The school year is quickly coming to a close, and so too is my undergraduate career—I am a senior and will be graduating this semester. And because I’m leaving Utah State University, I’ve been reflecting on my time here.
Many of my fondest memories will be of SHAFT. I have been involved with the group as an officer since its inception in Spring 2008. SHAFT has introduced me to some amazing people and, more generally, has given the secular community a much needed presence on campus. I think we all have reason to be proud of what SHAFT has accomplished.
There has been some discussion recently over what the future of SHAFT should be, however. SHAFT’s mission, as I understand it, is two-fold: (1) provide a fun and safe community for non-theistic students, and (2) promote skepticism (of ourselves and others), scientific literacy, and secular humanist values. There is a slight tension between these objectives. Were SHAFT only a social and support group for atheists, then we run the risk of groupthink. But when we neglect this social/support aspect of SHAFT, we could alienate those who most need SHAFT—people who have been ostracized from family and friends because of their religious doubts or disbelief.
I am convinced that both purposes of SHAFT are vital, so there must be a balancing act. The criticism (and it may well be a legitimate one) that has been leveled at me lately is that I have not struck the appropriate balance. So for the benefit of next year’s officers, let’s discuss what the future of SHAFT should be. Answering the following questions will help inform our discussion:
What has been your favorite SHAFT event? Why?
What has been your least favorite event? Why?
Do you have event ideas for next year? Please share.
Should SHAFT be more accommodating of religious people and their concerns, or less?
To what extent should SHAFT practice self-criticism and challenge atheism?
Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your interest in this club. I am going to miss SHAFT, but I am also excited to see how it will evolve. I trust next year’s officers to do a phenomenal job, and they should have your confidence too.
SHAFT’s 2010-2011 officers:
Administrative – Mike Otteson
Activities – Chris Gardner
Public Relations – Mike Linford
Advertising – Caitlin Laughlin
Good post Jon, I think you summarized the problem pretty well. To answer:
1. I think my favorite activity was the big group discussion we did, I think the topic involved morality and/or living with our religious families as atheists. A lot of insightful things were said and it felt like a big family. I’m pretty sure I amused myself with obnoxious and obscene comments, so that was fun too.
2. No single event has stuck out in my mind as bad or not enjoyable. Sometimes it turns into an atheist circle-jerk, though, and that can get annoying. Not always, though…
3. I’ve already spoken to you, Jon, about having someone like John Dehlin come and speak about dialog with the religious. Obviously he was busy and that idea might not seem too appealing right now, but I’d still love for it to happen some time in the future when we’ve found a good balance of social and intellectual activities.
4. Honestly, I liked the level we were at. I think we might all be happy if instead of cutting back on the activities that people liked we just had more social events so that people can pick and choose. If that’s too many activities, though, I wouldn’t cry if we cut back a little.
5. If we’re going to have “Free Thinker” in the group’s title I don’t see how we can do without it. If we’re going to make a group based around our shared views and values, we should damn well be able to defend and understand them. As for the extent, I think it’s all about the balance of the types activities we have, not necessarily the total number of events. I’m for as many activities around self-criticism and dialog with the religious as we can, but only if members of the group feel like the rest of their needs are getting met too.
SHAFTers,
I thank you for being courteous and welcoming to me, a theist, as an occasional participate of events and Blog participate. Keep up the courteous thing (“Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” Thales of Miletus).
I think Professor Huenemann challenged SHAFTers with an excellent task for the future at the last SHAFT meeting, that is, “Given we are S-H-A-FTs, how do we then live?”.
Especially — thanks Adam.
What has been your favorite SHAFT event? Why?
I enjoyed the ‘God on Trial’ movie, presentations on the big bang theory and evolution, and the “Why Atheists shouldn’t be so smug about morality” lecture.
What has been your least favorite event? Why?
Watching The Hangover. SHAFT is about using reason on religion, not crude humor.
Do you have event ideas for next year? Please share.
There was an event a few years ago where Kleiner and Sherlock debated their personal religions taking the stance of the other’s religion. I wouldn’t mind something similar to that again, possibly involving professor Huenemann arguing for religion.
Should SHAFT be more accommodating of religious people and their concerns, or less?
If religious people put forth arguments that are logical, then I’m interested.
To what extent should SHAFT practice self-criticism and challenge atheism?
I really enjoyed the “Why Atheists shouldn’t be so smug about morality” lecture, although I left it feeling slightly troubled.
It’s good to know your limitations, and to make sure that you’re following the right path before you take off running so I’m all for more events challenging atheism.
An LDS friend of mine attended one of the SHAFT meetings and got the impression that it was just “Mormon Bashing”.
I know that some people see being critical of their religion as bashing, but we have to be careful not to go from criticizing to mocking.
Do you know which event your LDS friend considered Mormon bashing?
I believe it was the discussion event that included people talking about living with religious families. (I know that topic can be emotional, but I didn’t think this event in particular was too bad)
“There was an event a few years ago where Kleiner and Sherlock debated their personal religions taking the stance of the other’s religion. I wouldn’t mind something similar to that again, possibly involving professor Huenemann arguing for religion.”
You might actually be thinking of a debate we did with Kleiner and Huenemann switching positions and arguing the other one’s side. It was pretty successful and we filled up an engineering lecture hall.
“I believe it was the discussion event that included people talking about living with religious families.”
That was people talking about living with their own families after telling them of their non-belief. I didn’t think any true bashing occurred.
The event I attended was with Sherlock and was on the first floor of Old Main. I think it ended with people asking Dr. Sherlock if (or why) he really was LDS.
Too bad I missed the Kleiner vs Huenemann one =(
Sherlock and I did debate, several years ago now, the nature of God (LDS vs Catholic). We did not switch sides, though. Having seriously challenged Mormonism, I expected to get the brunt of it from the students in attendance. Instead, many of them went after Sherlock. Many did not seem to think Sherlock was “sufficiently mormon”, some openly questioning why he was calling himself mormon at all.
There was also a LDS-Protestant-Catholic forum a few years ago held in the TSC.
First permit me to say how glad I am for the SHAFT blog and how thoroughly I have enjoyed engaging students in that forum. As an ex-atheist, these are arguments and topics that I quite enjoy. And I have derived other selfish ends – for instance, I am writing an article on contraception and the natural law so working through all that sexual ethics stuff was quite useful. Finally, it has always seemed to me more appropriate for me to be explicitly religious here than on the usu philosophy blog (since that is supposed to be a philosophy blog, not so much religion and culture critique, etc etc). So I have enjoyed the chance to engage students while wearing my Catholicism a bit more on my sleeve.
As SHAFT moves forward and matures (and undergoes leadership changes), I wanted to weigh in on some of the issues Jon raised. Take or leave my comments just as you take (well, usually leave) my other comments and arguments on this blog.
Jon identified a tension at the heart of SHAFT and its its mission. This tension is not unique to SHAFT, but is an issue for all groups of people who share views. Is SHAFT:
a) Something like a support group for atheists. Since they are generally marginalized here at USU, what with religion being so “in the air” around here, SHAFT meetings and blogs are meant to be a place where atheists can get together in a supportive environment of like-minded people to explore their ideas about science, humanism, religion and culture.
OR
b) SHAFT is a public forum where atheists will post on various topics but will expect and embrace energetic dialogue and argument from both atheists and theists alike.
I imagine SHAFT and the SHAFT blog would like to be both at the same time. This is actually quite a difficult balancing act. I am actually quite sympathetic to the first mission. Aristotle says you can only do philosophy with your friends. I think that is, at some level, true. Thrasymachus has to be ejected from the conversation in the Republic because he will not allow them to move past “first principles”. In order to actually move somewhere, you have to be with people who are willing to agree on which general direction to walk.
For this reason, I often “retreat” from my arguments and discussions with some of my colleagues (like Huenemann) in order to engage some friends from graduate school who agree with me on “first principles”. We actually make some progress thinking through things because we generally agree about the lay of the land on the map. If we had an atheist constantly interjecting himself and telling us that we were using the wrong map, well at some point we would justifiably think that he was just putting us off.
Now it can be bad to simply live in this “safe zone”, because engaging those that disagree can illuminate errors and allows you to sharpen your teeth (or, to put it in the language you free thinkers like, it can stave off that icky “dogma”). So you need to get out of this safe zone everyone once in a while, perhaps even frequently, to avoid the perils of what Jon called “group think”.
Now that I think of it, despite my enjoying my time on the blog and my sincere hope that I have informed and elevated the debate (not “threadjacked”), my participation here has not always been a good. I will grant that, in retrospect, I have perhaps disallowed the SHAFT blog from serving the first function. I have been “putting you off”. Now I am not sure how much productive and positive work was being done anyway (it is not like people were posting positive accounts of humanism that were then being hijacked by me), but still the point stands that by having a theist interject at most every turn, it can forestall a part of the SHAFT mission (a). This was not my intention, but it might have often been the effect.
All of this said, I don’t know how one manages this issue. Do you invite dissent into some blog topics but not to others? Perhaps I can singlehandedly help (since I am by far the biggest theist instigator) by simply holding back and posting less frequently and perhaps much less frequently. Or perhaps you allow that the blog, which is by nature more public and open, be a more open forum while other forums that are in practice more “closed” (meetings, facebook, etc) could fulfill the “support group” mission.
That is my two cents. And let me add, keep up much of what you are doing! Your group deserves applause for being one of the more intellectually active groups on campus. Finally, best of luck to all SHAFTers who are graduating and moving along. As you go forward in your lives, even if you are not going to believe in God, at least be godly (tip of the hat to Vince for that language).
With Dr. Kleiner, I too have felt a pinch of guilt in hijacking SHAFT’s blog once in a while. A future SHAFT post might state that it is not aimed at being a theist-atheist debate topic, then I could remind myself to listen quietly or participate in SHAFT-centered discussions with an occasional ‘walk-a-mile-in-your-shoes’ comment.
By the way, my trend is Kleiner’s in reverse — I started out a traditional theist and have trended ever closer to atheism. I am at a Levinas-Derrida boundary. Perhaps Jean-Luc Marion can help me see the boundary a bit better (tip of the hat to Kleiner).
The big BUT to the guilt Vince and I feel: Did Socrates feel guilty over being a gadfly? Shouldn’t, following what Socrates says in the Apology, the SHAFT community be thanking us for being such persistent pains in the ass?
Thanks
I am sure Kleiner joins me in thanking SHAFT! It has been great to be in the midst of all the different FT-ers. 8^)) (That’s a double wide smile).
Personally, as an atheistically-inclined agnostic who admits the grounds of morality I stand upon are somewhat shaky, I’ve found the POV’s that Kleiner and some of the other theists bring to the blog to be very helpful in the overall arch-discussion of religion and ethics. I would beg them to keep their pace and presence in our discussions at the levels they have been at, and not to go dim, so to speak.
Thanks also to Jon for finding the time to put some humorous pieces in the blog (The Apostle look-a-likes was fun, as were the various South Park clips). And of course thanks again for keeping the blog relatively up-to-date; I get anxious at other blogs I visit when they only post 2-3 times a week, but you’ve managed to keep this almost daily–and not adding a new post when there is a lively discussion taking place in another is quite understandable.
Even though I’m not a SHAFT’er I appreciate Kleiner’s and Vince’s hesitancy. This seems to be an almost universal occurrence on blogs inhabited by disparate voices. Unfortunately the usual outcome, even on the more tolerant blogs, is that the minority dissenting voices eventually get banned–a shame because that is just the majority closing its doors to the “gadflies.” This leaves no option but the closed discussion (which can serve a useful purpose, as Kleiner says — some of the time, but in exclusion it becomes an echo chamber). However, this is preferable to the most pathetic outcome, where different voices are arguing simultaneously on parallel yet oddly divergent courses. In this situation the discussion superficially appears to be in unison but isn’t because different sides are talking past each other. It’s more than just a complaint that the interlocutor is not saying that which pleases the group; it’s that initial assumptions and tenets of discussion have not been designated. To a great extent it’s discussion anarchy, the opposite of in-group graduate student discussion, where everyone realizes the foundation of argument. I would suggest that discussion anarchy is actually no better than no discussion, and it usually devolves into a string of thinly disguised ad homs.
Why does this happen so often? I think it has a lot to do with our almost scandalous disregard of doxastics — the “why” of belief. I think people usually enter discussions thinking their beliefs have been determined at something like the level of discussion, whereas in fact they are far more deeply entrenched in their psyches and are not really amenable to argument. Once they have volleyed their argument against the other side to no avail, their natural conclusions are that the other side is ignorant or dishonest or both. Of course, this is a terrible pessimism, or perhaps it’s an optimism — because if we can ever expose the true nature of belief, there may be some hope of resolving the knottiest (and naughtiest :-)) of disputes.
The USU philosophy community has discussed this issue before. Though I continue to blog, I think “blogologuing” (dialogue in so-called cyber-communities) almost always fails. (And yes, I hope the term “blogologue” catches on, since I think I made it up.) I am open to the possibility that I just suck at blogging (so I end up threadjacking when I don’t intend to, my posts operate at too high of a level, etc etc), but I actually think there is something deformed and deforming about the medium itself.
For anyone interested in reading some thoughts on this, I posted on it some years ago after the usuphilosophy blog had temporarily devolved into bickering:
http://usuphilosophy.com/2008/05/12/essay-on-rorty-philosophy/
Huenemann followed up on his own blog:
http://huenemanniac.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/blogologues/
The relevant point here (I am trying not to “threadjack”!!) is that the SHAFT blog is probably going to run into thickets no matter how well it is managed because it is just the nature of blogologuing for this to happen (orneriness, unintentional threadjacks, discussion anarchy, failure to see where others are coming from, talking past each other, marginalizing generalizations, etc etc etc).
Well, when you engage in blog discussion you’re generally doing it with a string of strangers. You are indulged in promiscuous and unprotected discussion. (That was a joke.) Seriously, there’s much to be said for Aristotle’s maxim about argument between friends. It can probably be explained well with game theory. Prisoner’s dilemma says we would all prefer an honest and sincere discussion. However, few people are prepared to play that gambit with a stranger — nobody wants to lose an argument to a dishonest opponent. There’s a raft of dishonesty one can employ in the blogsphere that could never happen in intimate discussion. So, Kleiner, we are in agreement (sound of triumphant horns).
One final depressing thought re doxastics: I think we disregard it by mutual consensus, while, of course, it always remains there, the elephant in the room. Nobody really wants to admit of the unsophistication and tissue thin veneer of reason most of their beliefs rest upon. And to really get at them, we are all going to have to dig through piles of psychological rubbish that we would really rather leave undisturbed.
I hope your blog, at least, will keep going!
Hey…for the record…I’d love to come speak to Shaft.
That would be great, Mr. Dehlin! I am sorry we couldn’t work out something for this semester. Perhaps you will be free in the fall?