Many of the comments this blog has already received imply that there is no real possibility of conversation or dialogue between atheists and religious believers. In the words of one commentator, “By using phrases like “from both sides” you are proposing another valid side to the argument.” Andrew Hamilton has a thoughtful reflection in Eureka Street on the value of conversation as opposed to argument and/or knockdown blows, and the particular affinity conversation, rather than argument, has with religious faith (those soapbox speakers notwithstanding).
He writes that the polemical exchange is not conducive to the expression of reasons for religious faith: “Faith in God and in humanity, is rooted in experiences of wonder, questioning, desire and invitation that are delicate and not easily framed in simple argument.”
Interestingly, the Parliament of the World’s Religions considered that it was worth trying to cultivate conversation between religious believers themselves and with atheists and agnostics also. Atheists and secular humanists were invited to participate, which they duly did, in a session titled “Living a Good Life: The Secular Way” . The session panel included the President and Secretary of the Rationalist Society of Australia, the President of the Secular Party of Australia, the President of the Humanist Society of Victoria and two academics who describe themselves as humanists and/or atheists. (Check it out in the PWR program on p 306 here). This session was well attended. Moreover, Harry Gardner, education director of the Humanist Society of Victoria, was invited to participate – and did – in the session on “Religion and Belief in Public Schools”. (Check it out on p 283 of the program here).
Apparently, this openness of the Parliament of the World’s Religions to conversation has not been reciprocated by the 2010 Global Atheism Convention. No-one from the Parliament organisation has received an invitation, as far as I am aware. This is curious when one considers that the interfaith organisation in which many of them are involved, Religions for Peace in Australia, has publicly supported the teaching of Enlightenment Humanism in government schools in this country.
Can this blog encourage conversation? Are you able to help achieve this?
Of course conversation is possible, but this is a convention celebrating non-belief. It is a platform for non-believers to come together and say “we’re here” and “we matter”.
You draw a false dichotomy between the goals of the Parliament of World Religions and the goals of the Global Atheism Convention. There is no obligation to invite people of other faiths to debate their world-view. People of different faiths are certainly welcome to come and see what it’s all about, but the goals are not to discuss differing world views. The goal is to celebrate non-belief, and the diversity within the Atheist community.
flawedprefect, thanks for your comment. I don’t think the Parliament invited people to ‘debate’ and I was not suggesting that the Convention do so either. That’s indeed my key question: is conversation, rather than debate, possible? The Parliament’s aim, I believe, was to try to properly represent pluralism by including countervailing voices. The Convention has a problem potentially in that it is representing religion to itself – and, judging by some of the comments this blog has received, there is abroad in some circles a rather narrow operating understanding of various dimensions of religious faith.
By a similar token i ask this blog why two deists only are reporting on the atheist convention. I think its great to see the contrast in views between and reporters and content but why isnt there a an atheist voice represented among the bloggers. Isnt it like sending a painter to a physics convention? Keep in mind the convention has in no way been targeted to attract theists to attend, it is not a conversion attempt.
There are two ABC Radio National people reporting Evan – the ABC doesn’t require any other identification other than that we are professional journalists. We have various guest bloggers, including one atheist already. Look out for other contributions – they will come from various perspectives. But as for those guest bloggers who are religious: think of them as introducing a dialectic where so far there seems to be none.
“Faith in God and in humanity, is rooted in experiences of wonder, questioning, desire and invitation that are delicate and not easily framed in simple argument.”
That’s a bold statement. I wouldn’t dare to mention faith in God and in humanity in the same sentence. There’s a huge difference between faith and faith as we all know.
And the kind of faith you need in the context of deism/God/Religion/etc. involves exactly the opposite of what Hamilton writes. Wondering, questioning and desire to mention only three. Those are things one should not seriously consider if one wants to honestly keep ones faith or belief. The fourth thing is self-explaining – “invitation”. Every system tries to be self-sustaining. So everybody invites everybody else to talk to, try to convince, etc.
He may be talking about conversation but “Faith in God” and “questioning”, “Wonder” (in the questioning sense – not the supernatural notion), etc. doesn’t go together very well.
At least that’s my conclusion after experiencing both phases in my life – first the non-questioning belief and then the questioning discovery that God is fictional character in a book. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for the comment Christoph – you could post it also by following the Eureka Street link, if you would like to engage Andrew Hamilton directly.
It’s late now, but I’ll pick up on ‘wondering, questioning and desire’ anon.
Do you plan on criticizing World Youth Day for not including Muslims in their events? When an Islamic convention is held in Australia, will you criticize their lack of “openness” for not setting up a panel discussion with rabbis?
If you are not willing to use the same standards with atheists that you would with others, then no. Being unfair to atheists is not at all conducive to encouraging conversation. As you pointed out, atheists did participate in interfaith dialogue. To say “that’s not enough” is overly demanding and an demonstration of the kind of prejudice atheists face.
I think you’re a bit confused in your premise. The Parliament of the World’s Religions stated purpose was to bring together people of varying beliefs. The Global Atheist Convention is a meeting of one specific group who shares a common lack of belief in supernatural beings. Would you complain that the Chevrolet owners convention didn’t invite a representative of Ford? Why would a convention of atheists have any obligation to invite believers to participate officially in their meeting? Certainly they should allow believers to attend, and I’m not aware of any restrictions on who will be admitted. So, what is your point?
You’re right Orogeny that there are no restrictions and I believe that a number of religious believers of various stripes are attending. Two things – religion is not always about a belief in supernatural beings in a Jewish or Christian or Islamic sense (think Buddhism – or even conceivably crusading atheism, religion being that which binds together!) And I’m not satisfied with your Chevrolet synonym: isn’t atheism gathered in convention question of discussing ideas and possibilities in a pluralist society and wouldn’t that benefit from ‘official’ hospitality and reciprocity to those with whom it is in a dialectical relationship?
Citizen Z, World Youth Day did include Muslims, who were invited to take part, and who in turn extended hospitality to visiting young people from overseas. I couldn’t even begin to list the number of meetings and joint panel discussions organised by Muslims and Jews and Christians in Australia. (Email me if you would like more details). So, I don’t believe I am being unfair. The only other event that I have been to where there has been such discursive expression of derision and contempt for ‘the other’, albeit in the context mostly of attempts at humour, is a fundamentalist Islamic gathering at the University of Melbourne, at which a visiting American ‘revert’ preached. I look forward to better discussion today. Don’t you think that atheism deserves this?
I’m a suburban, atheist lurker who has to continually work to delicately deprogram my children after RE classes at their (very expensive) church-run private school.
As a family, we watch mostly the ABC and the adults listen pretty much exclusively to ABC Radios various.
I have to add my voice in general to the poor coverage of atheism by the ABC. In my view, atheism is a minority belief system that warrants appropriate coverage and exploration – perhaps in proportion to the number of atheists in the community. I don’t feel that it receives anything like that.
It seems that, right now, atheism in my suburban environment is like what Christianity was purported to be in Roman times. The atheist equivalent of drawing a fish in the dust with your foot occurs at suburban dinner parties:
Me: “Did you hear about blah in the news? We’re not very religious, but…”
Others (picking up on comment re religion): “No, we’re not very religious, either…”
[Various pussy-footing around and exposition]
Me: “Actually, we’re total atheists…”
Others: “We are too! How crazy is it that people still believe that stuff against all the evidence!”
It seems to us that a significant majority of people in our demographic and geography are, in fact, religious solely for the purpose of avoiding being fed to the social lions. They have kids in Church-run private schools because those schools are great institutions and are in their preferred area, get married in churches to keep the social glue together, and yet believe very little of religion at all.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of atheists like me avoid atheist events like the plague. We have jobs and families that rely on us fitting well into our community. It’s hard enough getting by without doing so with an atheist tag attached.
My ABC should be carefully and respectfully documenting this emerging awakening, not sending a majority of theists to cover this convention.
Of course atheism isn’t a belief system. Sorry. Substitute “way of seeing the world”.
“isn’t atheism gathered in convention question of discussing ideas and possibilities in a pluralist society and wouldn’t that benefit from ‘official’ hospitality and reciprocity to those with whom it is in a dialectical relationship?”
You don’t get to invent your own definition for the convention…..just…read the title of the convention again and you’ll get it, eventually.
Atheists are literally surrounded by believers every day all day. We are very much in the minority, at least here in the USA. If we want to get together and celebrate each other without dealing with what we consider to be the exact opposite of our ideology, it is beyond me how someone can begrudge us this. Every day we have to decide how to respond or not respond to someone saying “bless you” or “have a blessed day” or “god willing” or whatever. We want ONE DAY of not having to deal with that. Of course, one can come up with all kinds of analogies as some have already done. I will leave it at that.
“There are two ABC Radio National people reporting Evan – the ABC doesn’t require any other identification other than that we are professional journalists.”
Come on … that’s a fairly weak cop-out. I guess they just send ‘professional journalists’ to cover the football without requiring that they have any knowledge of the game? Guest bloggers representing a variety of viewpoints is fine, but the primary voices on this blog are and will continue to be the ABC journalists whose belief systems will (and clearly have to date) influence their coverage. My guess is the ABC would not have sent two atheists to cover the religious gathering here last year (and they would have been right not to do so – a balance is required). I’m not suggesting an atheist reporter would be free from bias when reporting on the event, but the contrast would have made for much more interesting – and balanced – coverage.
On the topic of the blog, of course ‘conversation’ of the nature you seem to suggest isn’t possible (and isn’t the purpose of the conference). There is no common ground between the “beliefs” held be a theist and the lack of belief that defines one as an atheist (and if, for example, a theist accepts evolution, it’s not because of their faith, it’s despite of it, so that while common ground exists, it exists outside any discussion of religion). That doesn’t mean atheists and theists can’t get along – clearly they can and most do – but they’re not about to agree on this point and it’s pointless to try.
All atheists want is for religion to be kept out of politics (broadly defined) and education and for those theists who feel the need to try to “save us” to leave us alone. If religion didn’t interfere in our lives in this way I’m confident there would be no Global Atheist Conference this weekend.
Well, should the atheists invite voodoo specialists, astrologers and exorcists also while at it ?
What about a token few from the mental asylum to present the case for leprechauns ?
The GAC isn’t about listening to people with varying delusions and then nodding thoughtfully. It is an opportunity for those freed from the shackles of faith to celebrate free thinking.
JC, we’re here because we work in the Religion and Ethics area of ABC Radio National. We know a bit about religion and ethics, so we are interested in how the Convention represents religion and a belief system such as atheism, including the ethics which derive from it. One of the things I find myself doing is enlarging the representation of religion that is going on in the Convention, based on my specialist knowledge as a journalist in that Religion and Ethics area. I think we are looking for areas where atheists can find common ground, in a pluralist society, with other citizens, including relgious citizens, to make that a better society. Some found inklings of this in Philip Adams presentation this morning. I’m certainly interested in seeing how that discussion develops over the weekend. I’m also interested in recording just how beset by religion atheists evidently feel. I’m also interested in querying how that is justified, and how it might be addressed.
I’m confused, Margaret. Are you saying that, for example, if a Catholic organization decides to have a convention, they should be subject to criticism if they don’t invite a few Zoroastrians to participate in the discussion? What obligation do you think the atheists have to the various sects? The PWR apparently invited everyone to participate…do the atheists have to do the same? The Chevrolet example is actually very apt…the purpose of the meeting is to discuss a particular subset of the automotive world and they have no responsibility to allow a Chrysler rep to lead a session. The GAC is a gathering representing a particular sub-set of human belief systems, and they have no responsibility to accommodate other beliefs. You’re holding the atheists to a standard that you would never apply to Baptists or Elvis Presley fans.
Almost everywhere we look we are daily exposed to religious viewpoints, influences and pronouncements. Church billboards, religious newspaper columns, radio messages, the Christian television channel, Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, Mormons banging on the door, the list is endless! Even Anzac Day is replete with what are to all intents and purposes church services at dawn. Is it too much to ask that for a few days those of us who wish to focus on a life free of these intrusions get to talk amongst ourselves without being nagged that we’re not being inclusive? It’s not as if religion has had anything new to say for the last century or so. Unless theological backpedalling whilst advances in science continues to erode its conceit counts as new.
Margaret, that is not what you originally said in response to Evan – you said then that “the ABC doesn’t require any other identification other than that we are professional journalists.” I have no problem with you blogging as a person with experience working in Religion and Ethics. But plenty of preachers would also claim that experience and I don’t think you could claim they (or anyone theist) could provide a full and balanced review of the convention (or at least one that would be perceived in that way) – it’s a bit like Eddie McGuire pretending he can be objective and unbiased when commentating a Collingwood game. My view is simply that it would have been useful to have someone coming at it from a different – non-theistic – viewpoint to give it the appearance of more balance.
I find it odd that you reference the need for atheists to find common ground with other citizens – which gives the impression that they don’t share any common ground now. Outside issues of religion I think you will find a a lot of common ground (many of my closest friends are religious). But you will not reach agreement among atheists about a set of common beliefs (of the non-religious variety) – there is a reason why organizing atheists has been likened to herding cats – we all have different viewpoints on a range of different issues (which is something we celebrate) and we are not influenced by adherence to any central tenets – save perhaps that evidence and reason should trump ‘faith’ (a view upon which no common ground with theists can be reached)
I guess if there is anything that can unite atheists and SOME theists in this area, it is that politics and education should be free from religious influence; there are MANY theists who share this view. However, for those theists who are certain that their theology is the ‘right one’ and that it should be imposed on society (prayer in parliament, RE in schools etc) then I think all hope for finding the common ground you seek is lost …
l should have added evidently in that blog (since nothing can be assumed!) that the ABC expects “nothing except professionalism and competence, which includes adherence to an ethical code and in various circumstances a particular kind of knowledge or specialisation “. Actually I am listening now to Leslie Cannold talking about that finding of common ground. More on that in a later post.
I’m interested in many of the comments here from atheists that they feel like an embattled minority – as Margaret says above, ‘how beset by religion atheists evidently feel’.
I worked for many years in the ABC TV Religion and Ethics Unit, and now work as a freelance writer and video producer, still mainly covering religion. Through my work I’m in regular contact with the full gamut of religious communities, from all the major faiths. A common gripe from them is that they feel marginalised and beset by a mainstream culture that they see as ’secular and atheistic’. They moan that Dawkins, Hitchens and co get far more media coverage and have far more influence than they could ever hope to have.
Do both sides underestimate their own power and influence, and overestimate the power and influence of the other?
The next time the Shriners have a convention, I expect you’ll be up in arms that Star Trek fans weren’t invited or included? Seriously, Ms. Coffey, I don’t get why you’re having a hard time with the idea that some conferences aren’t about “dialogue” and the nature of living in “a pluralist society”; sometimes conferences and conventions are just about a bunch of like-minded people getting together to hang out and be weird in their own particular way together, to share their subcultural common interest.
In my view, this type of gathering is particularly critical for atheists since the allegedly “pluralist society” assumes religion by default no matter where you are (I’m not Australian, but in my particular Commonwealth country, religion is also pretty much a given everywhere from government to everyday life). Unlike the religious, we don’t have dedicated broadcast media, social approval, and taxpayer-subsidised gathering places we can go to and practice our subculture every weekend — we have at best a bunch of bloggers, some books, and the odd Richard Dawkins tv special. So it’s especially important to us for the sake of community-building to be able to do things like the GAC.
Given the extreme disparity between what the religious can lay claim to in terms of community-building apparatus and what atheists have, it’s profoundly patronising to be told that we’re not allowed to have our own event, that in order to be “tolerant” or whatever, we have to give up part of our space to accommodate the majoritarians who have most if not all of the societal power. (As a feminist, I find this rhetoric disturbingly similar to the inevitable insinuations that women-only spaces intended to help level the playing field are somehow unfair to men.)
In short, to the religious of the world, the GAC is *not about you*. Just as atheists don’t come to your houses of worship and try to tell you that religion is bunco, please let us do our thing in our own way and save the dialogue for another, more appropriate place and time.
Let’s see…the vast majority of the United States is some flavor of Christian denomination or another, with atheists being a mere 8-10% of the population…if that. We have near constant attempts by the believers in a 6000 year old Earth to force their beliefs into science classes and history. All around us are posters, flyers, and advertisments for every church, but if so much as a single sign mentioning the existence of secular, agnostics, or atheists gets put up the hysteria becomes near deafening.
Theists think their culture is being “beset” by “secular and atheistic” culture…and meanwhile no politician or elected official stands a chance of getting into office without going on about what good Chistians they are.
Tell you what: When theists stop trying to force their beliefs into science and history as if it were fact, when they stop throwing fits if an atheist or agnostic makes their presence known, and when they finally start keeping religion out of politics and law…then we’ll be inclined to quiet down.
But we’re not going away. We’re done acting like Harry Potter…sitting in our room, being quiet, and pretending we don’t exist.
“Citizen Z, World Youth Day did include Muslims, who were invited to take part…” and nobody would’ve expected them to, or demanded they do so.
Good whatever.
I live in West Virginia, one of the U.S.’s Bible Belt Buckles. Each day I get to be grateful for a once a mile reminder, displayed on nice big signs, of the necessity for some brand of Jesus.
So personally I can sympathize with the writers and their dismay that GAC did not extend a reciprocal invitation to Religious luminaries.
Religion is put upon. In WV, for example, they don’t have to pay taxes on property or income. What a denigration of religion! What persecution! They don’t get to pay taxes like the non believers do.
The Believers have to put up with weekly (and sometimes daily) newspaper columns devoted to religious belief. They don’t get to see columns devoted to non-secular views on a regular basis. I pity them for the suffering this entails.
LIS, once a mile the poor Believers have to see a church shoving their belief into their faces, usually with oh so witty signs out front.
tq
At the end of the day, the Parliament of World Religions got funding from the tax payers, so yeah they should invite all different groups in Australia, as they’re the ones paying for it. The Atheist Convention got diddly. So they have the rights on who they will and will not invite. You want to open the convention up to all groups? Then all groups can contribute.
Kate does make an excellent point. Both World Youth Day and the Parliament of World Religions were heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, religious and atheist alike. Atheistcon, on the other hand, had to rely entirely upon private fundraising. Perhaps if there had been more resources for the convention to spare what Margaret suggests might have been possible, but as it is I wouldn’t have wanted any of the atheist speakers dropped or talks shortened to make way for a theistic viewpoint.
Margaret speaks of concepts like common ground issues, journalistic inquiry etc that are important to her as a journalist. She just doesn’t seem to grasp that this privately funded, non-government funded convention is not about what she or her employers feel are important .The convention is not about what she wants or thinks it should be about. Sounds like a typical Christian ‘wanting some control’ issue
I find it absolutely hilarious that the ABC thinks it is appropriate to cover an atheist convention under the “ABC Religion” flag – it really is totally missing the point. I actually laughed out load when I saw the header at the top of this page! Atheists are not part of a religion, and do not have to share any particular moral code or belief system.
Margaret, to represent your involvement thus is also way off mark: “We know a bit about religion and ethics, so we are interested in how the Convention represents religion and a belief system such as atheism, including the ethics which derive from it.” Atheists do not believe in Gods, but this is no “belief system”, it is exactly a lack of belief that defines this group. If we ran a convention for those who do not believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, would you expect to find a common “belief system” amongst the attendees there too – of course not, just this simple, rational lack of belief.
Maybe the next convention should be covered by the science, philosophy or news departments who are more focused on rationality and truth?
@Nick: exactly my point. Classifying Atheism as another “belief system” is rather revealing statement.
Hey, could people please read the post! No-one said atheism is a belief system. In the context of covering religoius content, ABC says that it does not promote any particular belief system or form of religious expression. Interestingly, I heard a Convention speaker warning of the dangers of atheism developing characteristics of religions.
@Margaret Coffey: “a belief system such as atheism” – taken from your comment above (March 13, 2010 at 12:19 pm). Did I misread or overly interpret something in a wrong direction?
The whole “belief system” thing seems to be just a a matter of semantics. I am an atheist, not because I “believe” that there are no supernatural beings, but because I believe that a certain level of quantitative evidence is necessary before I accept something as fact. I don’t accept the existence of gods, fairies, demons, etc. because I have never encountered any evidence that would lead me to do so. Does this not constitute a belief system?
When I was growing up, I used to get indignant that women’s rights issues were published on the Women’s page along with fashion news and recipes. What I didn’t know then was that if the Women’s page didn’t cover it, no one would because what women did wasn’t important enough to be news. Mind you, atheists are not likely to look in the Religion pages for commentary, but it might be a good place to make religious people more aware of atheism as a philosophical stance practised by normal, cheerful people.
Yes yes, conversation is good rather than knockdown blows. Provided the other party is interested in pluralism etc.
The enforcement of christian values such as criminalisation of Euthanasia, non-recognition of Same Sex Marraige. That came about by the Knockdown blows of Parliamentarians refusing to separate their personal morality from public policy. Its not as bad as the United States but its on the way. Atheists are very particularly concerned about this.
Some religious people also worry about the separation of church of state disappearing. This can be for fear fo religion being corrupted as well as the state. But we see religion itself as the problem.
No amount of conversation will get some religious organizations to back off. No polite words will convey the appropriate sentiment towards a group that seeks to impose another dark ages by increments. Unfortunately we need our own knockdown blows, and we need them fast. I refer you to the Military Freedom from Religion Foundation and its fight against evangelists in the United States Military. Its a big subject, your a journo, look it up.
As for the idea of inviting Theists to speak. I have a bunch of Rhtorical questions for you culminating in a point. What religions would you have us invite representatives? Are there any you would be ok with us leaving out? After inviting Christians (how many denominations is enough?) Jews (the same, but nowhere as bad) Muslims (Sunni AND Shia) & thats just the big 3. After the Hundu’s their are the smaller faiths, do we invite all of those too? How do we justify allowing some faiths and not others? Why risk the feeling of faiths being snubbed, in particular? After inviting all these representatives, how much space left for Us Atheists?
The GAC was a space for Atheists, why do you have a problem with that?
The entire point of the GAC was space for Atheists, so we could have a discussion without having to humor those that think belief & assertion without or even contrary to evidence is somehow a good thing, let alone playing the offence card when those beliefs are questioned.
Religion hinders your precious conversation. It also hinders proper health care, research & societal progress in general. We are being imposed upon. We need knockdown blows.