The Atheist Blogger

The following is an email I sent to the Student’s Union at Royal Holloway after they made the grave error (in my opinion) of banning the Christian Union from holding their faith week after an incident at one of their lunchtime talks. Comments, opinions, and disagreements are all welcome.

To Whom It May Concern,

I was absolutely astounded at the decision of the Student’s Union to cancel the lunchtime bookings made by the Christian Union at Royal Holloway. Before I continue, let it be known that I am not a Christian, nor do I support the views held by the Christian Union in the slightest. I am the president of the Royal Holloway Secular Students group on campus, and despite our differences we have had a positive relationship with the Christian Union during the last 3 years. This relationship has enabled us to have several engaging debates on issues such as religion and the existence of God. It was at one of these debates (“Can we know God?”) last night that I was informed by a member of the Christian Union about the SU’s aforementioned decision.

I am writing to you to express my outrage and utter disbelief over this decision, which I believe was made without proper consideration or rationalisation. Firstly, the email that was sent to cancel these events and offer the refund of the fees paid was undeniably vague, alluding to something “wholly inappropriate” that had apparently caused “controversy” at the lunch event on Tuesday 9th February. I later learned (from an unverified source, so please correct me if this is wrong) that this controversial, inappropriate idea was that God had caused the Asian tsunami as some sort of punishment^[1].

If this is indeed the cause of the controversy, I can completely understand why. Such an idea is not only irrational, but blatantly disrespectful of the people, and families of people lost in that terrible tragedy. You may wonder then, why I am so against your decision. It is because, as a rationalist and sceptic, I cannot abide censorship of any form. All ideas, especially the controversial ones, are valid for discussion. Our entire modern culture, science, and political system is built on radical inappropriate ideas being discussed openly without fear. The strength of the ideology of free speech is that anyone can have an opinion, no-matter how absurd or offensive, because at the end of the day, those on the opposition have the same freedom to refute the absurdities.

It is unbelievable that at a university, a place where the very discussion of ideas forms part of the purpose of the institution, censorship of an idea can take place under the guise of “not being suitable” as you stated in your email. By disallowing the presentation of an idea, the Student’s Union has issued a statement; that it has the control over what students can think, what we can discuss in public, what ideas are “correct” and which are not. If anything is inappropriate here, it is the use of political correctness at an institution where the search for truth, whatever that truth might be, should be held as the highest form of being. I ask you, what is the purpose of our education if we cannot question what we are taught, challenge ideas where we see fit, and discuss the alternative possibilities openly?

I plead you to see reason, and let the Christian Union continue to host talks, preach, and cause controversy. Controversy feeds the mind; it allows us to think about new ideas, to explore them, and to refute them. Causing controversy is a right protected by the freedom of speech; getting offended by such controversy and using that offence to censor ideas, is not. By all means, be offended, shout, scream with a fiery passion, but for the sake of the freedoms which we hold dear, do not stoop to the level of censoring ideas! As I have previously stated, there isn’t much agreement to be had between my society and the Christian Union, yet I respect their right to have the opinions they do, as long as they respect my right to disagree with them. We debate them annually to share our views with those who might not have heard them before, to challenge notions that may be held dear, and to make known our disagreement in an intellectual forum.

I have sent a copy of this email to my friends, to members of the Royal Holloway Secular Students, and to members of the Christian Union. I will give them instructions to forward it to you if they support the freedom of speech and the discussion of ideas as much as I do. I hope this will make you see the irrationality behind your decision. If not, and if the Christian Union are still prohibited from speaking at the end of the week, I am quite prepared to send this letter to the Founder^[2], the NUS^[3], and as many media organisations connected to students as possible. I honestly hope it does not come to that, but if it must, it must.

-Adrian

Our debate last night went extremely well, with both speakers for the atheist / agnostic side presenting clear arguments and defending criticism from the audience. It helps when one of them is a PhD student in evolutionary psychology though.

Bill Maher is a great guy, both with his comedy and with his views on religion. He is a problem for most atheists out there though, because of his views on atheism. Maher always states he is an “agnostic”, and I have no problem with him claiming that. I don’t exactly agree with his definition of that either, but I don’t think it’s going to change anytime soon.

When anything comes up about atheism, Bill Maher reacts in the same way, by claiming that atheists are people who “are certain there is no God”. This portrays atheists in a negative light, because there are very few people who actually would agree with this definition. An atheist is not someone who makes a statement about God’s non-existence, but one who makes a statement about their disbelief/lack of belief/non-belief in God.

The Atheist Jew wrote a great article on this subject, which provoked me into writing my opinions here. The Atheist Jew argues

I have a feeling he is just trying to appeal to the masses by not labeling himself as an atheist. A term that causes many a theist to flinch. By labeling himself as agnostic, he is just trying to be accepted.

It is evident in everything he says beyond avoiding the atheism label, that he is an atheist.

An atheist doesn’t have to say “there is no God, or no afterlife.” Most of us say or thin that “there is no evidence for God or an afterlife, so why even consider something that has no evidence to back it up?”

As an agnostic atheist myself, I’m not against agnosticism at all, and I think Bill Maher is doing a great job making people question the “unquestionable” beliefs of religion. However, he should realise that agnosticism and atheism are not views on the same thing. Following a view of “I don’t know” is fine, but if the question is “Do you believe in God?” and you do not, then you are an atheist.

It is a shame that in a world where information is free and open to everyone, Bill Maher hasn’t read the article on atheism from Wikipedia, or even browsed an online dictionary to find out the general views on such words. On The Atheist Jew’s blog, I made a comment in which I proposed my idea:

Send Bill Maher and open letter from a few atheist bloggers.

The way I see it, there are a load of atheist bloggers who have been publicizing the movie because of it’s stance on religion. We are giving it the thumbs up, and we are doing it for free, because we think it is the right thing to do. However I suspect that quite a few of these bloggers would feel offended for the same reasons I have gone over here, simply because Bill Maher is painting his most loyal supporters with a negative image.

In the letter, I propose we thank Bill Maher for all he has done to expose religion for the ridiculous beliefs it is comprised of, and argue our case, including the standard definitions you find in most dictionaries, perhaps suggest a few articles from Wikipedia and About.com, and ask him to stop putting atheists down.

If this were a fundamentalist preacher saying these things, we would all have a rant about how misunderstood people are on the concept of atheism, but when it is one of our own (a self-hating atheist perhaps?) the issue suddenly disappears. Perhaps people have too much respect for Bill Maher to do anything, but when it is someone who we can guarantee has an open mind (unlike the fundamentalist preacher) I think we should act on it.

What do you all think?

 Loading ...