Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Fireside to open debate on atheism

Published: Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 02:11

Two professors and an emerging student group want to bring atheism and agnosticism into the religious fold at Northwestern, two belief systems they said they feel have not had a voice on campus.

In a recent survey of incoming NU freshmen by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program, 33 percent of respondents chose "none" when asked to indicate religion.

Math Prof. John Alongi said when he heard how many students self-identified as having no religion, he thought it was important to give these individuals a forum for discussion. He and English Prof. Bill Savage will hold a fireside at Slivka Residential College at 7 p.m. Tuesday to discuss atheism and agnosticism at NU.

Alongi teaches a freshman seminar called "The Modern Case for Atheism", in which he said he intends to develop students' writing and critical thinking skills with a provocative topic. Outside the classroom, he said he would like to increase awareness of the atheist and agnostic point of view.

"I certainly would like to raise the consciousness of people to a rational, natural reason-based world view as an alternative to the irrational, supernatural, faith-based superstitious world view," he said.

A new group looking to facilitate such discussion at NU is Secular Humanists for Inquiry and Free Thought, which is currently applying for Associated Student Government recognition. Group Co-presidents Cassy Byrne and Geoff Minger said the group's Facebook page is growing more rapidly than they anticipated, and has a following of 78 members as of Monday night. Byrne, a Weinberg sophomore, said the group is intended for atheists and agnostics as well as students questioning their religious beliefs.

"We plan to advocate skepticism, and (have) a place to gather and educate ourselves and others about secularism in society and humanism," Byrne said. "We do want to create a community for people to feel like they have somewhere to go when they feel different."

Minger, a Communication sophomore, said atheists may feel alone at NU.

"I used to feel suffocated," he said. "(SHIFT) is a lot about that community, the comfortable atmosphere."

Savage said in his time at NU as a Ph.D. student and professor, he cannot remember a group like SHIFT having a presence on campus.

"If there's a student group that's promoting atheism, agnosticism and secular humanism," he said, "I'm all for it ... In American culture we tend to give a lot of credence to people's religious beliefs, and we have a tradition of respecting religion. We don't have a similar trend in the other direction."

Lauren Berry, a Communication senior and Greek InterVarsity's outreach director, said the interfaith discussion is most effective in a less formal environment.

"It's valuable in more natural settings," she said. "We all go to Northwestern, we all take classes together. It's important for people not to stay in their own bubble."

Emily Raymond, a Weinberg senior, is writing an honors thesis about changes in religious groups on college campuses. She said NU has a vibrant religious community but lacks the atheist and agnostic perspective.

"What a lot of religions are concerned with are things like, ‘What is the purpose of life? What happens after we die? How do you be a moral person?'" Raymond said. "What the secular humanist movement has to say to those questions would be really interesting."
The fireside event Savage and Alongi will host Tuesday will attempt to define what atheism and agnosticism are and how they relate to secular humanism.

Savage said these alternative beliefs could be better addressed by the NU community.
"We can disagree about very fundamental things, but we can still get together and talk about it in a respectful and interesting way," he said. "This is just a conversation, but it's a conversation that isn't had often enough."


lark@u.northwestern.edu

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

9 comments

Anonymous
Wed Feb 24 2010 10:19
They should outlaw all religions and be done with it !!
Mary
Mon Dec 7 2009 12:23
I think evolution is a great theory and a fascinating one. I think there could be life beyond this planet. The NEw York Times Book of Essential Knowledge is one of my favorites and I really like to talk, discuss, and look at the big questions from all sides. I am also a Christian - Catholic from birth who recognizes that the Church has certainly had its periods of difficulty since its human members aren't perfect, but whose members have also gone beyond the call of duty because of their faith - think Oskar Schindler, Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa. I think LAG is right. If you actually want to discuss religion or add your views to the big questions, I am all for it. If you plan to start from the position that I'm obviously irrational, superstitious, and inferior, then it's not really a discussion, is it? It's also been my experience that there is a far greater suspicion and ridicule of religious people on campus, particularly in class than there is of atheist/agnostic views.
Your name
Wed Dec 2 2009 14:53
So professors can also be trolls now? Let's start a club that discusses how I don't believe in unicorns.
Your name
Mon Nov 30 2009 21:50
I wouldn't consider it particularly rational to believe a virgin conceived the son of God and he died for our sins. If there were a God, some (any?) evidence would point in that direction but scientific discovery has continuously unravelled miracles and other religious "proofs." The Bible has some incredibly evil things going on and if this is supposed to be the word of God, do people pick and choose what they believe? Mass murder. Stoning. Women subservient to men. Eternal torture in hell. I cannot believe this is considered a source of morality. Though I'm happy that there is religious freedom, I'm not going to make anything religious my primary effort. I have my own morality, one that is not policed by an omniscient father, to worry about.
Your name
Mon Nov 30 2009 20:59
LAG: I don't define atheism as rational. The belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism) is as irrational as the belief that they do. However, as in any claim of existence, the burden of proof is on those who assert existence. I simply claim that it is irrational to *believe* either way. However, being agnostic doesn't imply that both possibilities are equally likely. Evidence suggests that the probability of gods existing (especially in the sense of the Mosaic religions) is small.

Re: "That it is irrational to believe that all the wonder of the universe is created essentially by chance, and that as such people are all nothing more than a collection of chemical reactions..." First, this statement reveals a basic misunderstanding of evolution via natural selection. It is not random. Second, relying on facts and evidence resulting from verifiable and repeatable examination is rational. Accepting someone else's divine revelation is not. It has nothing to do with how someone "feels." I don't believe in evolution. Rather, evolution via natural selection is the best explanation for our origins at this time. If sufficiently substantial evidence for an alternative explanation emerges, then I would change my mind.

Why attack theism? Needless suffering is a consequence of theism. Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, India vs. Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon,... Remove theism from these conflicts and they virtually disappear. Today the antagonists in India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, and the United States have or aspire to have nuclear weapons. If Iran attacks Israel because the Jews should be wiped from the Earth, or the President of the United States invades Iraq to fulfill his mission from god, then there are potentially dire consequences for us all. As Voltaire said, “As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.”

@LAG
Wed Nov 25 2009 14:03
Superstition & faith are /inherently/, not /subjectively/, irrational, illogical beliefs.
@thats it
Wed Nov 25 2009 13:57
"I wonder what level of discrimination exists for these students on campus."

What does that mean?

thats it
Wed Nov 25 2009 04:44
What is the purpose of life? That's up to each individual to decide.
What happens after we die? Nothing. So focus on the first question.
How do you be a moral person? Never use force and be honest.

I think that the primary efforts of atheists/agnostics should be advocating for religious (or absence thereof) freedom. However, many students may need help developing the tools for interacting with a religious world and this group can help with that.

I wonder what level of discrimination exists for these students on campus.

LAG
Tue Nov 24 2009 14:27
I guess it's good that people who feel the need to go discuss their lack of religious views will have a forum to do that. I consider myself agnostic, and don't feel any such desire or need, i guess that's the point of my belief. I don't need/want to hear what anyone else believes about religion. But if other people do, good for them. I couldn't help but notice however, that you couldn't support your own group without attacking others. Alongi predefines atheism as rational, and belief in god as irrational. Many others might feel that exact opposite. That it is irrational to believe that all the wonder of the universe is created essentially by chance, and that as such people are all nothing more than a collection of chemical reactions. I don't hold a "faith-based superstitious world view" but neither do i feel the need denigrate such a view as irrational, in order to support my own beliefs. I support a group whose goal is to spur discussion about religion, but if the goal is going to be to attack/tear down religious views as being inherently inferior to the enlightened atheist/agnostic, then i feel only sadness that you think that is necessary.






log out