There are some misconception about me and the Philippine base secular humanism. I think this letter from M_Y and a member of CFI Philippines has already taken my point.
----------------------------------------
I think there is a disconnect here. While it is true that CFI aims to promote and defend humanism, it is different from the current Philippine chapter. If you remember the first exchange in this forum about the foundation of the CFI-P, Lipana was warned about not deviating from the ideals of CFI. However, Lipana said:
“Norm and Paul Kurtz has given me the authority to take CFI in whichever direction I see best.”
Given that he has authority to take CFI-P’s direction to wherever he deems best and given his record of bigotry, intolerance, un-intelligent anti-religious polemic, one cannot be blamed for thinking that CFI-P, the organization Lipana represents, is a hate-based group.
While I agree that CFI promotes humanism, CFI-P is another story.
>>Your first case in point as a criticism is valid but not as an argument. Strong words by anyone doesn't mean evil intention, right? Richard Dawkins, the fiercest among Four Horsemen of New Atheism is a perfect example. His spirited debate with Francis Collins in TIME magazine was not an instructive way on how to deal with proper response in terms of mode of expression. Dawkins is way off and abrasive, he address fundamentalists as "CLOWNS" and several times accused Collins of presenting "COP OUTS". GOD DELUSION itself as a title of his book is straightforward / in-your-face description of faith. Christopher Hitchens also with his ultra-sarcasm remarks is another exhibition of this "un-humanistic" attitude towards religion. Do we crucify them and call them bigots or look up to them and call them brave? I think the key word here is being militant or perhaps over militant, in which Josh is guilty as charged, but then again so is Richard Dawkins. (Caveat: I know Dawkins and Lipana is hardly comparable)
It would be difficult to gauge the “true intention” of the speaker. If it were only possible to break open the speaker’s head and see the intention as an object, then perhaps this will not be so much of an issue. But not being the case, we can only discern intent from the speaker’s words and actions.
Yes, I would object to some of Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ (militant) words. I would even tag some of their words as an expression of their bigotry. When one is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, then yes… he or she is a qualified bigot. Dawkins and Hitchens fall under that category, if we go by the words they say. Lipana and Suzara are the same. The difference is… Dawkins and Hitchens are smart. ^_^
>>But to say CFI-P is bigot is careless overstatement.
I don’t believe I suggested that CFI-P is bigoted (If I did, that is not what I meant). I suggested that Lipana and Suzara are bigots but not the organization. We can probably argue that the CFI-P is an organization founded by bigoted characters like Lipana and Suzara or perhaps even argue that CFI-P is a hate-based organization, based on the words of its representatives, but to state that the organization itself is bigoted is not accurate.
>>The proper perspective in treating a believer or a religionists is compassion and respect for who they are and where they are at this stage of their intellectual development. The likes of Paul Kurtz and Sam Harris are good paragons of this type. But I will argue that considerate militancy and criticism of religion are necessary part and parcel of freethought philosophy. In a world where organized religions does not comfort themselves in their private horizon then we should publicize our opposition as well.
To suggest that religionists are inferior when it comes to their stage of intellectual development, I think, is arrogance. I have no problems with expressing opposition to views different from mine. However, to call for a revolt in the name of vengeance and self-righteousness for power, is another story. We can criticize religion, sure, but to act as “Crusaders” or “Inquisitors” of “freethought”, I don’t believe, is justified.
>>For the second criticism: Center For Inquiry is a global federation of concerned individuals guided by the philosophy of Secular Humanism. If CFI is relevant in the USA , then there's no reason to suppose that CFI-P is not relevant in the Philippines .
Like I said, I have no problems with the relevance of CFI. But CFI is different from CFI-Philippines, based on the mandates and words given by your authoritarian leader in the person of Lipana. I may agree with you in your take of CFI-P if the organization, through its representatives, show that it does live by CFI’s principles. But so far, with the current leadership of CFI-P, your words of assurance is hardly convincing.
>> Major issues like Reproductive Health Bill and Separation of Church/Mosque and the State and general fanaticism of Filipinos can be better address here if we have a practical network of coalition from pinoy atheists like you in the form CFI-P as an international commitment to freethought.
Sure, I have no problem with those (support for RHB and Separation of Church and State). But having a practical network of coalition leading to intolerance and bashing of religion (Christianity, in particular) is something I do not wish to have anything to do with. Like I said, bigotry… however secular (or atheistic) it may sound, is still bigotry.
>>Also, I will argue that CFI-P as a movement of reason is much needed in our country than any atheistic blog or web group combine. Its hightime now to "preach the gospel of freethought" in a wider audience of Filipinos. Forming an organization with a humane cause is NEVER a matter of being self-important, its taking responsibility or practical action and dedication to the pursuit of truth.
What truth are we talking about here? Are we to suggest that the non-theistic quest is the ONLY way to pursue Truth? Besides, how can we even consider CFI-P as a movement of reason if its leader, who is authorized to steer the direction of the organization to where he deems best, has a one track mind?
Now, I am with you when it comes to the promotion of freethought to the Filipino people. But this can be achieved even without organizations like Lipana’s CFI-P.
>>For the third criticism: Believers and religionists are not our enemies. It is the nature of faith itself in believing in something which has no sufficient evidence and does not recourse on reason. Instead we should treat them as a victim of mundane tradition with Medieval mindset. We were once like them we should remind ourselves.
John Paraiso and I differ in how we view this. I’m sure you are with John on your take regarding faith, based on how you described it. I can only respect that. However, I still believe that faith and reason can go hand in hand. But putting the arguments on the mechanics and definitions of faith and reason aside, I do not agree that we should arrogate upon ourselves to believe that all religionists are “victims” of mundane tradition with a Medieval mindset. Not all people who subscribe to deities or any supernatural thoughts are intellectually inferior to those who do not.
>>Dan Barker of Freedom From Religion Foundation, a former minister turned atheist puts it much better "Obviously, freethought often involves direct and strong criticism of religion, and many believers will take it personally, accusing us of being abusive or hateful. Remind the person that you are not attacking them. Tell them that you think most Christians today are good people in spite of the bible. They are smarter than Jesus. They are nicer than God. Many of them have risen above the brutalities of Christianity to become good, caring people because they (like you) possess a respect for human values". If we do not possess the proper perspective as an atheist oppose to blind faith and irrationality then the next thing we knew we're already a rebel without a cause. We should avoid that.
Yes, I am with you on this one. I hope your leaders like Lipana (and especially Suzara) would heed your call. Calling people “religious morons” just won’t cut it.
>>This one I think is not as valid as the other as an argument, as it is based on mere assumption.
Well, I never intended to present it as an argument. What I said was that I just find it interesting. Adolf Hitler was a demagogue. Hitler was influenced by the works of those notable men mentioned. Lipana’s influence include Machiavelli, Darwin, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Lipana is also a demagogue. I find the similarities interesting. Of course it is a different story when one is to claim that everyone whose influence include the 4 noted men, would make an Adolf Hitler.
>>By the way, Machiavelli, Darwin, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche are foundations of better understanding of historical evolution of philosophy and its diverse polemics- as much as Thomas Aquinas, David Hume and Rene Descartes. Next to Darwin , Friedrich Nietszche is the one I have most inclination in terms of Philosophy, after all he is self-proclaim "Anti-Christ" or Anti-Messiah. His declaration of Christian morality as inferior or slavish amply describes it, compare to Secular Morality which is base on naturalism and rationality.
Good to know. Thanks!
>>This has to answered. Center For Inquiry doesn't merely attack religion for attack sake but it offers an alternative that is Secular Humanism. An outlook that upholds reason, ethics, and justice. specifically rejects the supernatural and spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision making. It is life stance that center on the way people may lead a good life with guidance of reason and compassion. We are bigot and intolerant in a sense that we are bigot and intolerant to the religious notion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or it is flat. Its a healthy intolerance fueled by intellectual honesty.
Sorry, I don’t believe you are describing CFI-P. I may agree with you if you are describing CFI… but if you are describing CFI-P, no… I’m sorry… CFI-P is a totally different story. As per your leader, the CFI-P is about delivering the blow that will end religious monstrosity. The CFI-P is about revolting against the religious establishment and about taking the non-religionists’ right in the halls of power. The CFI-P is about crushing religious infamy while doing it laughing. The CFI-P is about attaining the sweet satisfaction of vengeance. Your leader has the authority to steer the organization to where he deems best. With your leader’s words, it sure puts some doubts to how CFI-P equates to the mandate of CFI.
>>Last, admittedly we are few in numbers and leadership is not something you associate the one say, with a religious leader. We are all freethinkers in the group and we are after all human being, faulty in characters. Advocacy to promote reason and not delusion is the ties the binds us all. Again, anyone here is not expected to worship CFI-P but support CFI-P in a way you will support the advocacy of Center For Inquiry itself. We are all philosophical comrades and we have a common vision of less superstitious Philippines , we should consolidate our intellects and efforts to bring "New Atheism" in the Philippine context a reality.
We can advocate reason without supporting CFI-P. I do not find any appeal in having to do with an organization run by a narcissistic demagogue brat and a septuagenarian rabid anti-theistic fundamentalist. Perhaps with a different leadership and perhaps with a different inspiration, I would find CFI-P worth considering. Hey, you seem like a nice level headed guy, why don’t you assume leadership of your organization? You seem to be more in line with the true mandate of the CFI.
Anyway, with the current mindset of the leaders of CFI-P, I find no inspiration to support it. I would, however, support the efforts of others who promote freethought without necessarily vilifying religion and its adherents all the time. I think John Paraiso's Radyo Humanista was a good one (too bad finances were too much of a burden to maintain it). His web-based advocacies (through forums and blogs) also bring inspiration. I have supported John's efforts in spirit, action, and even finance. If CFI-P can bring a similar inspiration John gives, then I would be glad to support it as well.
Anyway, let’s talk again when the brat and the old geezer are out and when the CFI-P comes up with something inspirational and intelligent. Perhaps if CFI-P can come up with sound and concrete alternatives to fill in what religion seems to fill regarding all the needs of people, then you may have something here. Mere assertions of “Science being the Savior”, as per Suzara’s words, won’t cut it either. It has to touch people's hearts as well, not just their mind.
Cheers,
M_Y
“Norm and Paul Kurtz has given me the authority to take CFI in whichever direction I see best.”
Given that he has authority to take CFI-P’s direction to wherever he deems best and given his record of bigotry, intolerance, un-intelligent anti-religious polemic, one cannot be blamed for thinking that CFI-P, the organization Lipana represents, is a hate-based group.
While I agree that CFI promotes humanism, CFI-P is another story.
>>Your first case in point as a criticism is valid but not as an argument. Strong words by anyone doesn't mean evil intention, right? Richard Dawkins, the fiercest among Four Horsemen of New Atheism is a perfect example. His spirited debate with Francis Collins in TIME magazine was not an instructive way on how to deal with proper response in terms of mode of expression. Dawkins is way off and abrasive, he address fundamentalists as "CLOWNS" and several times accused Collins of presenting "COP OUTS". GOD DELUSION itself as a title of his book is straightforward / in-your-face description of faith. Christopher Hitchens also with his ultra-sarcasm remarks is another exhibition of this "un-humanistic" attitude towards religion. Do we crucify them and call them bigots or look up to them and call them brave? I think the key word here is being militant or perhaps over militant, in which Josh is guilty as charged, but then again so is Richard Dawkins. (Caveat: I know Dawkins and Lipana is hardly comparable)
It would be difficult to gauge the “true intention” of the speaker. If it were only possible to break open the speaker’s head and see the intention as an object, then perhaps this will not be so much of an issue. But not being the case, we can only discern intent from the speaker’s words and actions.
Yes, I would object to some of Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ (militant) words. I would even tag some of their words as an expression of their bigotry. When one is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, then yes… he or she is a qualified bigot. Dawkins and Hitchens fall under that category, if we go by the words they say. Lipana and Suzara are the same. The difference is… Dawkins and Hitchens are smart. ^_^
>>But to say CFI-P is bigot is careless overstatement.
I don’t believe I suggested that CFI-P is bigoted (If I did, that is not what I meant). I suggested that Lipana and Suzara are bigots but not the organization. We can probably argue that the CFI-P is an organization founded by bigoted characters like Lipana and Suzara or perhaps even argue that CFI-P is a hate-based organization, based on the words of its representatives, but to state that the organization itself is bigoted is not accurate.
>>The proper perspective in treating a believer or a religionists is compassion and respect for who they are and where they are at this stage of their intellectual development. The likes of Paul Kurtz and Sam Harris are good paragons of this type. But I will argue that considerate militancy and criticism of religion are necessary part and parcel of freethought philosophy. In a world where organized religions does not comfort themselves in their private horizon then we should publicize our opposition as well.
To suggest that religionists are inferior when it comes to their stage of intellectual development, I think, is arrogance. I have no problems with expressing opposition to views different from mine. However, to call for a revolt in the name of vengeance and self-righteousness for power, is another story. We can criticize religion, sure, but to act as “Crusaders” or “Inquisitors” of “freethought”, I don’t believe, is justified.
>>For the second criticism: Center For Inquiry is a global federation of concerned individuals guided by the philosophy of Secular Humanism. If CFI is relevant in the USA , then there's no reason to suppose that CFI-P is not relevant in the Philippines .
Like I said, I have no problems with the relevance of CFI. But CFI is different from CFI-Philippines, based on the mandates and words given by your authoritarian leader in the person of Lipana. I may agree with you in your take of CFI-P if the organization, through its representatives, show that it does live by CFI’s principles. But so far, with the current leadership of CFI-P, your words of assurance is hardly convincing.
>> Major issues like Reproductive Health Bill and Separation of Church/Mosque and the State and general fanaticism of Filipinos can be better address here if we have a practical network of coalition from pinoy atheists like you in the form CFI-P as an international commitment to freethought.
Sure, I have no problem with those (support for RHB and Separation of Church and State). But having a practical network of coalition leading to intolerance and bashing of religion (Christianity, in particular) is something I do not wish to have anything to do with. Like I said, bigotry… however secular (or atheistic) it may sound, is still bigotry.
>>Also, I will argue that CFI-P as a movement of reason is much needed in our country than any atheistic blog or web group combine. Its hightime now to "preach the gospel of freethought" in a wider audience of Filipinos. Forming an organization with a humane cause is NEVER a matter of being self-important, its taking responsibility or practical action and dedication to the pursuit of truth.
What truth are we talking about here? Are we to suggest that the non-theistic quest is the ONLY way to pursue Truth? Besides, how can we even consider CFI-P as a movement of reason if its leader, who is authorized to steer the direction of the organization to where he deems best, has a one track mind?
Now, I am with you when it comes to the promotion of freethought to the Filipino people. But this can be achieved even without organizations like Lipana’s CFI-P.
>>For the third criticism: Believers and religionists are not our enemies. It is the nature of faith itself in believing in something which has no sufficient evidence and does not recourse on reason. Instead we should treat them as a victim of mundane tradition with Medieval mindset. We were once like them we should remind ourselves.
John Paraiso and I differ in how we view this. I’m sure you are with John on your take regarding faith, based on how you described it. I can only respect that. However, I still believe that faith and reason can go hand in hand. But putting the arguments on the mechanics and definitions of faith and reason aside, I do not agree that we should arrogate upon ourselves to believe that all religionists are “victims” of mundane tradition with a Medieval mindset. Not all people who subscribe to deities or any supernatural thoughts are intellectually inferior to those who do not.
>>Dan Barker of Freedom From Religion Foundation, a former minister turned atheist puts it much better "Obviously, freethought often involves direct and strong criticism of religion, and many believers will take it personally, accusing us of being abusive or hateful. Remind the person that you are not attacking them. Tell them that you think most Christians today are good people in spite of the bible. They are smarter than Jesus. They are nicer than God. Many of them have risen above the brutalities of Christianity to become good, caring people because they (like you) possess a respect for human values". If we do not possess the proper perspective as an atheist oppose to blind faith and irrationality then the next thing we knew we're already a rebel without a cause. We should avoid that.
Yes, I am with you on this one. I hope your leaders like Lipana (and especially Suzara) would heed your call. Calling people “religious morons” just won’t cut it.
Well, I never intended to present it as an argument. What I said was that I just find it interesting. Adolf Hitler was a demagogue. Hitler was influenced by the works of those notable men mentioned. Lipana’s influence include Machiavelli, Darwin, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Lipana is also a demagogue. I find the similarities interesting. Of course it is a different story when one is to claim that everyone whose influence include the 4 noted men, would make an Adolf Hitler.
>>By the way, Machiavelli, Darwin, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche are foundations of better understanding of historical evolution of philosophy and its diverse polemics- as much as Thomas Aquinas, David Hume and Rene Descartes. Next to Darwin , Friedrich Nietszche is the one I have most inclination in terms of Philosophy, after all he is self-proclaim "Anti-Christ" or Anti-Messiah. His declaration of Christian morality as inferior or slavish amply describes it, compare to Secular Morality which is base on naturalism and rationality.
Good to know. Thanks!
>>This has to answered. Center For Inquiry doesn't merely attack religion for attack sake but it offers an alternative that is Secular Humanism. An outlook that upholds reason, ethics, and justice. specifically rejects the supernatural and spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision making. It is life stance that center on the way people may lead a good life with guidance of reason and compassion. We are bigot and intolerant in a sense that we are bigot and intolerant to the religious notion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or it is flat. Its a healthy intolerance fueled by intellectual honesty.
Sorry, I don’t believe you are describing CFI-P. I may agree with you if you are describing CFI… but if you are describing CFI-P, no… I’m sorry… CFI-P is a totally different story. As per your leader, the CFI-P is about delivering the blow that will end religious monstrosity. The CFI-P is about revolting against the religious establishment and about taking the non-religionists’ right in the halls of power. The CFI-P is about crushing religious infamy while doing it laughing. The CFI-P is about attaining the sweet satisfaction of vengeance. Your leader has the authority to steer the organization to where he deems best. With your leader’s words, it sure puts some doubts to how CFI-P equates to the mandate of CFI.
>>Last, admittedly we are few in numbers and leadership is not something you associate the one say, with a religious leader. We are all freethinkers in the group and we are after all human being, faulty in characters. Advocacy to promote reason and not delusion is the ties the binds us all. Again, anyone here is not expected to worship CFI-P but support CFI-P in a way you will support the advocacy of Center For Inquiry itself. We are all philosophical comrades and we have a common vision of less superstitious Philippines , we should consolidate our intellects and efforts to bring "New Atheism" in the Philippine context a reality.
We can advocate reason without supporting CFI-P. I do not find any appeal in having to do with an organization run by a narcissistic demagogue brat and a septuagenarian rabid anti-theistic fundamentalist. Perhaps with a different leadership and perhaps with a different inspiration, I would find CFI-P worth considering. Hey, you seem like a nice level headed guy, why don’t you assume leadership of your organization? You seem to be more in line with the true mandate of the CFI.
Anyway, with the current mindset of the leaders of CFI-P, I find no inspiration to support it. I would, however, support the efforts of others who promote freethought without necessarily vilifying religion and its adherents all the time. I think John Paraiso's Radyo Humanista was a good one (too bad finances were too much of a burden to maintain it). His web-based advocacies (through forums and blogs) also bring inspiration. I have supported John's efforts in spirit, action, and even finance. If CFI-P can bring a similar inspiration John gives, then I would be glad to support it as well.
Anyway, let’s talk again when the brat and the old geezer are out and when the CFI-P comes up with something inspirational and intelligent. Perhaps if CFI-P can come up with sound and concrete alternatives to fill in what religion seems to fill regarding all the needs of people, then you may have something here. Mere assertions of “Science being the Savior”, as per Suzara’s words, won’t cut it either. It has to touch people's hearts as well, not just their mind.
Cheers,
M_Y
--------------------
As I always say, atheism is not about hate and bigotry, it's about the freedom to doubt and to learn. Its a path of knowledge without the walls of dogmas and religious doctrines. Our legacy in this nation is not anger but a sound mind.
Until next time,
John the Atheist
1 comments:
i wonder where lipana and poch are while villas is trying to evangelised cfi-pism?
geri is fighting 2 front, presenting cfi-p as a true secular humanist movement at the same time trying to present Jo&Po as a valid & desireable leader.
like what m_y mentioned, lets talk again when the 2 clowns are gone.
Post a Comment