Jessica Ice, president of “Individuals for Freethought,” responded (”Free thinkers speak out: We need no dogma“) yesterday in the K-State Collegian to Levi Russell’s article (”Freethought group contradicts own principles“).  In his article, Mr. Russell attempts (badly) to contradict the tenants of freethought, including an implied criticism of the right of the group to exist.  Criticizing the freethought movement, even if the criticisms are false, is at least acceptable discourse.  When criticizing the group’s existence in a free marketplace of ideas, that crosses over into bigotry.  Would Mr. Russell write an article criticizing a different religious faith’s student group’s premise as “hopelessly illogical?”  This is doubtful, because unlike the religious in the United States, bigotry against atheists is still tacitly accepted and in some cases openly encouraged.  Rightfully, Ms. Ice doesn’t let him get away with this:

To say the premise of a freethinking group is “hopelessly illogical” is to undermine its importance in a democratic state, especially on a campus that has more than 30 religious groups. Individuals for Freethought is the only organized voice for non-theists on the K-State campus. I think students should value diversity and acceptance of new ideas that question dogma, and do not harm others. We should not have to live in fear of losing our free speech as we saw with the desecration of our chalking.

I’ve been a part of the nonreligious movement for a long time, and I have never seen anyone in our movement criticize a group in which like-minded theists congregate in such a way.  We criticize the beliefs and ideas, as the writer of the attack article can do with our views, but he goes too far, attacking the group for supposedly contradicting its own principals, principals of which Mr. Russell clearly doesn’t even understand.  We would never tell others that they are illogical for forming a group based around shared viewpoints.  That is an important part of an open society.

Ms. Ice’s continued response shows exactly why the article is bunk, and explains why we have every right to be open about our ideas, and will no longer be silence by religious bigots.  As is to be expected in such articles, Mr. Russell’s contains the same tired, flawed, and downright ridiculous arguments that tend to be so logically inconsistent as to need no opposition.

It is true that calling arguments “tired” can be a fallacy.  Theists use that argument against atheist’s arguments all the time.  The difference is that the arguments they target are repeated because they are supported by the facts.  Mr. Russell’s arguments are not just patently false, but ridiculous altogether.  They show themselves to be untrue on their face.  These are the type of arguments that I – even when I was a believer – would have been embarrassed to see another believer use.  Now, as a nonbeliever, I see it as another example of the fact that we are ultimately on our way to winning both the culture war, and winning our right to exist as opposition to the prevalent unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs.

These same arguments are what practically all of those who wish to silence us use.  Anyone looking at them critically, religious or not, can see their untruth and contradictory nature.  Such arguments add to the vast collection that expose these bigots for what they are.  The biggest Achilles’ heel of these people is that they are consistently guilty of misrepresentation and projection.  In his attack article, Mr. Russell commits both crimes against truth at once:

The main premise of this group is hopelessly illogical. The group that claims to reject dogma, in fact, has a dogma of its own. The members declare that to be a Freethinker, one must subscribe to the idea that dogmas are merely a “restraint” on coming to “conclusions about morality and the nature of the universe.” What good, then, is the group? It depends on a dogma to restrain members, and then decries the restraint of dogmas.

Mr. Russell either didn’t make the effort to understand what freethinkers are, is lying to support his argument, or both.  He ridiculously claims that the rejection of dogma is in itself dogma.  I shouldn’t have to explain why this is ridiculous, but nevertheless Ms. Ice gives him a lesson on the definition of dogma:

Individuals for Freethought was recently accused of relying on dogma to restrain group members into believing that one should come to conclusions by using logic and reason. This is a fallacy. To say that the rejection of dogma is itself a dogma stretches the word to meaninglessness.

Dogma is an established system of beliefs that are not to be disputed, in which dissent is discouraged. It is an authoritative top-down way of thinking that does not allow for logical revision and rational discussion. In fact, to refute dogmatic beliefs is to take away their power over the individual and come to conclusions about the universe that must necessarily change with new discoveries. At one time, dogma allowed people to actually believe that enslaving fellow humans was acceptable. Thanks to those who questioned this dogmatic belief, our society has abolished slavery. No matter the religion these people had, they rejected dogma and “thought it through,” using reason and logic.

Rejection of dogma is by definition the opposite of dogma.  To claim otherwise is the height of intellectual dishonesty.  Furthermore, he is committing crime against truthful dialogue by projecting his own issues onto those he is criticizing, something all too common among those attacking the nonreligious.  In his own words:

I am a strict Catholic. I believe all dogmas held and taught by the Catholic Church.

I’m not sure which is more amusing, that he projects his own dogmatic beliefs onto those who hold no dogma, or that he is criticizing them for being dogmatic while admitted that he is himself.  The ridiculousness doesn’t end there:

I harbor no hatred toward the members of other religious sects or schools of thought. I might disagree with other people, but I defend their right to disagree

Any question about whether Mr. Russell is a liar goes out the window with that statement.  I see no other option, unless he is simply horribly deluded as to the consequences of the arguments he makes.  It may be true that he doesn’t hate people simply for disagreeing with him on theological or philosophical matters – I can’t see into another person’s mind.  He absolutely does not, though, defend others right to disagree.  Maybe he defends the right of other theists to disagree, but certainly not atheists.  His entire article shows that.  Denying the basic substance of one’s writing at the very end doesn’t cancel out all that came before it.

However, I am no philosophical relativist. I believe that there is an objective Truth.

Here is some common ground, we both believe in objective truth (what’s with the capitalization of “Truth” though?).  The difference is that by asserting complete acceptance of dogma he is claiming to have perfect knowledge of such truth, an arrogance inherent in dogma.  At least freethinkers don’t claim to know perfect objective truth, but only the historically and evidence supported assertion that critical thinking and scientific evidence rather than dogma is the only way to get as close as we can to truth.

I believe Catholic dogmas because they are firmly based on both faith and reason. I do not believe them because I have been told to or because I am incapable of understanding other views.

He may believe in objective truth, but he completely discounts the only effective way humanity has ever found to get close to objective truth, reason.  Sure, he claims that his views are based on reason, but it has already become clear that he doesn’t understand the terms he is using.  His reasoning is based on what he thinks sounds good, not what has or lacks objective evidence.  He is rationalizing, but anything can be rationalized.  Dogma by definition does not allow reason.  To paraphrase Ms. Ice, it is authoritative and discourages dissent.  There is no reasoning when one accepts dogma.  Without the possibility of dissent, reasoning – at least logical reasoning – is impossible.

Mr. Russell is also ignores the very dogma he claims to so vehemently believe.  His own faith tells him that belief is exactly that, faith, not evidence based reasoning.  He admits that faith is one part of why he believes.  The problem is he also claims that he came to accept the dogma based on faith and reason together.  This is impossible.  Faith by definition is belief without evidence, as even theologians will agree.  Logical reasoning, to have any veracity, requires evidence.  To two are mutually exclusive.  While he projects his dogmatism onto freethinkers, Mr. Russell disingenuously and incorrectly attributes reasoning to himself.

If one is going to attack an entire group of people, at least get your facts straight.  As we see consistently, religious bigots have a problem with that.

Ms. Ice’s response also discusses the bigotry the nonreligious face, and many good reasons why nonreligious groups should not be simply dismissed as ridiculous, any more than groups of like-minded believers should be.  I only focused on a small aspect of her response, read the entire article.  It really is a fantastic explanation of the freethought movement and why we should have the same respect and place in the marketplace of ideas as anyone else.

I didn’t intend for this article to turn into a defense of nonreligious viewpoints or a criticism of religious beliefs specifically; that isn’t the purpose of this blog.  It is to report on bigotry such as this against the nonreligious.  Nevertheless, it was needed to show just how ridiculous Mr. Russell’s claims about freethinkers are in light of his own beliefs.

Tags: atheism, atheist, bigotry, Free thinkers speak out: We need no dogma, Freethought group contradicts own principles, jessica ice, kansas state individuals for freethought, levi russell, nonreligious