I’ve Moved!
November 20, 2008
So I’m sure that most people have noticed that the site has been offline for a few days. There’s a reason for that, which I will get to shortly. But first, let me just say this:
In fact, I am blogging at a new site I have just finished setting up: kennethhynek.net. A full explanation for the reasons behind the move can be found here
.
That said, this is not the end of Time Immortal. My wife Grace has expressed interest in taking over blogging at this domain, and I am working to make sure that she gets set up here as soon as possible.
Also, my profound apologies for the modification to the site face; the move was not as seamless as I would have hoped, and many of the image files for this theme, and in the gallery, were corrupted during the course of their evacuation from my previous web host’s servers. Until such time as I have repaired them, I’ve put a clean-looking template in place of the previous one.
Update: for the purposes of further traffic shaping, new posts from kennethhynek.net will be excerpted below. Full articles can be read at the new blog.
What is ‘good?’
November 13, 2008
The Curt Jester alerts us to a new advertising campaign being put on by the American Humanist Association:
Ads proclaiming, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December from the American Humanist Association $40,000 holiday ad campaign.
Though why believe in good? And if you are going to believe in good than was is the objective absolute you base good on, or is good just whatever you “feel” is good. If good is subjective, why not believe in a god if it makes you feel good?
That is really the question here — telling people to “be good” is all well and (ahem) good, but what is ‘good?’ What does the AHA mean by good? Upon what is their standard of what is good based? Is there a standard on which it is based? Or is what is ‘good’ left up to the individual to determine? And if so, on what basis does the AHA propose sort out what is good and what is not good when what is good for one person is detrimental to another, or in which what one person calls good is the opposite of what another calls good?
Indeed, why even tell people to be good? Good, bad, or ugly, if there’s no God or gods, what we do in this live does not matter a whit, so telling people to “be good” is, at best, pedantic, and at worst is imposing undue constraint upon them.
John C. Wright — who, like The Curt Jester, is a convert to Catholicism from atheism — notes the latent dishonesty at the core of the campaign, or at least at the core of the way it is being presented:
…“We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you,” said Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group. “Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional Religion.”
To that end, the ads and posters will include a link to a Web site that will seek to connect and organize like-minded thinkers in the D.C. area, Edwords said.
Edwords said the purpose isn’t to argue that God doesn’t exist or change minds about a deity, although “we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people’s minds.”
Because, of course, rational and critical thinking is an exclusive province of the atheist camp.
In my own life, I just had a fan of secularism tell me this in all sobriety. When I produced examples and evidences to the contrary, he retreated to the posture of merely repeating himself without addressing any of the points raised. In other words, it was an dogma of faith with him, not open to dispute. Ironic, no?
Regarding the article, this is the part that gets me: “Edwords said the purpose isn’t to argue that God doesn’t exist or change minds about a deity.”
Oh, rubbish. That is exactly your purpose, and if it is not your purpose, you are a disgrace to the cause of atheism. If you are an atheist, you believe that belief in God is false, if not morally wrong, then it is your duty, your duty damn it (does that word mean nothing to you?!), to argue that God does not exist and to change minds about a deity: because all honest men must oppose what is false, and all virtuous, what is wrong.
But leave it to the agnostic Jeff Goldstein to give the tone-perfect remark:
It seems to me that “an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists” should be able to deal with the crushing despair of other people celebrating things important to them without recourse to mobile billboards.
But then, maybe these truly are emotionally fragile types who need that kind of diesel-powered validation.
Ironically, what often cures such loneliness, despair, and feelings of isolation is the embrace of a higher power.
He said, trying hard not to smirk.
Which, I suppose, goes to prove Vox Day’s assertion that the majority of reasonable agnostics find evangelical atheists to be something of an embarrassment, and then rightly so.
Personally, I’d like to see more of this sort of advertising. How about during next Ramadan?
Oh, wait…that might get the AHA sued. So of course they wouldn’t do it.
