I suppose I should have posted about this 8 weeks ago when the station went on the air but at least now I have an experience to report.
Cove FM is the brainchild and passion of JD, a friend here, and is a community radio station project.
For the months of July and August, it had "Special Event Licenses", allowing it to broadcast over a low power transmitter - 50 watts. That's all the technical stuff you'll see here 'cos I'd only get it wrong. If you want more, see http://www.covefm.com/ . (Go there anyway, there's pictures and all sorts).
For eight weeks, we've had a truly local radio station here. Mostly music, with sponsorship spots (NOT commercials, that's a no no), information on local events and happenings, weather, interviews with local folks of interest including musicians, vendors and customers at the farmers' market and sundry interesting people and, uniquely in my experience, tide information (thanks Kevin).
Now, many years ago (from 1978 to 1991) I was involved in another radio station - Radio Netherne. It was not really radio at all - no broadcasting involved. It was based in a psychiatric hospital in Surrey, England, and was hardwired to speakers in the day-rooms of the hospital's wards.
For 13 years, I had a Sunday afternoon music show there and enjoyed it immensely most of the time. Apart from the constant scrapping for money to run it (it was a registered charity but try raising money for a psychiatric hospital while competing with those working for sick kids, animals, what have you - it's not easy), the biggest drawback was audience response. We were constantly told that we were, in some never quite explained way, therapeutic, but mostly, all we got were the same handful of requests from the same small group of the "better" patients.
Many will have heard my stories down the years of "Dickie" who kept asking us to play "Fleetwood Mac" by Albert Ross, when what he wanted was "Albatross", by Fleetwood Mac; of Peggy insisting that I play Frankie Laine's "Gunfight At OK Corral" every week for years, until the track on the old vinyl album was visibly worn; of Arthur, who carried around the plastic casing of a miniature transistor radio (no radio, just the casing), holding it up to his ear and repeating "I wish somebody'd mend my radio. When our station engineer DID fix it (by putting a complete new radio in the case), the next week it was just a casing again and the mantra went on.
Maybe all this played into my thoughts as I contemplated my "return" to radio on Cove FM, maybe it didn't, but I certainly didn't expect what actually happened. I was on the air on the first morning of Cove FM - just playing music offered up by the computer system and some CD's by local artists, chatting in between, pressing buttons and sliding sliders that didn't need to pressed or slid while, simultaneously NOT pressing or sliding those that did (this is actually surprisingly easy). There was a party atmosphere, food and drink outside our superb little studio in the mall in "downtown" Hubbards, sundry folks dropping by and all the volunteers meeting up, many for the first time.
There was a great sense of occasion but, even then, I think I thought, "yeah, but really, who's gonna change the car radio? Who's gonna be listening from 9 to 11pm on a Wednesday night, in Hubbards, in Summer?"
Well, they listened. Lots of them - and not just in St. Margaret's Bay. My first scheduled show went out the following Wednesday at 9pm, entitled "Aardvark Archives Presents....A Transport Of Delight".
"Aardvark Archives" is a name I, rather pompously I suppose, gave to my record collection sometime in the late 60s, and it stuck. "A Transport Of Delight" is the title of a song about a London Transport bus and is the opening number in Michael Flanders and Donald Swann's musical review "At The Drop Of A Hat", from about 1960. The show was an assortment of songs about moving around; walking, driving, flying, sailing, orbiting, you name it. It was, as were the 7 shows that followed, a deliberately silly couple of hours. If I can remember them all, I'll list the themes at the end so I'll have somewhere to look when I', in danger of repeating myself.
I bungled and fluffed my way through it, blissfully unaware until the end that the connection to the transmitter had failed about half way through - I talked and played music to myself for an hour, just like at Radio Netherne all those years before.
Even so, at work the next day (remember the liquor store?) I found out people HAD been listening. Some, naturally I suppose, had done so because they knew me but a good few others had been listening anyway and had recognised my voice (I'm one of few in town without an accent!). They were gracious and complimentary. I was encouraged.
I had been listening to the station while driving - mostly to and from work, 5 minutes at a time, 4 times a day, but found myself going out of my way to hear the "manned" shows (much of the output was computer generated, as, I am told, much modern radio is) and getting wrapped up in it.
The presenters are an eclectic bunch. A school age lad with a fascination with (and extensive knowledge of) 60s music, two older gents with a very warm, homey feeling country/bluegrass show, a Celtic Woman and Korn fan, a local rock musician who bantered and jammed with other local musicians in between recorded tracks, a master of outside-broadcast co-ordination who seemlessly linked back and forth between the studio and (variously) the farmers' market, the World Tuna Flat Races and Chester Race Week from which other unflappable volunteers reported, interviewed and quipped.
It was darned good radio.
Being available on the internet, the audience quickly widened. There were, I'm told, listeners in Australia that first morning. I know of friends of mine who listened in Toronto, Vancouver, England (where my show ran from 1 to 3AM!, on a week-night!) and Texas. The positive feedback was relentless, varied, surprising and, most of all welcome (thank you, all).
Then suddenly, due to the vaguaries of the licensing process, last Saturday, at midnight, once again with JD and I at the switch, it all stopped. We have to wait now and apply for a permanent license for a community station - next spring if we're lucky.
As I type, our fabulous little studio (which I just felt I'd got the hang of - the technology's changed a bit since 1991) is being dismantled, the premises vacated. We've had our "last night cast party" and there's now't but a gap . It was evident at the great party we had (thanks again G & J) on Sunday and it's been evident in the conversations I've had with customers the last two days. We all, volunteers and listeners alike, miss our little radio station. We want it back. I want to be on it, yes, but mostly, I want to HEAR it.
I'm not alone. Signatures on our letter of support that goes (I understand) with the license application are still rolling in and the momentum is not lost. I have a few months to boost and organise the music database so that, when we start up again, there'll be less mucking about with CD's and, therefore, less manual logging of content. A big job, but right up my alley and I'm looking forward to getting started.
So, to the other CoveFMers, I say, thanks for the opportunity, the effort, the support, the fun. To the listeners I say, thank you, for listening, for the kind and morale boosting words. To everybody else who reads this - thank you too and "stay tuned", we'll be back.
Aardvark Archives Presents...
A Transport Of Delight - anything and everything to do with getting around.
Let's Sing The Beatles - all and sundry covering Beatles Songs.
Food For Thought - songs about food, eating and (occasionally) drinking.
Music By Numbers - songs with numbers in the titles.
Let's Dance (Or Not) - songs about dancing, dances, wanting to dance (or not), being able to dance (or not) etc.
Career Guidance For Dummies - songs about jobs and working (or not)
Favourite Odds And Ends - the 2 part finale, all my favourite thises and thats.
(There's one I've forgotten - I'll add it when it comes back to me).
UPDATE:
It's now October and it HAS come back to me. It was one of my favourites.
AARDVARK ARCHIVES PRESENTS - Before They Were Famous.
Two hours of music by people who didn't know that, weeks or years after recording, they would be famous. Thanks are due to Mr. Reg Dwight who provided much of the content back in 1969 by singing anonymous covers of the pop hits of the day for cheap party albums.
The interest in still keen in bringing back Cove FM next year. I did a couple hours behind the bar at an "Oktoberfest" fundraising event last weekend and it's clear this place wants its radio station back.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Matthew's Question
So, if you've read the last post, you'll know that this one concerns an internet conversation I had in 2007 with a young man called (here, at least) Matthew. He did not take part in the debates and arguments I referred to, but was obviously following along closely.
The first I knew of him was a private Facebook message he sent me. Here is that message in its entirety, except for some personal info (removed or changed for privacy's sake) and some minor grammatical editing.
From: Matthew Young. August 8th. 2007 at 11:33am.
Hi Dave, I happen to be a Christian and have been following the posts about atheism. I was very impressed by what you have been saying. While I have been studying many religions and beliefs/non-beliefs, I am still in the dark about some things.
Am I reading it right? You are, for sure, an atheist? If so, then I have a question for you. As such, you are claiming that you know everything. To say that there is no God is to say that you know everything there is to know. So, my question is how many grains of sand are there on the beach nearest your home?
My point is that, as far as I know so far, there is no such thing as an atheist because it is impossible for a man to know everything there is to know. It is in those things that we don't know or accept that I believe we find God. Not just a God who sits up in the sky, looking down and judging us but a very real, present and intimate God who cares for the lives of every last person on Earth.
Deep inside, we all have the desire to know God. How else can you explain how and why the very IDEA of God exists? Everyone, at some time, wants to know just where they came from and how all this got started. I'm sure there is still more proof but without God; without a sense of knowing that what you do here on Earth matters eternally, then what's the point of life? Why do we have things that we consider wrong? Without God there can be no absolute truth when, in fact, absolute truth is all around us (2+2+4!). Absolute!
How is a watch made? A man assembles all these little parts. So what does a watch do then? It glorifies its creator by doing what it was created to do. So then, how do we glorify OUR creator? By living in the center of his will for our lives. That will is specific to each and every individual and you can find that will y studying God's Holy Word.
All that is just to say this; I believe that people choose (there we are again, Ed.) not to believe in God because they never get to know God. If you're up for a challenge, then, I want to challenge you to see if God is actually real. Read some Bible. If you like, I'd be happy to suggest some places to start. Just ask God to show himself to you.
I hope I haven't taken up too much of your time or caused you any grief but you seemed like one of the few who actually believed what they were saying as far as atheism is concerned. I appreciate you reading this if you get this far.
END QUOTE.
Much of this was the standard circular reasoning one gets used to on this subject; what boils down to "the Bible must be true because it says so in the Bible" and its close cousins, but there was one point - the futility argument - that I can never let pass and one other that I'd never heard before; the contention that an atheist, by definition it seems, claims knowledge of everything. Where did this come from?
Dyve: August 8th. 2008 at 2:18pm.
Thanks for that Matthew. I DID make it all the way to the end although the point, as far as I'm concerned, is right at the top.
The assumption that if I don't believe in God, I must know (or think I know) everything there is to know is completely unfounded.
There are knowable things, (Where is the beach nearest my home?) THEORETICALLY knowable things (like how many grains of sand are on the beach. That real number exists, it is a large positive integer, but it is not practical to count them and KNOW that number) and there are completely unknowable things (how many grains will there be in March 2012) but this says nothing whatsoever about God or whether or not "he" is a real being or a man-made concept.
Here's how I would use your analogy to express how I think about such things.
I do NOT know everything. Among the literally infinite number of things I do not know is the exact number of grains of sand on the beach. That does not mean I know NOTHING about the sand on the beach, though. I may not know the exact number of grains but I DO know that it's not 27. There are many other numbers I know it's not. This kind of thinking is (I presume) why atheists are often accused of being negative - because of all the things they know are NOT, without necessarily knowing what IS. There is no conflict in this, we all do it all the time. You do not know how much oranges cost in my local supermarket, but you know it's not $5,000 each. God or no God, these "knowables" are the same.
I could, if I cared enough, do some measuring of the beach, measure individual grains of sand, take depth samples and the like and come up with an estimate. It would not be the "right" number but, if I was careful and detailed, I should get the order of magnitude right. I'd be able to say something like "it's in the tens of billions, probably around 40 billion" or whatever. I do not need to do any of that to know the the answer is not 27.
So, by extension, I do not know the entire history of the universe. I cannot speak with any authority on the likelihood that, out there somewhere, there might be beings more knowledgeable than us, more advanced (whatever that might mean to them). Some of these hypothetical beings may have created life somewhere. They may be regarded, with some justification, as gods by the beings they created. But I CAN know (in the way that I KNOW 27 is the wrong answer to the beach question) that they did NOT create heaven and earth in a week, do NOT take an active role in the lives of humans, do not demand that we live a certain way with regards to birth control, Sundays, etc. They do not care who wins the World's Series or Superbowl, have no opinion about pork or head coverings and had nothing whatever to do with writing the Bible, Koran, Torah or anything else we've heard of because THOSE things (like 27 grains making a beach) are not possible.
The foregoing doesn't "prove" that, any more than I have "proved" that there are more than 27 grains on the beach (I haven't even BEEN to the beach today), but it's just as certain.
The "proof" is all around us - on Earth and off it.We can SEE how life developed, how stars were (and still are) formed, how the Earth came to be and even how gods were created. There are mysteries in the detail. Every time we learn something, new questions are raised. That's life in a huge universe. We don't know everything and we never will. That doesn't mean (or even suggest) that God does. I don't even see how you make that connection.
As for needing God to give us purpose, I read your reasoning as "I cannot believe that life has no ultimate purpose, that would be unbearable, so God must know what the purpose is". See the problem? Why are we so arrogant as to assume that, because we WANT a purpose, there must BE one? We have limited purposes made from our own intellects which are, in turn, the product of our long evolutionary history but ULTIMATE purpose is a nonce concept. Such a thing just cannot be. If we think God provides it, we are intellectually obliged to go on to ask what the purpose of God is? US? Surely not? If that's the answer, it's circular logic again, leads nowhere; certainly nothing "ultimate" about it. His own glorification? Seems a little shallow doesn't it? No, get used to the idea, no matter how unpalatable it may seem at first glance, ultimately, if you stretch the mind and the concept far enough, there is NO ultimate purpose. Wishing that there was does not make God spring spontaneously into existence, and it would not help if he did.
I've read some Bible, as you put it. Sorry, lots of history (and very bloody and "unchristian" much of it is too if I may say so - though that's not my point), a lot of fable, a lot of blatant historic and scientific inaccuracy, a lot of superstition, a few bits of wonderful mistranslation and some downright fabrications. In short, just what we would expect from a huge assortment of ancients from different cultures and centuries with different backgrounds, beliefs, agendas, perspectives and loyalties but NOT what we would expect from an omniscient creator. That's it, that's all, and YES there are atheists and I AM one. If I haven't convinced you of that, I don't know how to and I would have to refer you to an expert - Richard Dawkins would be my choice - try "The God Delusion".
Thanks for your interest, I hope at least some of this makes sense.
END QUOTE
Well, that's quite long - hope you're still with me. There's more. Matthew's reply next time. Stay tuned.
The first I knew of him was a private Facebook message he sent me. Here is that message in its entirety, except for some personal info (removed or changed for privacy's sake) and some minor grammatical editing.
From: Matthew Young. August 8th. 2007 at 11:33am.
Hi Dave, I happen to be a Christian and have been following the posts about atheism. I was very impressed by what you have been saying. While I have been studying many religions and beliefs/non-beliefs, I am still in the dark about some things.
Am I reading it right? You are, for sure, an atheist? If so, then I have a question for you. As such, you are claiming that you know everything. To say that there is no God is to say that you know everything there is to know. So, my question is how many grains of sand are there on the beach nearest your home?
My point is that, as far as I know so far, there is no such thing as an atheist because it is impossible for a man to know everything there is to know. It is in those things that we don't know or accept that I believe we find God. Not just a God who sits up in the sky, looking down and judging us but a very real, present and intimate God who cares for the lives of every last person on Earth.
Deep inside, we all have the desire to know God. How else can you explain how and why the very IDEA of God exists? Everyone, at some time, wants to know just where they came from and how all this got started. I'm sure there is still more proof but without God; without a sense of knowing that what you do here on Earth matters eternally, then what's the point of life? Why do we have things that we consider wrong? Without God there can be no absolute truth when, in fact, absolute truth is all around us (2+2+4!). Absolute!
How is a watch made? A man assembles all these little parts. So what does a watch do then? It glorifies its creator by doing what it was created to do. So then, how do we glorify OUR creator? By living in the center of his will for our lives. That will is specific to each and every individual and you can find that will y studying God's Holy Word.
All that is just to say this; I believe that people choose (there we are again, Ed.) not to believe in God because they never get to know God. If you're up for a challenge, then, I want to challenge you to see if God is actually real. Read some Bible. If you like, I'd be happy to suggest some places to start. Just ask God to show himself to you.
I hope I haven't taken up too much of your time or caused you any grief but you seemed like one of the few who actually believed what they were saying as far as atheism is concerned. I appreciate you reading this if you get this far.
END QUOTE.
Much of this was the standard circular reasoning one gets used to on this subject; what boils down to "the Bible must be true because it says so in the Bible" and its close cousins, but there was one point - the futility argument - that I can never let pass and one other that I'd never heard before; the contention that an atheist, by definition it seems, claims knowledge of everything. Where did this come from?
Dyve: August 8th. 2008 at 2:18pm.
Thanks for that Matthew. I DID make it all the way to the end although the point, as far as I'm concerned, is right at the top.
The assumption that if I don't believe in God, I must know (or think I know) everything there is to know is completely unfounded.
There are knowable things, (Where is the beach nearest my home?) THEORETICALLY knowable things (like how many grains of sand are on the beach. That real number exists, it is a large positive integer, but it is not practical to count them and KNOW that number) and there are completely unknowable things (how many grains will there be in March 2012) but this says nothing whatsoever about God or whether or not "he" is a real being or a man-made concept.
Here's how I would use your analogy to express how I think about such things.
I do NOT know everything. Among the literally infinite number of things I do not know is the exact number of grains of sand on the beach. That does not mean I know NOTHING about the sand on the beach, though. I may not know the exact number of grains but I DO know that it's not 27. There are many other numbers I know it's not. This kind of thinking is (I presume) why atheists are often accused of being negative - because of all the things they know are NOT, without necessarily knowing what IS. There is no conflict in this, we all do it all the time. You do not know how much oranges cost in my local supermarket, but you know it's not $5,000 each. God or no God, these "knowables" are the same.
I could, if I cared enough, do some measuring of the beach, measure individual grains of sand, take depth samples and the like and come up with an estimate. It would not be the "right" number but, if I was careful and detailed, I should get the order of magnitude right. I'd be able to say something like "it's in the tens of billions, probably around 40 billion" or whatever. I do not need to do any of that to know the the answer is not 27.
So, by extension, I do not know the entire history of the universe. I cannot speak with any authority on the likelihood that, out there somewhere, there might be beings more knowledgeable than us, more advanced (whatever that might mean to them). Some of these hypothetical beings may have created life somewhere. They may be regarded, with some justification, as gods by the beings they created. But I CAN know (in the way that I KNOW 27 is the wrong answer to the beach question) that they did NOT create heaven and earth in a week, do NOT take an active role in the lives of humans, do not demand that we live a certain way with regards to birth control, Sundays, etc. They do not care who wins the World's Series or Superbowl, have no opinion about pork or head coverings and had nothing whatever to do with writing the Bible, Koran, Torah or anything else we've heard of because THOSE things (like 27 grains making a beach) are not possible.
The foregoing doesn't "prove" that, any more than I have "proved" that there are more than 27 grains on the beach (I haven't even BEEN to the beach today), but it's just as certain.
The "proof" is all around us - on Earth and off it.We can SEE how life developed, how stars were (and still are) formed, how the Earth came to be and even how gods were created. There are mysteries in the detail. Every time we learn something, new questions are raised. That's life in a huge universe. We don't know everything and we never will. That doesn't mean (or even suggest) that God does. I don't even see how you make that connection.
As for needing God to give us purpose, I read your reasoning as "I cannot believe that life has no ultimate purpose, that would be unbearable, so God must know what the purpose is". See the problem? Why are we so arrogant as to assume that, because we WANT a purpose, there must BE one? We have limited purposes made from our own intellects which are, in turn, the product of our long evolutionary history but ULTIMATE purpose is a nonce concept. Such a thing just cannot be. If we think God provides it, we are intellectually obliged to go on to ask what the purpose of God is? US? Surely not? If that's the answer, it's circular logic again, leads nowhere; certainly nothing "ultimate" about it. His own glorification? Seems a little shallow doesn't it? No, get used to the idea, no matter how unpalatable it may seem at first glance, ultimately, if you stretch the mind and the concept far enough, there is NO ultimate purpose. Wishing that there was does not make God spring spontaneously into existence, and it would not help if he did.
I've read some Bible, as you put it. Sorry, lots of history (and very bloody and "unchristian" much of it is too if I may say so - though that's not my point), a lot of fable, a lot of blatant historic and scientific inaccuracy, a lot of superstition, a few bits of wonderful mistranslation and some downright fabrications. In short, just what we would expect from a huge assortment of ancients from different cultures and centuries with different backgrounds, beliefs, agendas, perspectives and loyalties but NOT what we would expect from an omniscient creator. That's it, that's all, and YES there are atheists and I AM one. If I haven't convinced you of that, I don't know how to and I would have to refer you to an expert - Richard Dawkins would be my choice - try "The God Delusion".
Thanks for your interest, I hope at least some of this makes sense.
END QUOTE
Well, that's quite long - hope you're still with me. There's more. Matthew's reply next time. Stay tuned.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Matthew's Question - The preamble.
As I start to type this, it's been germinating for a long time - at least three years - but a few recent events, minor of themselves, have given me the drive to try and write it. It comes in two parts, just for convenience; this preamble or prologue, then "Matthew's Question".
Way back when Facebook was but a pup and I had just signed up, I got involved in a "questions" board (I can't find it anymore, but it's probably there somewhere) where people could post any question they liked and others who thought they knew the answer could post it. Discussions ensued, debates, outright rows sometimes. It was interesting.
The first time I "played" was when someone asked "What is an atheist?".
I toyed with various tired, flippant answers like "Someone who believes in one less god than you do" but, before I had decided just how to reply, others had beaten me to it.
My first surprise was that whenever anyone gave a "straight" answer (like "it's someone who doesn't believe in God"), an argument broke out as to whether such a thing was possible. The theists in the mix argued along the lines that one could not "not believe" in the ultimate creator - it just was not an option, there's no box for that. What had happened, they claimed, was that the self-proclaimed atheists had (and this IS a quote from one, there were other ways expressing the same idea) "chosen to deny God". One theist answering even defined an atheist as one who "claims" not to believe in God.
This made my jaw drop. I weighed into the discussion and learned something interesting. Bear in mind, please, that many (though not all) of the most vocal theists in this forum were, by now, some stripe of Southern US fundamentalists. The something that I learned was this:-
"These people believe that one can choose what to believe."
Conversely, all the atheists on the board, me included, just accepted that belief is not a choice. They didn't even raise the issue - it just WAS that way. It's actually, I would say, a "linguistic fact"; that is, it's what the word MEANS. "Choosing to believe" is a nonce concept, by definition.
I was familiar, from previous reading, with "Pascal's Wager"; a philosophical argument that says it's a "good idea" to believe in God because you have nothing to lose by being wrong and everything to gain by being right. I had never taken this "reasoning" seriously - and hadn't really thought anyone else did (I gather even Pascal had his tongue firmly in his cheek) - for two reasons.
Firstly, and less relevantly here, surely, any deity worth praying to would KNOW if we were only "believing" so as to hedge our bets and wouldn't grant the benefits we were looking for (or our "Get Out Of Hell Free" card). Secondly, and more pertinently, the idea of a god - any god - either makes sense to an individual or it doesn't. Whether through indoctrination, cultural background, divine revelation or pure thought and reasoning, each of us, surely, believes what we do because, on some level, it makes sense to us, not because we somehow CHOOSE to?
Is Santa Claus real because a child believes he is? In some fiction maybe, but surely not in the real world?
Then another logical penny dropped in my head. What do they mean by "believe IN"?
I "believe IN" free education, no-pay health care, etc. But that means I SUPPORT these things, I think they are right and necessary. It has nothing to do with their existence or otherwise.
That's not what someone is saying when they say they "believe in" some deity, though, is it? They're not just saying "I think God is a good thing" are they?. It had never really bothered me before because the simple fact is that, whatever they mean, I think they're wrong. In just the same way that it doesn't matter to me which god, which religion, which denomination is under discussion. They are all, fundamentally (pun intended) and (almost) equally, wrong.
Now, it is not my purpose here to go into all the reasons why I "believe" what I do. I will do that on request but suffice it to say, for now, in case it's not already obvious, that I am an atheist. That word itself is problematic.
It comes firmly from the other camp. Completing a form that asks my religion, I can easily put "none", since this is, while perhaps unhelpful, undoubtedly true. But "atheist" does not work. A friend recently put this quote on his Facebook page - I don't know where he got it, but I've stolen, and paraphrased it:-
"Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby"
Perfect! I wish I'd thought of it. Thinking about it again, it has Douglas Adams's feel to it, perhaps it's his.
So, I am only an atheist in the context of a discussion on the existence or otherwise of deities. I am no more an atheist the rest of the time than a non-stamp collector is an "aphilatelist" while he's washing his car - though, were he to attend a stamp auction, he might well describe himself that way. This is, incidentally, the beginning of my standard response to comments like "But that's so negative", or "Then what DO you believe in?". I only "have" to be an atheist because "you" are superstitious, t'ain't negative, just real.
See where I'm going with this? LANGUAGE. The languages of the world have all evolved (yes, they did! Just like us) in an environment dominated by religious thinking. It is only necessary for the word "atheist" to exist because subscribing to ancient organized superstitions is still considered normal - it's even still expected, even demanded in many places.
Way back when Facebook was but a pup and I had just signed up, I got involved in a "questions" board (I can't find it anymore, but it's probably there somewhere) where people could post any question they liked and others who thought they knew the answer could post it. Discussions ensued, debates, outright rows sometimes. It was interesting.
The first time I "played" was when someone asked "What is an atheist?".
I toyed with various tired, flippant answers like "Someone who believes in one less god than you do" but, before I had decided just how to reply, others had beaten me to it.
My first surprise was that whenever anyone gave a "straight" answer (like "it's someone who doesn't believe in God"), an argument broke out as to whether such a thing was possible. The theists in the mix argued along the lines that one could not "not believe" in the ultimate creator - it just was not an option, there's no box for that. What had happened, they claimed, was that the self-proclaimed atheists had (and this IS a quote from one, there were other ways expressing the same idea) "chosen to deny God". One theist answering even defined an atheist as one who "claims" not to believe in God.
This made my jaw drop. I weighed into the discussion and learned something interesting. Bear in mind, please, that many (though not all) of the most vocal theists in this forum were, by now, some stripe of Southern US fundamentalists. The something that I learned was this:-
"These people believe that one can choose what to believe."
Conversely, all the atheists on the board, me included, just accepted that belief is not a choice. They didn't even raise the issue - it just WAS that way. It's actually, I would say, a "linguistic fact"; that is, it's what the word MEANS. "Choosing to believe" is a nonce concept, by definition.
I was familiar, from previous reading, with "Pascal's Wager"; a philosophical argument that says it's a "good idea" to believe in God because you have nothing to lose by being wrong and everything to gain by being right. I had never taken this "reasoning" seriously - and hadn't really thought anyone else did (I gather even Pascal had his tongue firmly in his cheek) - for two reasons.
Firstly, and less relevantly here, surely, any deity worth praying to would KNOW if we were only "believing" so as to hedge our bets and wouldn't grant the benefits we were looking for (or our "Get Out Of Hell Free" card). Secondly, and more pertinently, the idea of a god - any god - either makes sense to an individual or it doesn't. Whether through indoctrination, cultural background, divine revelation or pure thought and reasoning, each of us, surely, believes what we do because, on some level, it makes sense to us, not because we somehow CHOOSE to?
Is Santa Claus real because a child believes he is? In some fiction maybe, but surely not in the real world?
Then another logical penny dropped in my head. What do they mean by "believe IN"?
I "believe IN" free education, no-pay health care, etc. But that means I SUPPORT these things, I think they are right and necessary. It has nothing to do with their existence or otherwise.
That's not what someone is saying when they say they "believe in" some deity, though, is it? They're not just saying "I think God is a good thing" are they?. It had never really bothered me before because the simple fact is that, whatever they mean, I think they're wrong. In just the same way that it doesn't matter to me which god, which religion, which denomination is under discussion. They are all, fundamentally (pun intended) and (almost) equally, wrong.
Now, it is not my purpose here to go into all the reasons why I "believe" what I do. I will do that on request but suffice it to say, for now, in case it's not already obvious, that I am an atheist. That word itself is problematic.
It comes firmly from the other camp. Completing a form that asks my religion, I can easily put "none", since this is, while perhaps unhelpful, undoubtedly true. But "atheist" does not work. A friend recently put this quote on his Facebook page - I don't know where he got it, but I've stolen, and paraphrased it:-
"Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby"
Perfect! I wish I'd thought of it. Thinking about it again, it has Douglas Adams's feel to it, perhaps it's his.
So, I am only an atheist in the context of a discussion on the existence or otherwise of deities. I am no more an atheist the rest of the time than a non-stamp collector is an "aphilatelist" while he's washing his car - though, were he to attend a stamp auction, he might well describe himself that way. This is, incidentally, the beginning of my standard response to comments like "But that's so negative", or "Then what DO you believe in?". I only "have" to be an atheist because "you" are superstitious, t'ain't negative, just real.
See where I'm going with this? LANGUAGE. The languages of the world have all evolved (yes, they did! Just like us) in an environment dominated by religious thinking. It is only necessary for the word "atheist" to exist because subscribing to ancient organized superstitions is still considered normal - it's even still expected, even demanded in many places.
So before any discourse can lead to real understanding between these two camps, we have to get very picky about words and what we mean by them.
About 25 years ago, for about 6 weeks, I had a "pet Jehovah's Witness". He came to my door one Saturday morning and when, some three hours later, he left, he promised to come back the next week to continue our conversation because, he said, I was a seeker after truth. He came, week after week, until I told him that one reason I talked to him was that while he was with me, he was not finding more gullible people. He vanished. I enjoyed the mental exercise but only now do I realise how far apart we actually were. When he says "truth", he doesn't mean the same thing as me. I was looking (seeking, if you insist) for insight into the human mind, the social issues surrounding "belief", the rights and wrongs of indoctrination, and so on. He thinks he can open a book and long dead writers will save him from having to think at all. (That's unfair, I know, and deliberately provocative, but I think my point is made).
During the Facebook discussion I was referring to earlier, a young man (I'm calling him Matthew) sent me a private message. Our subsequent discussion was fascinating, enlightening and, in the end, to me anyway, quite sad. I plan to quote from that discussion at length in the next update (which I will start right after I post this one). For reasons that will become clear, I cannot ask Matthew's permission to do this. He may be watching. If so, he will recognise himself and hopefully tell me if he objects. I'm sure he won't/wouldn't and I will not reveal any personal details, but I want to give him what chance I can to comment.
That'll do for this chapter. Next: Matthew's question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
