Author, Adam.
Published, January 30, 2009.
I love how religions claim monopolies over certain facets of what it means to be human. Atheism is one such religion.
Recently, the Atheist Foundation of Australia (AFA) raised $16,000 for an outdoor advertising campaign using the slogan ‘Atheism – Celebrate Reason’. Or the extended version: ‘Atheism – Celebrate Reason! Sleep in on Sunday mornings’. This comes after successful campaigns in progressively free and democratic countries, such as the UK.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, their plans were thwarted when APN Outdoor (an outdoor media company) and Metro Tasmania (a State-owned bus-line) refused to display their advertisements on their buses. Consequently the AFA has brought the matter before the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Tasmanian anti-discrimination board, claiming they have been unduly discriminated against.
I can understand that they should feel upset if their right to free-speech has been suppressed. However, you cannot say that they themselves aren’t being a tad discriminatory – “Sleep in Sunday mornings” or “Celebrate Reason”. As if going to church is a bad thing, or that atheism has the monopoly over reason. The more I think about religions, the more I really like the idea of tolerance. Yes yes, I know, I’m sounding too politically correct or too idealist or something. But I think if we cannot be tolerant of other beliefs then we are essentially denying the other of their humanness. Please, don’t get me wrong, it’s hard to know how tolerant to be. I think tolerance can only go so far. We should not be tolerant of obviously violent or discriminatory behaviour (cultural or religious), but everything else that fits inside this, dare I say, ‘humanist’ ethic, I believe ought to be tolerated. We are all human after all.
I am currently reading ‘The Dynamics of Faith’ by Paul Tillich. It is very interesting to note that he identifies faith as being ultimate concern. In doing so, he does not assume that faith only has meaning for the Christian or even the religious. He gives it a very inescapably human definition. That is, that whatever grips us ultimately is what we have faith in. For the atheist, it is a matter of faith that he or she maintains this materialist viewpoint – whatever cannot be empirically verified most likely does not exist, and so for him or her It does not exist. Faith pervades every faculty of the human make-up - intellect, reason, emotion, personality included. Faith transcends all.
I say all that because, whilst I think that it is understandable that the AFA believe they have some monopoly over reason, it is not actually true. Their definition of reason excludes many things taken for granted a great deal of humans everywhere. Humans are essentially both rational and sentient beings.
All that beings said, I believe the AFA have a case. I tend to think they do have a right to free-speech, as does everyone else. Whether or not this includes the use of advertising media or not is another question. In some smart Scandinavian country they outlawed advertising directed to children, because it decreased national happiness and screwed with the children’s heads. (I love those countries). I am undecided as to whether the AFA’s advertising campaign would be too antagonistic or not. If so, it is probably better to keep them out of sight. But I hardly think they would be. We ought to uphold the freedom of other beliefs and opinions to the same degree we expect the freedom of our own.
Amen.
Hey man,
I’m depressed this morning, poking around on the net like you do sometimes, and I come here and read this. And I have to say that I agree with the whole tolerance thing, and I discovered a little way for me to be tolerant. It probably won’t work for you. But I’ll share it for the hell of it. The best way to be tolerant in my experience, is to not think about it at all. Religion. Faith. Beliefs. Have your own, keep them to yourself, don’t worry about others in any way, shape or form. Don’t discuss them. Don’t dissect or deliberate. Don’t name them, categorise them, compare them. Just forget about it. The minute I subscribe to a particular faith, religion or whatever, I immediately feel as if I’m excluding something. Something perhaps too conceptual to describe here. But it’s real. I think it’s because today it’s drummed into us that as believers of a particular faith, we must uphold that particular faith to be correct, and by extension all others are… less correct, even wrong. And that makes sense in a way. If we believed in another faith being true, then we’d follow that one, wouldn’t we? So, I feel that by just ignoring all the labels and their manifold implications in relation to other belief systems, then life is simpler. I know what I believe in. But I don’t know what it’s label is and I don’t care. It’s not important. That’s how I remain tolerant to other’s beliefs. I have no labels, no boundaries. And yes, tolerance should have limitations, and I liked your phrase humanist ethic.
X
Thanks Crommo.
Your comment makes me smile. Although, I think if I were to follow your suggestion about not discussing or dissecting beliefs I would be forced to sweep a lot stuff under the carpet. We shouldn’t be afraid of conversation. We can be uninterested perhaps, but to not talk about it seems a bit funny. I totally respect your point of view though and definately share with you some of those sentiments.
Nice work, Adam. I love the Scandinavians too. Poor old Iceland at the moment, though. I hope our good friends Sigur Ros are keeping OK.
I must say this is one of your best posts; not even because I agree with it or anything of that nature. It’s simply well written and enjoyable.
Hi. I’m Alex. I know Simon a.k.a. “Special K”.
My first comment is that I sleep in on Sunday mornings and I’m a Christian. Joke’s on those atheists who don’t realise that you can have church in the evening!
My second, more serious comment is that there is sometimes a definitional problem when it comes to calls for “tolerance”. The problem is that some think “tolerance” means agreeing that everyone’s views are equally valid. I can’t accept this proposition, because people hold mutually exclusive views on many issues. Unless everyone is equally wrong then not all views are equally valid.
As such, in my view “tolerance” in this context can’t mean much more than “not oppressing people because of their views”. I could perhaps elaborate by stating the following principles for tolerance:
1. I am interested in your views and I won’t try and stop you expressing them.
2. Having listened to your views, I reserve the right to think that you are wrong, to express this view, and to attempt to convince others of this view.
3. I recognise that my views could be (and will sometimes be) wrong too.
Thoughts? Is my definition of tolerance faulty? Are there any other points that need adding to my principles?
Thanks for the comment Alex. Or is that Lex? I’m on to you….
I think what is more often meant when someone says that we have equally valid views is not that all views are equally true, but everyone has the equal right to hold their view. Albeit different and mutually exclusive views. Beliefs operate in the much the same for every human; people hold them because they think they are true. So, in that sense they are equally valid. Being tolerant of other beliefs is essentially being respectful of other human beings - recognising their humanity as much as your own.
I tend to agree with all your points about being tolerant. Although, I think that the last part of point is a bit shady. Convincing others of your own view (being that another view is wrong) can be done from a fairly shallow appreciation of other beliefs, resting on ignorance of respective histories of both the other’s belief and your own. History has much to tell us in regards to how many beliefs come pre-packaged for our consumption. With that in mind, when we try to convince others of the superiority of our belief over and above theirs, we ought to have an appreciation and understanding for their belief taking into account relevant histories of both as much as we can know of them. Otherwise, from our own ignorance comes a very arrogant approach towards others when we try to convince them of such and such a belief. However, if arrogance or ignorance isn’t a problem, then convince away! Although, I think we should also be aware of which context we’re in when we try and convince others of our own views. To generalise, I think we need to be on an equal footing, as much as we can, when we are discussing beliefs. But this is getting into a slightly different area of conversation.
this is the first time i’ve read anything you’ve written. except whiteboard comments/quotes.
and facebook posts.
and the canary story.
ANYWAYS…
thanks. it made me think. and i like it.
:)
well spoken Adam.
I agree that honesty/ courtesy and tolerance (forebearing) with one another is a must no matter who or what a person may be- provided they are not persecuting someone else, just as you said. Free the Humans! however, I personally believe that this polite ability is a gift of God and comes from an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is something that cannot be measured by human standards however. Someone may not even know the Gospel but may be closer to the Kingdom of God than a Pharisaic White-suited Preacher in the Highest Pulpit. How can this be? some may ask. It comes about as we know that God’s grace doesn’t depend in anyway on human effort but on God’s desire to have relationship with humanity and give His blessing to all the Nations. Gal 3:14 that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (also) Act 10:31 and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer is heard, and your gifts to the needy are remembered in the sight of God.
Hey Marcus.
Are you saying that a person who acts with gentleness, love and grace may have the ‘indwelling of the Holy Spirit’ without calling themselves Christian? Or, is it merely a human potential to be loving, gracious, forgiving and the rest?
Who was it…*googles* ? - Voltaire said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
I think it’s good that you’ve looked at the forum from which the APA are speaking - in this case outdoor advertising.
Yes they have a right to freedom of speech, but it would be lovely if advertising was a little more regulated like in the Iceville countries.
I wonder. On what grounds did those advertising companies deny service? The old chesnut “it might offend some people” perhaps? Would they deny service to a department store advertising
a Christmas sale, or even a Red Cross or Salvation Army welfare advertisment?
One to keep an eye on perhaps.
With the bus ads reading “Atheism - celebrate reason” atheists have, again, come very close to quoting that which the Bible has stated for almost 3,000 years, “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD (Isaiah 1:18).
Also, the supposed most erudite atheist in the world are gathering in Australia for their convention while refusing to debate Christians:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-34463-Albuquerque-Christian-Apologetics-Examiner~y2010m3d4-Atheism–celebrate-reason-while-absconding-from-reasoning
Reason? No, merely self-aggrandizing and self-professed pseudo-erudition.