Willing to Exist

cc:stuckincustoms

As a dyed-in-the-wool progressive myself, I have often wondered about individuals belonging to minority groups discriminated on by republicans, who hold conservative positions on issues such as social welfare. Famous examples are black republicans and conservative gays. I was watching The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan on Real Time with Bill Maher when I was struck by a thought. Could it be that there is a common underlying thread connecting these issues, a thread that progressives are tuned into and people like Andrew Sullivan are not? Specifically, is an apriori belief in contra-causal free-will leading some people to see things differently from most progressives?

Andrew is a gay conservative (although he has jumped off the GOP ship) who argues as vehemently for free-markets as he does for equal rights for gays. On this particular show, he states with conviction his belief in the power of the market and free-enterprise; in his belief in the fairness of a system that rewards those who work hard and punishes those who don’t. He chides the stupid American people who were to blame for the economic crisis because of their irresponsible fiscal behavior, and claims that those like himself who had made intelligent investments were also going to suffer (unfairly) along with the idiots, as the economy spiraled downward.

Let’s look at his positions on gay rights. Andrew Sullivan believes strongly that people are born gay or straight.

But the reality, of course, is that gay people are born everywhere. It's a remarkable fact of this minority that it is absolutely endemic to the society and, in fact, endemic to every society that has ever existed. Gay people come from and live in and grow up in heterosexual families. Unlike any other minority, they are absolutely integrated into the broader society from the minute that they are born.”

So it’s obvious that he understands what it means to be born gay. When it comes to his sexual behavior, Andrew Sullivan knows that the free-will that Christians preach about is an illusion. This is easy for him. After all, he IS gay. But Andrew is not many of the other things he despises.

The central theme of his argument last Friday was that individuals need to practice fiscal responsibility. He then takes this position to its extreme form, in the process disregarding the fact that most of society’s functioning workers don’t have the mental capacity and/or the education to make the informed choices that he can. Therein lays the reason why he does not see it essential to have regulatory mechanisms in place to help guide the public and keep corporations in check- what most people would say are the basic responsibilities of government.

Let’s say Andrew does not have the mental acuity that he is so known for

and that he has to depend on the system in different ways, as many do in our class-divided society. Would he still feel the way he does now about abolishing government regulation of corporations put in place to protect the public? Somehow, I doubt it. This man who argues for us to accept gays as born different and separate by nature, needs to put himself in the shoes of a small town handy-man or the guy who cleans the grease traps at the NYC soup kitchens, to understand that there are cards other than homosexuality that the deck of life can deal you.

cc:hellonwheelsphotography

People like Andrew Sullivan show a surprising lack of empathy as well as a high level of cognitive dissonance for someone so intelligent. It goes to show that people can partition their beliefs about free-will and selectively use a conception of it that is advantageous to them. A more naturalistic perspective is all Sullivan needs to completely alter his positions on socio-economic policy. I hope you read this, Andrew.

Cats, Presidents and Atheists

Before Religion Came Crashing Into Town

Finding common ground with other free-thinkers is often the first step in building a complete alternative to religion in society. This is not as easy a task as it may seem. The idea that getting atheists together is akin to herding cats is quite often demonstrably true.

Consider a series of events that, over the last few months, have rocked the free-thought community in the New York City area. They concern the NYC-Atheists, a well known and influential group of out-spoken, card-carrying atheists, who maintain a powerful web presence. Disagreement between group members is to be expected in any gathering of people with strong opinions and independent mind-sets. What is different about the NYC-Atheists fiasco, however, is the nature of the disagreements and the way in which they were dealt with.

The issue came to my attention when noted evolutionary biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote about his stepping down from the advisory board at NYC-Atheists. Massimo’s concerns had to do primarily with the apparent lack of democratic transparency in the management of the group. The group’s President was abusing his powers, in some cases in violation of state law, and running the group in an autocratic style. This is indeed a serious affliction, particularly for a group that represents the rejection of authoritarian ideologies.

Massimo’s post was written about in other blogs and suddenly it seemed that a host of issues surrounding NYC-Atheists were coming to a head. To my understanding, none of these issues were ever resolved satisfactorily and the NYC-Atheists group continues to rope in members because of its prominent web presence, at about the same pace as it loses them because of its dismal management style.

cc:lumaxart

One issue in Massimo’s blog post was conspicuously missing from the entire debate that ensued since its posting. Towards the end of his post Massimo wrote about the need for a positive atheism- a sort of atheism that tries to infuse meaningful dialogue into the “angry-atheist” movement.

At this point I’d like to share with you my own experience with NYC-Atheists.

It is to be expected when challenging the basic outlook of a social organization that the leaders will respond in typical primate fashion, defending their positions and thus their status as leaders. I was not, however, prepared for the outright dismissal of my reasonable suggestions without rational response or even perfunctory consideration. In case you are wondering what these outrageous suggestions were, here they are:

1. We are a divided group of non believers.

2. However, we do have a lot more in common with each other than with the religious folk, when it comes to our beliefs.

3. We need to understand and make use of the common ground we’re on if our voice is to be heard in the marketplace of ideas.

4. We all believe that science is the best method available to us for understanding reality and that scientific naturalism is our unifying philosophy.

5. We must use science to inform us in our quest for a moral and effective strategy to achieve our common goals.

6. We must work to incorporate a naturalistic worldview into popular culture.

These are as generic as possible in characterizing the free-thought movement. Apparently, the president did not think so. He dismissed me saying “some people believe naturalism is a religion (so there!)”, or something to that effect. When I asked how this was so and suggested that under such a definition of religion, atheism would be one as well but only more ineffectual in offering anything positive, he ignored me completely and changed the subject fast without even bothering to attempt a rational answer.

On another occasion, I was in private conference with some others and we were talking about methodological naturalism as a positive alternative to religion, when the president of NYC-Atheists broke in rudely and proceeded to monopolize the conversation.

I suspect that the reaction of the NYC-Atheists president was meant to protect his self and the power that he held over this large organization, from competing ideologies. This is to be expected. As free-thinkers, however, we must not let our emotions disrupt open and honest dialogue. More importantly, we need to consciously work towards identifying the common goals that we share. Unless we recognize the value of the naturalistic beliefs that we hold in common and start organizing under a meaningful positive philosophy , we are bound to keep chasing the elusive clowder of atheists.

cc:Piez

New Free-Thought E-zine

When I started this blog the idea was simply to have an outlet for my thoughts, in keeping with the vast majority of blogs out there. The few posts I have made here have served to refine my strategy towards promoting free-thought and naturalism. I'm glad to announce that I have finally put together a team of free-thinkers and activists from India, with the idea of publishing an online free-thought magazine focused mainly but not exclusively on secular issues in India.

The name of the website, Nirmukta, is a Sanskrit word that means "freed" or "liberated".

In future posts I intend on personalizing the Cultural Naturalism Report, continue posting more frequently than in the past and focusing more on cultural naturalism itself as a complete alternative to supernatural religion.

Here's to a naturalistic future!