The Primary Source of willful ignorance
Published: Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Updated: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 07:10
 "Photo: Aalok Kanani / Tufts Daily")
Aalok Kanani / Tufts Daily
The Tufts Freethought Society (TFS) would like to formally thank The Primary Source for their blurb about the call for a Humanist chaplaincy in their Oct. 6 issue. As we write our op-eds, we consider whether the attacks against Humanism and the proposed chaplaincy are too akin to strawmen to warrant consideration, much less active rebutting, on our part. Do people actually harbor such simplistic and extreme beliefs about our proposal?
The Source puts our fears to rest when they write, "The freethinkers want an equal right to pray to … nothing and an equal right to spiritual advice for ... a soul they don't believe they have." This suggestion, clearly the result of a vain attempt to be thought-provoking or insightful, shows that the Source is ignorant of both what a Humanist chaplaincy is, as well as how mainstream theological chaplains function.
Not only are we insulted, but the other chaplains should be outraged as well. The comments made by the Source imply that chaplaincy work is limited in scope to prayer and concerns of the soul. Such comments completely ignore the considerable efforts put forth by Tufts' current chaplains: providing a sense of belonging, community and civic outreach, personal guidance, interfaith activism, ritual services, etc. The Source's comments demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the role of a chaplain on campus. Furthermore, the Source put little time into researching what this role may be, or how a Humanist may serve as a chaplain. Perhaps the Source should spend more time ridiculing their fact checkers who seem to have overlooked the existence of the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University, which has been providing non-believers at Harvard with a sense of belonging, access to secular community service and personal aid for over 30 years.
One is immediately reminded of the incident in 2006-07 when the Source published an article about Islam that managed to outrage even University President Lawrence Bacow, who wrote: "What is particularly troubling about the Source article is that, yet again, a discrete minority within our community has been singled out for ridicule. And once again, the article is unsigned. No one seems willing to take personal responsibility for this particular expression of opinion."
Such is the case with the latest drivel from the Source aimed directly at Tufts' potential Humanist chaplaincy. The piece is unsigned, written under the banner of "From the Elephant's Mouth." As firsthand witnesses of the community's support for our initiative to establish a Humanist chaplaincy, it strikes us as disingenuous and unfair to suggest that this offensive paragraph is a common opinion held by Jumbos, as the title implies.
Alright, so what about all of this prayer and soul business? We went back and counted the number of times TFS used the words "prayer" or "soul" in the last two years as a means of advocating for the Humanist chaplaincy through our own op-eds or articles written by members of the Daily. Not surprisingly, the number is zero. It is insulting that the Source would assume TFS to be so cloddish as to consider such obviously hypocritical ideas. Given the absurdity of these charges, it is difficult to decide how to move forward. We could present (i.e. repeat) arguments in our defense, write an unrelated op-ed or ignore the issue. It should be clear by now which path we have chosen.
Yes, the Humanist chaplain would be different from the other chaplains. We do not believe in God nor do we believe in the efficacy of prayer or the importance of the soul. However, we do care about our community, we care about philanthropy, and we have questions that counselors are not equipped to answer: questions about ethics or morality, for example. A good friend pointed out that one would not want to turn to a counselor or therapist who is trained in understanding mental problems when one has an ethical, moral or metaphysical dilemma. Just as a chaplain is not fully equipped to deal with depression or bipolar disorder, a counselor is not prepared to answer these kinds of questions from a non-religious and Humanist perspective. While there is some overlap between the supportive roles of a chaplain and a counselor, it by no means eradicates the need for either.
All of this talk about what TFS wants and does not want has been addressed before. But perhaps by reiterating our point here, we will increase the likelihood that someone from the Source will read our articles. If they do, they might be surprised to learn that we are not interested in prayer or souls and even have a response to their cute quip about counselors and therapists serving as secular advice givers. Perhaps the next blurb about the Humanist chaplaincy from the Source will demonstrate a clear understanding of the arguments presented here and elsewhere, or at any rate, will have someone willing to sign his or her name to it.
--
Stephen Goemen is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. He is a member of the Tufts Freethought Society. David Johnson is a senior majoring in physics and philosophy. He is the president of the Tufts Freethought Society.
86 comments Log in to Comment
You can’t stop giving orders, can you??? Does this come from your ‘religious’ training??? I have heard no convincing argument as to why you need a ‘Chaplain’ to consult with about your beliefs and why I don’t. I have heard no valid argument at all as to why your beliefs should be considered superior to mine.
I guess it depends on how you define “religion”. If religion is “a system of beliefs about ultimate meaning/existence”, then Humanism and Buddhism are “religions”. If the word “religion” requires belief in the supernatural, then they are not. I do NOT “despise religion”, only the elements that subjugate people, allow them to use the supernatural to control other humans by speaking for 'god', and allow people to fly planes into buildings killing thousands thinking they are serving this supernatural being and will end up in some afterlife where they will “exist” happily ever after.“....You don't understand the connection between faith and good works so you assume God is an impediment and waste of time, rather than a source of strength.....”
I’m sorry, but you do not seem to understand that the connection between “faith” (i.e. belief in a supernatural being) and good works, is contrived. The motivation to do “good works” can be driven by many factors. Humanism, science, reason, love, compassion, can all be “sources of strength”. Your god may be your source of strength, but belief in a god can obviously also be the source of human suffering.
“.....That's what's so insulting about your ‘If you need God before you can help another human, there is a problem!’"
I’m sorry if I insulted you, but you have also equally insulted me by your implied assumption that I and all non-theists cannot do good because we don’t believe in the supernatural, or that we don’t have a “source of strength” because we don’t believe in your god.
"As for the person who wrote "...isn't one goal of the secular humanists/freethought movement to render religion obsolete.." - No - it's to give people who do not accept the existence of a supernatural world or being, something else to believe in, something based on human reason rather than authority from some ancient text."So in other words, to render religion obsolete.
Rob, I would like you to stop commenting on religion. That statement proves that you don't understand it, and are only really interested in creating a "religion" without God; aka, ending religion as we know it."Your statement is ludicrous, bigoted, and insulting. You would like me to stop commenting on religion???? Who do you think you are Anonymous? Is this the typical Christian response to someone else asking for the equal right to have a "Chaplain"?I grew up with a supernaturalistic religion and understand perfectly well what it does for you and to you.
A religion without a god? - why should that bother you? Why are you trying to stop me from having a Chaplain?? I have no intention of ending your right to have a Chaplain.You have a religion with a supernatural being and think that that is what everyone else should believe. WE have every right to have a "Chaplain" who can talk to about ultimate meaning, values to live by, help develop our inner life, our connection with a larger reality, nature and the universe, and with other individuals or the human community AND who comes at all this from a non-supernatural world view.
As for the person who wrote "...isn't one goal of the secular humanists/freethought movement to render religion obsolete.." - No - it's to give people who do not accept the existence of a supernatural world or being, something else to believe in, something based on human reason rather than authority from some ancient text.Anyway - isn't that the purpose of every supernaturalist religion?? - to convince everyone that their supernaturally based religion (god) is real and render everyone else's religion obsolete?
"A good friend pointed out that one would not want to turn to a counselor or therapist who is trained in understanding mental problems when one has an ethical, moral or metaphysical dilemma."Sorry, the good friend is just wrong.It sounds like the good friend is still stuck in the social assumption that ethics and morals are only the jurisdiction of clergy, and that psychologically-based counselors have no competency in such matters. That’s absurd. The good friend does not understand what counselors actually do."Just as a chaplain is not fully equipped to deal with depression or bipolar disorder, a counselor is not prepared to answer these kinds of questions from a non-religious and Humanist perspective."Sorry wrong again.As a licensed Marriage and Family Counselor, my education included specific training in ethics, ethical behavior, moral dilemmas, and ethical counseling. It was not just the professional ethics governing the conduct of psychotherapists. Ethics were a part of many of the other courses I took in psychotherapy.In the field I was asked ethical questions by my clients and patients all the time. Struggling with addiction, mental disorders or relationship problems always includes problems about finding the right thing to do.I wouldn’t just shrug these questions off and say, “Sorry, that’s not my field.” My role in that regard was to nurture the person’s innate ethical sense, so that he could find the right thing to do, and he would develop skills and insight to make wise decisions in the future. It was an intricate, back-and-forth process.I never injected religious ideas into the mix, but the client might be drawing from his religious background, and I worked with him. If his solutions were too simplistic or mechanical, and they didn’t adequately address the complexities of the matter, I’d point that out, so he would come up with a more nuanced, more skillful response to his problem.Please don't underestimate the abilities of psychologically-based counselors to deal with ethical/moral questions.
"Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or immaterial reality;[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of their being; or the deepest values and meanings by which people live. [2] Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life; such practices often lead to an experience of connectedness with a larger reality, yielding a more comprehensive self; with other individuals or the human community; with nature or the cosmos; or with the divine realm.[3] Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life.[4] It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world."
But you don't believe that people have spirits, so it doesn't matter. Don't you remember how you wrote...in this very article...that you never claimed people have souls?"If people are truly concerned that we are engaging in group think then they should have attended the Greg Epstein event last semester and challenged us."
They would if they weren't scared that you'll dismiss them as ignorant, which you have done in nearly every one of your comments and articles.
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now
is a member of the 
