Free thinkers speak out: We need no dogma

By Jessica Ice

Published: Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, May 6, 2009

The spring semester has brought much controversy about the free thought group, Individuals for Freethought, here at K-State. While healthy debate is something a democracy should value, claims that are not true should be refuted in order to maintain fair discussion.

As a non-theist, and president of Individuals for Freethought, I have seen my fair share of untrue claims about what non-theists believe and don't believe. For example, the idea that non-theists do not believe in anything or that we have no reason to have morals is simply unfounded. History has too many times regarded non-theists as immoral, infidels or heretics that should not have the same rights as those who believe in the popular religion at a certain time and place.

Individuals for Freethought was recently accused of relying on dogma to restrain group members into believing that one should come to conclusions by using logic and reason. This is a fallacy. To say that the rejection of dogma is itself a dogma stretches the word to meaninglessness.

Dogma is an established system of beliefs that are not to be disputed, in which dissent is discouraged. It is an authoritative top-down way of thinking that does not allow for logical revision and rational discussion. In fact, to refute dogmatic beliefs is to take away their power over the individual and come to conclusions about the universe that must necessarily change with new discoveries. At one time, dogma allowed people to actually believe that enslaving fellow humans was acceptable. Thanks to those who questioned this dogmatic belief, our society has abolished slavery. No matter the religion these people had, they rejected dogma and "thought it through," using reason and logic.

We are now at a time in this country when those who have been discriminated against because they do not adhere to religious dogmas are making their presence known. Many studies have shown that people with no religious affiliation are on the rise in the U.S, constituting a 15 percent of the population. If we are to have a good democratic system, then others who might disagree with our lack of religious belief should listen to what we have to say when we organize and ask for understanding.

Many religions claim to have the ultimate "truth", thereby regarding other beliefs as false. Non-theists who are agnostic about certain questions will not claim to have an ultimate truth. We request that this religious dogma be kept out of our government and out of our personal lives.

The First Amendment explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

To say the premise of a freethinking group is "hopelessly illogical" is to undermine its importance in a democratic state, especially on a campus that has more than 30 religious groups. Individuals for Freethought is the only organized voice for non-theists on the K-State campus. I think students should value diversity and acceptance of new ideas that question dogma, and do not harm others. We should not have to live in fear of losing our free speech as we saw with the desecration of our chalking.

It is easy to dislike people one doesn't associate with. But once that ignorance is shed and something new is learned, people tend to open their minds to different ways of understanding and rethink their prejudices. In order to truly understand what Individuals for Freethought is as a group of students and friends, one cannot simply look at their Web site and come to their own conclusions. It requires observation, participation, and discussion with the group itself.

To truly be critical of what we are told, we must actually confront it, without fear of losing any dogmas or faith. After all, nothing is worth believing if it cannot be questioned.

Jessica Ice is a senior in anthropology and a guest columnist. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

Chris Pietraszko

Tue Jun 23 2009 21:29

Mark,

the last thing I'd add to your comment is that, we do not claim to use finite reason to prove an infinite being. We do believe that all of creation is "effects" of the Prime-mover. But, as Aristotle's logic would admit, going from effect to cause is a form of induction which is fallible (i.e. faith is still required). That is because there is a possibility that something else - which we do not know could have caused the universe. This argument is called reductio ad absurdum. Basically you posit the posibilities and whatever is left is the most plausible.

A) The universe created itself
- Impossible because it admits of a contradiction (the universe could not create itself unless it already existed in order to create it)

B) The universe is an infinite collection of finite motion
- This again is a contradiction, because in-finite means non-finite. To say that there is a non-finite (non-numerical) amount of finite is to posit an absurdity. Unless you are speaking of "potentially infinite" which is different from real infinity.

C) Something non-finite created the universe
- This cannot be disproved

D) some other option we do not know
- This cannot be disproved

Chris Pietraszko

Tue Jun 23 2009 20:39

Falcon,

You uphold a tradition called feidism and rationalism. Catholicism does not accept this. This is where you see faith and reason as two mutually exclusive realities. Since Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, we have rejected this notion. We believe God gave us a brain and he expects us to use it. Though our brain would admit that it has limitations. So the fact that you see it as two contradictory subjects is likely from the extrapolation you have gathered from fundamentalists who hold that reason is not necessary in faith in God. So even if you still disagree, you have to admit that Catholics don't hold that position even though in your mind they are incorrect. The burden then falls upon you to prove that faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

Chris Pietraszko

Tue Jun 23 2009 20:34

Just in reference to the philosophy of Ontology (being). To say that God is Being itself, is not to say that God is the sum of finite being. You are right is suggesting how absurd that is, and how contrary it is to Catholic or Christian belief. Look into Aristotle and it might make more sense. Being in general, does not refer to anything finite, it refers to the ground of the finite. So the ground of all being or the cause of all being, is the same as Being itself. Being or "substance" is that which is underneath. Sub = under, stance (stands). So God "stands under" being, not in a local or finite fashion, that would be a contradiction in terms.

I realize this is a challenging philosophy to get, but I'm willing to answer more questions. my e-mail is johnpaul2chris@hotmail.com

Thanks for challenging the arguments, I appreciate a good intellectual conversation.

Peace

Mark C.

Mon May 18 2009 11:36

Chris P.,

It seems I need to give the first statement of yours that I quoted a different treatment.

"You are looking for emperical evidence of that which is the ground of all being, philosophically this is called a categorical over-extension."

I just went and did a search and, apparently, the "ground of all being" claim is considered reasonable when God is not thought of as a being, but rather "being itself" or simply as a necessary entity. I have not been able to make sense of this no matter how I look at it. The Christian god is not just some blank deistic entity, nor is it the "God" of pantheism, but it is an entity that is said to have done some very specific things and behaved and spoken in very specific ways, while being completely distinct from the world we inhabit. Furthermore, even if I were to accept it as the necessary entity, it does not follow from that that this god is the one of Christianity. This all suggests to me that the description of God as the ground of all being can lead one nowhere if one is trying to argue in favor of a specific system.

It's also an untestable assumption. According to the "ground of all being" line of thought, everything is evidence of God's existence. This is very unreasonable, for the simple fact that, granting this entity a historical record (e.g. biblical events), the mere fact that everything is evidence for its existence turns out to be insufficient as evidence for all the claims that are made of God. But it's rather hard to acquire sufficient evidence once every existing thing and event (sans God) is accounted for.

Mark C.

Mon May 18 2009 10:56

Chris P.,

"You are looking for emperical evidence of that which is the ground of all being, philosophically this is called a categorical over-extension. [...] What I am saying is true for all people who are ignorant of an actual area of study. If you do not know about X you should not make a statement about X."

If your specific deity provides no empirical evidence for its existence, it's hard to see how there could be a legitimate area of study devoted to it; it's not as if the existence of a very specific deity is a reasonable a priori assumption, after all, especially given that theistic arguments for the existence of a generalized, minimally deistic, deity have a track record of failure. There is even evidence of this failure in your post, when you mention that a being is the ground of all being. That, sir, is a contradiction, just as the wheel you mention can not exist prior to its creation.

"If you do not know about X, you should not make a statement about X."

Precisely, but it seems to be working against you here.

Falcon

Sat May 16 2009 04:51

Hello all. I find the juxtaposition of C.P.'s credentials somewhat amusing. Divinity is nothing more than the hard core examination of man's superstitions and philosophy is the way to rationalize it all. Great work! Keep it up, I can use a good laugh from time to time.

Pax ;)

Chris Pietraszko

Tue May 12 2009 10:43

As for an anthropology of Religion, that isn't sufficent in summarizing the views of religion. Studying Religion itself, on the other hand is a totally different concern. For instance, have you studied the hellenization of the Christian faith in a systematic way? Have you even looked at the Summa Theologica that systematically expresses much of what we believe today? Or have you simply allowed others to summarize the "effects" of religion rather than the actual atmosphere and internal or spiritual reality? Have you simply only listened to those voices that denounce it. All of these questions are simply to aid you and your free-thought. B/c if you only listen to your own assumptions by extension of "anthropology" then you are far from being free, but rather totally enslaved by your own prejudices.

Lastly one other person commented on my statement about grace. An unsubstantiated proposal would be as possible as the suggestion of a "wheel" prior to its creation. It is our imagination that allows us to transend and advance beyond what we currently know. That leaves you open-minded to the possibility without the conviction that it is even real. The rest is grace or the action of God. If you do not believe, perhaps it is because either God has not yet given you a reason to (i.e. grace of faith) or you have put up a wall of closed-mindedness. I respect the former.

Christopher Pietraszko

Tue May 12 2009 10:36

Just a response to a couple of statements about what I wrote.

Lisa,

You are looking for emperical evidence of that which is the ground of all being, philosophically this is called a categorical over-extension. So yes, you are technically being "hyper-critical." But that isn't a major concern of mine. When I said you should remail silent, it was very fundamentalistic of you to narrow out those two words from the context of my sentence. What I am saying is true for all people who are ignorant of an actual area of study. If you do not know about X you should not make a statement about X. That is only to promote an intelligent form of skepticism.

Lastly, the other response suggested I was saying people are stupid. The oddity about this is how defensive this person must be, to not understand the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance means you do not know, stupidity means you do not have the full capacity to know. In other words, you do not have an education in these matters that you are discussing yet you speak like a sophist. So no, I do not think you are "stupid" I think you are ignorant. If you take offense at this, I'm not sure why, because you are simply not all-knowing.

Jon Tveite

Thu May 7 2009 15:19

Nice article, Jessica.

Individuals for Freethought, as a group, has never tried to tell people what to think, only to provide a forum for people to think for themselves. The group has always included people with a wide range of views. Unfortunately, that can, in itself, be threatening to people who believe the power responsible for the existence of the universe is their special friend who whispers The Ultimate Truth only into the ears of those who agree with them.

Interesting that someone would associate free thought with diversity on campus. Indeed, there are some similarities. Promoting diversity is not a dogma, however, any more than free thought is.

Both are built on the assumption that it's better for us to question our own assumptions rather than impose them on other people. It's not "indoctrination" to point out that cultural stereotypes are a form of ignorance we are better off without.

Thierry Gruenberg

Thu May 7 2009 14:22

"Top down refers to faith, and that is a grace given to people, an experience, if you will. If you have not had the experience remain skeptical and silent."

If someone is willing to accept that one unsubstantiated claim is true, then you have to be willing to entertain the possibility of any unsubstantiated claim, otherwise you're forced to acknowledge the absurdity of your own beliefs. I'm a reasonable person, and would be willing to change my position on a lot of things if I was given a reason to. To say that your ability to believe something is in and of itself evidence that it exists is completely illogical. To say that if you don't share that belief you should remain silent is just comical, however, not quite as comical as someone who is studying for a M. A. Divinity.

Your name

Thu May 7 2009 09:03

sorry for posting my comment so often... something went wrong :)

Your name

Thu May 7 2009 09:01

sorry for posting my comment so often... something went wrong :)

Richard Sonnega

Thu May 7 2009 09:00

The Hypothesis "there is a god" can not be supported by empirical evidence, nor can it be falsified. Which places it outside the scope of science and renders it logically meaningless. When we use the law of parsimony however (occam's razor) which states that the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation, we can state the falsifiable hypothesis "there is no god". Up to now this hypothesis hasn't been disproven so there is no logical reason to believe the opposite. Note that I'm not saying that it's 100% true because that would also be an unscientific claim. Making a leap of faith to believe that there is a god is unreasonable and naming philosophers who have does not support your claim. It just shows succeptibillity to authoritarian arguements.
But the point I believe jessica is trying to make in this article is not whether there is or is no god, but rather that people who do believe in god claim moral suppriority through their dogmatic reasoning. According to christian dogma non-believers go to hell and can have no morality. Believe what you want to believe, but do not try to impose your holy unquestionable moral law's on people who haven't had your religious "experience". Do not tell me to stay silent.

Richard Sonnega
Master's student neuropsychology
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Richard Sonnega

Thu May 7 2009 08:52

Richard Sonnega
Master's student neuropsychology
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Your name

Thu May 7 2009 08:51

Richard Sonnega
Master's student neuropsychology
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Your name

Thu May 7 2009 08:50

Richard Sonnega
Master's student neuropsychology
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Jessica

Wed May 6 2009 21:46

" She has likely never studied a religion beyond her own personal assumptions, such is prejudice and egotistical"

Actually, I am an anthropology student doing ethnography and research on religion right now. You shouldn't make assumptions. And just because science hasn't disproven a "Being responsible for the universe" doesn't say anything. Science can't disprove any of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout history, or fairies either.

Did I read this correctly? Did this Chris gentleman tell us we should "remain silent" and refer to our view of the world as "pop culture"? As insight is within the individual, one cannot attest to its existence or lack there-of beyond ones self. Or am I just being hyper-critical?

Ryan Allen

Wed May 6 2009 17:23

I knew it wouldn't be long before someone entered and told us how wrong and stupid we all are. Enter "Chris Pietraszko"

Add comment

I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.