|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2008 : 08:15:02
|
As many of you know, I'm a member/leader of a Humanist group around Philadelphia www.hagp.org And in discussions and such on SFN I've mentioned other freethoughtish groups in my area - there is Ethical Culture www.phillyethics.net, an Atheist group www.fsgp.org and a Skeptic group (website is down but they are called PhACT, the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking.)
My Humanist group has often tried to get these groups together with us for certain events, with some but not total success. And in those efforts, I just discovered this article which compares the skeptic and atheist groups.
http://www.unconventional-wisdom.com/WAW/PHACT-FSGP.html
I am mostly curious about how people on SFN react to PhACT's cautious approach to religious topics:
In July of 1995 a majority of the Council approved this vacuity: "PhACT is not designed nor intended for the examination of religious belief systems, nor is it the intention of PhACT to demean or insult anyone or their religion. Religious faith is a personal matter and best left for individuals to decide what is appropriate for them. However, whenever an event or object is claimed to have a paranormal origin, whether religious in nature or not, we feel that claim is subject to scientific investigation and methods. Weeping statues, healings, spiritual visitations, creation stories and other physical manifestations of supernatural events should accordingly be analyzed objectively and scientifically."
Of course that statement did not settle the issue. After a few more years of squabbling, in November of 1997 the Council unanimously approved my motion that the "policy" expressed in the paragraph immediately above means exactly this: "[PhACT] does not attack religions, although it may investigate specific religious claims when they are alleged to have a factual basis." Of course that didn't settle the issue either, but at least it clarified it, and allowed me to make the case that this or that religious topic fell within the permissible area. |
And the author's concerns about the atheist group members' lack of critical examination: But at the level of small-group discussion, the members of FSGP are no more rational than those of PhACT, and I would say that, in general, they're a good bit less so. Several of the monthly membership meetings I've attended seem (to this rather recently arrived observer) to have served as nothing but platforms for egocentric windbags to orate, without the slightest concern for the clarification and defense of their beliefs.
Still, as much as I abhor carelessness and inaccuracy of thought, I realize that, unlike PhACT, FSGP is not primarily committed to the rational justification of its positions. Its job is not to persuade its members or others that there are no gods, or that there are no good reasons to believe that there are gods, or that what gods there be are irrelevant to human concerns. Its job is rather to defend the rights of all citizens to be free from the coercive hand of religion in society, and to provide support for other freethinkers. |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 03/20/2008 08:16:29
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 11:35:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I am mostly curious about how people on SFN react to PhACT's cautious approach to religious topics:
In July of 1995 a majority of the Council approved this vacuity: "PhACT is not designed nor intended for the examination of religious belief systems, nor is it the intention of PhACT to demean or insult anyone or their religion. Religious faith is a personal matter and best left for individuals to decide what is appropriate for them. However, whenever an event or object is claimed to have a paranormal origin, whether religious in nature or not, we feel that claim is subject to scientific investigation and methods. Weeping statues, healings, spiritual visitations, creation stories and other physical manifestations of supernatural events should accordingly be analyzed objectively and scientifically."
Of course that statement did not settle the issue. After a few more years of squabbling, in November of 1997 the Council unanimously approved my motion that the "policy" expressed in the paragraph immediately above means exactly this: "[PhACT] does not attack religions, although it may investigate specific religious claims when they are alleged to have a factual basis." Of course that didn't settle the issue either, but at least it clarified it, and allowed me to make the case that this or that religious topic fell within the permissible area. |
|
I think it's appropriately cautious for an investigatory group that wants to have religious people ask them to investigate religious claims.
With their site down, it's tough to learn what their position might be on religious topics which aren't subject to "investigation," as such. For example, the vocal evangelical Christian assault on science education. That certainly isn't a personal matter, but it also isn't an event or object with a claimed paranormal origin. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A Comparison of Philly Atheist and Skeptic Groups
