course you’re right that this referred to Presbyterians, but I think it’s fair to say that its usage here is not entirely inappropriate.
I once had a similar discussion with one of the supposedly non-existent unionist intellectuals. We were talking about Dissenters in the sense of people from a protetsant tradtion who had moved beyond their roots. The most prominent name he suggested, and one I thought was entirely appropriate, was Tom Paulin.
I think the secularist agenda is a vital one if we are to move beyond the current circumstances. However, that does not necessarily involve the full embrace of Humanist values, or the rejection of religion, a vital point to argue in NI.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 03:22 PMhmmmm
They are atheists and agnostics, but they do not merely reject religion, they work together to advance the cause of a secular, liberal society. Famous Humanists include Richard Dawkins, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Noam Chomsky and Jonathan Miller, to name but few.
As am athiest myself i can well identify with the aspirations of many of these people to see a world were people base opinions on reason. However, i feel that in ‘advancing the cause’ these people often forget the supposed ‘liberal’ values (and it pains me to use the word liberal as it has been hijacked by some to mean anything that isnt supportive of the neo-con regime). People like Richard Dawkins, IMHO, seems to want to force a secular world onto people. When watching him interact i feel that he views all religious people as stupid or weak and that if they would only catch a grip of themselves they would eventually come to the same ‘logical’ conclusions about the universe that he believes and promotes.
In taking such a militant approach Dawkins has adopted some of the tacktics of those that he opposes, eg. refusing to debate the nature of the theory of evolution. I for one believe that its the most likely explaination for the existence of complex ecosystem and species and such. However, it is by no means a ‘proven fact’. He is thus pitching one unproven cosmological view against another unproven (and i should add unprovable) cosmological view.
I must say it tends to turn me off these movements despite holding many of the same opinions as their members. Surley a better aim of a humanist movement should be to promote a world in which individuals have a right to hold whatever world view they wish, but suffer no adverse consequences.
BTW I know that i may have ‘played the man’ not the ball when referring to Richard Dawkins, but i just used him as an example of that movement in general.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 04:16 PMYeah, he does come across as intellectually arrogant and too dismissive of other views.
Even if he is right.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 04:59 PMFamous Humanists include Richard Dawkins, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Noam Chomsky and Jonathan Miller, to name but few.
Need we say more bunch of boring fuppers especially miller self righteous prick
humanists - failed intellectuals and politicians who can’t get laid
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 05:06 PMOne thing that I think humanists miss is the specifics of situations - e.g. the nature of Northern Ireland politics is rarely mentioned in the issues of the Irish Humanist that I read. Lately I wonder if they’re relevant to solving problems in the North.
Dawkins is complicated - he’s very intelligent and makes excellent points when dealing with scientific matters - he goes and spoils all that by ranting when talking about religion - he could make much better points in criticising religion if he were more rational. (His documentary on Channel 4 was a case in point - he seemed to have picked fairly extreme representatives of the three Abrahamic faiths he criticised. Imagine if a documentary criticising atheism was made and the only atheists portrayed were a Stalinist, a Maoist and a Marxist-Leninist - nothing about non-Marxist atheists.)
Evolution is as proven as any other scientific theory.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 05:20 PMI rather think that Les Reid’s vile song, Walk on the Wild Side, says all we need to know about humanism.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 05:23 PMevolution as a concept can be demonstrated, think fruit flies and brown feather birds. however, evolution and natural selection leavding to complex organisms, species and ecosystems is not proven. Indeed it is far from it. I.e. completely inadequate fossil records, a failure to demonstrate the evolution of a new species, etc.
Though i must stress, i think its the probable candidate. But the ‘proof’ is simply not there to call it a ‘fact’.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 05:39 PM‘’Dawkins has adopted some of the tacktics of those that he opposes, eg. refusing to debate the nature of the theory of evolution.’’
I personally don’t see that the debating chamber is the place for such a discussion.
Religious crackpots such as Kent Hovind, who, despite purporting to be rooted in the scientific community, come out with nonsenses such as ‘the dinosaurs were too big to fit on the ark’, tend to marshall crowds of emotional Christian fundamentalist supporters to such events, turning the whole thing into a circus. Inevitably the likes of Mr.Hovind put 100% of their efforts into ‘disproving’ evolutionary theory, whilst offering no evidence whatsoever for their Creationist ideas.
By definition, it is impossible to ‘debate’ religious belief, any more than such a belief could be stood up for cross-examination in a court of law.
‘Where is your God?’ ‘When did you see him last?’ Why is your God male and why would a supernatural deity need to be a particular sex at all?’ ‘How can you regard the bible as being infallible when it is inherently contradictory?’
Such basic questions cannot be the subject of debate—they are beliefs.
The evolution in schools debate can be easily settled. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept evolutionary theory as fact—therefore it should be taught in science class.
The religious community accept the creation as fact (albeit with some rather startling differences), so creationism should be taught in RE class.‘’i feel that he views all religious people as stupid or weak and that if they would only catch a grip of themselves they would eventually come to the same ‘logical’ conclusions about the universe that he believes and promotes.’’
Sadly absolutist belief whether in religious or scientific terms, allows for no other viewpoint. If Richard Dawkins took a soft laissez-faire attitude on religious belief, he would receive neither respect nor airtime. You only need to look at the sorry state the Church of England currently finds itself in to understand why followers in this particular realm, whether religious or secular, expect their spokespersons to be forthright and unequivocal.
‘’better aim of a humanist movement should be to promote a world in which individuals have a right to hold whatever world view they wish, but suffer no adverse consequences.’’
In an ideal world yes Michael, but the nature of organised religion, as with any dictatorial regime, does not allow for freedom of thought. Fundamenalist Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity are the logical conclusions of an unchecked, unchallenged ‘faith’.
The best that Humanism can hope to do is to keep religious predjudice and delusion as far away from the realms of government and the law of the land as possible.Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 06:21 PMThe Devil
Dont ya mean Lou Reed....Walk on the Wild Side?Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 07:16 PMGerry Lvs Castro
As I said in a previous, detailed, rant on the dangers of new creationism - available here
..put simply, a belief in intelligent design, and by implication a Designer, is not science.. it’s theology.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 07:47 PM“Dont ya mean Lou Reed....Walk on the Wild Side?”
Certainly not! Not was JOHN Reed. Every Gorbals bampot knows that.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 08:47 PMI began to respect the views of Dawkins when he quite properly described organised religion as child abuse
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 08:49 PMDevil
Make ure mind up..is it Les, Lou or John Reid Or Reed?Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 09:27 PMThe Devil
should you be having an input on this thread at all. Do you exist in your own right or only if and when we beleive in you?
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 09:37 PMEvolution is as proven as any other scientific theory.
Which makes it a hell of a lot more proven than the existance of any higher power.
Evolution as a theory, posited, tested and proven correct, all here in this volume.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 10:02 PMTafkabo
I think it’s important to point to the abuse of language in this particular tussle.. especially when the neo-creationists attempt to denigrate the theory of evolution as a mere theory.
The difference between a scientific theory and what the neo-creationists would prefer to believe is stark.
The non-testable hypothesis of intelligent design is vastly different from evolution by the fact that evolution has firstly been postulated as a testable hypothesis.
Having been subjected to perhaps the most rigorous examination of any scientific hypothesis ever - including extensive examination of the fossil records, which adequately show the development of several species and individual adaptions over time - it has, eventually, become accepted as an accurate explanation of the colonisation and development of life on this planet.
Because of that it has been accepted as a scientific theory - a tested, and accepted, explanation of the world around us.
In comparison, neo-creationism will always remain a non-testable hypothesis - because it relies purely on belief.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 10:20 PMIt’s one of Northern Ireland’s saddest quandries that the non-protestant and non-catholic are forced to make a choice. There has been a NI humanist magazine for several years although it does tend towards the more hysterical squakings of Dawkins (of whom I am a fan, but he is, well, not entirely subtle).
I do sometimes wonder what is going to be the future for my children who have a parent from both traditions and are raised as neither. Non baptised. Go to an integrated school (the local state school is run by an evangelical and the next nearest is Ballysilan, say no more).
They are too young yet to know what the fuck is going on in this country, but I will have to explain it at some point, and I am dreading it.
I am an athiest, so is my wife. I have read the bible and the koran and they are both full of contradictions and absurdities that were nonsense in the 18th centuary, never mind now.
So Les, dissenters are here - but we are not easily represented, and I am not entirely sure that we want to be. There is no political party here that makes a case for us, apart from maybe Alliance or the Greens - and neither of them exactly inspire the loyalty and devotion that Sinn Fein and the DUP get. Am I alone?
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 11:11 PMDK
As an older parent, I just want to say something a bit more positive. My kids grew up with little knowledge of the Troubles, and I have to say they have remained that way. They are in their 20’s now, and have gone (going) to Queens, have jobs, have boyfriends from the ‘other’ side and think nothing of it.The first inkling my eldest daughter had was one night she was at her boyfriends granny and phoned me to ask if I could give her a lift, as they coudlnt get a taxi. I said sure, where are you, and she said um… it says Rathcoole. I said FFS, dont tell anyone your name is Aoife and I’ll be there in 3 mintues........
Anyway, all I’m saying is that there is hope. There’’s the other side of course, but I do believe there is hope and positive moves, and although I am accused of claiming we will all walk hand in hand one day, I still think we can create an equal and peaceful and prosperous society.
Oh Lord, my submit word is HOPE94...... how creepy is that
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 11:18 PM“Make ure mind up”
Hehe, you’re catching on. But Midge is from Lanark, which is hardly the wild side of Scotland....
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 11:27 PM“should you be having an input on this thread at all. Do you exist in your own right or only if and when we beleive in you?”
LOL. But Bertie, you do remember what my greatest achievement is don’t you?
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 11:29 PMMissfitz,
Thanks for the kind words. I will hope that he past remains where it should be - a different country and they do things differently there - and teach my kids in that vein.
Moving beyond the Britain and the Republic. Lordy, it’s a third way!
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 11:30 PMDK
I would be in a similar situation to you and i do wonder what lies in store for mini me!
I lived in Jerusalem for a while and Religion is....well i dont have to go into that one do I!I take the view that i have to expose him to as many different, divergent events and places as possible.
Just gotta stretch his wee mind as wide as possible hopefully leaving him enough space to work it out for himself when he feels he needs to!Posted by on Aug 05, 2006 @ 12:06 AMMoochin - It’s not going to be easy. My wife says that it is easy - just tell them that it is all the fault of the Brits! But they are half Brit themselves so that kind of Sinn Fein guilt trip is not going to work. Equally the crappy DUP “this would be a fair land if it weren’t for the Irish rebels” will not work as they are half Irish. Poor buggers.
Still, I console myself with the thought that we are the future and Sinn Fein and the DUP are the past. The wankers.
Although having said that, wasn’t Peter Robinson quite a good minister and Martin McGuiness pushed the anti-11 plus agenda......
Posted by on Aug 05, 2006 @ 12:26 AMIt is good to see some interest in the topic of Humanism. One of the problems facing non-religious people, not just here, but throughout Europe and indeed most of the world, is that religions are entrenched in society, with access to the media and the education system. The comments in this forum on religious indoctrination in school show how common that problem is.
The census tells us that there are thousands of non-believers in NI, perhaps as many as 150,000 and the percentage of the population is growing steadily. Sadly, however, they do not join any Humanist or secular organisations and so the baleful influence of long-established religious tradition is allowed to continue unchecked. No doubt most of those non-believers long for a secular, liberal society where religious beliefs are kept in their place, ie. one’s private conscience, but if people do not declare their non-religious outlook then nothing will ever change.
We need a strong secular movement to help us out of the sectarian rut. In fact, since Blair came to power and started promoting “faith” (ie. sectarian) education, the tide has been turning against secularist principles, despite the dire consequences that could be predicted from our polarised, embittered state. Likewise, Bush has favoured the religious right and diverted funds from non-religious charities into church organisations - with the result that AIDS stricken regions of Africa get Bibles instead of condoms.
All that is necessary for evil to prosper is that good men do nothing.
Posted by on Aug 05, 2006 @ 10:05 AM
