Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Remember Church Camp? Well now, according to the Washington Post, kids don't really need to be so churchy to attend. In fact, at said camps, the only requirment is a belief in, um, disbelief:
Camp Quest Chesapeake is a summer camp for atheists. Or the children of atheists. Plus: agnostics, secular humanists, freethinkers and other self-identified members of the non-religious community. This summer is the camp’s first appearance in the Mid-Atlantic — the second-largest launch in Camp Quest history.
I was surprised to read this. I thought these types of camps were a bad idea because they impressed the narrowminded views of the parents more permanently on kids. Indoctrination, right? Apparently that argument has no force when used back on secularists.
Several other items in the article struck my attention. First, what set this camp apart:
At Camp Quest Chesapeake, 34 campers have been asked to create, in the name of self-governance, a list of five rules that they think everyone should follow for the week... The goal of the exercise is to get campers to think about the democratic process: What is the purpose of creating and following rules? What if a rule passes that they don’t agree with? Are they obligated to follow it anyway?
I'm just curious; what would be the atheist answer to that last question? What is the basis for ethics? Majoritarian rule of some sort? If not, then what else? Interesting that the kids in this camp are asked a question that I've never really had answered to my satisfaction by my more agnostic friends, who are adults by the way. Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of casuistry, but case-by-case ethics need a supporting paradigm. Otherwise, there is no grounding for any moral decision.
Second, I was struck by what the kids "believe," which includes "critical and creative thinking, ...mutual respect and living ethically," and lastly, "arts and crafts." Pardon my ignorance, but I thought all these were activities, things people do. I suppose the meaning is that these kids believe these activities to be worthwhile. Then again, so do most religious people. So where is the dividing line here?
Perhaps the answer is that atheists are successful at these activities while everyone else fails. As expressed by Camp attendee Jake Monsky, "I don’t have any freethinker friends at home." Religion, it seems, prohibits individuals from uninhibited thought. Which is true, of course. I just wonder if freethinking makes any sense. Sounds a bit like freeflying, better known as "freefalling." I'll ride the airplane, thank you. I'll keep my religion, too. At least now I can defend the idea that Hitler "definitely made very, very bad choices."
The irony is that the most open-minded summer camp in existence (self-proclaimed) has such segregated and narrowly- defined activities. Atheist swimming, atheist hiking, and atheist stargazing?
- Comment (46)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Like!
Feb '11
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
I'm not following. What does self-governance have to do with atheism? And if you're a freethinker dedicated to self-governance, wouldn't you want to include some theistic believers in the group so that the thinking isn't constrained unnaturally?
Most important, what does any of this have to do with summer camp? What happened to physical and emotional development in the great outdoors via hiking, swimming, boating, shooting, nature exploration, etc?
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Nietzsche has a wondeful critique of "free-thinkers" in aphorism 44 of Beyond Good and Evil. His basic point is that those who think of themselves as "free-thinkers" tend to be dogmatic or thoughtless socialists. He contrasts "free-thinkers" with "free minds." I think he was right--"free-thinkers" in his day and ours are not open-minded or thoughtful!
Jun '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Atheist summer camp attendees from the past:
http://womenineuropeanhistory.org/index.php?title=Manifestations_and_Youth_clubs_in_the_1930s
Mar '11
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Oh god, as an Atheist(tm) I'm so embarrassed by this.
I'll just mention that this is old news. This thing got started years ago.
Again, this news is so humiliating. So rather accepting that this tars non-believers everywhere pretty badly, I'll just turn around and say "no u". :P Theists do it to and 2 wrongs make a right, or so I'm told. So bleh!
Edited on Jul 28, 2011 at 4:22pmJul '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
I don't believe in "Atheists' Camps."
Sep '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
The idea that non-believers require divine permission to behave morally / ethically is utterly absurd, as is the idea that non-believers are incapable of formulating robust codes of moral action. Surely you wouldn't try to claim that no person outside of a very small, tribal, illiterate part of the Levant ever lived a morally / ethically robust life prior to the appearance of the burning bush? I half-find these claims of "absolute morality as-handed-down-by-my-God" amusing because they always seem to ignore not only the moral contradictions within the body of teachings of the faith(s) in question, but also the obvious fact that "my God" is one of a plethora of gods and goddesses that have been worshiped by the credulous since mankind first began flexing its cognitive muscle. Take the relative views of Christianity and Islam on the topic of polygamy - how should a Buddhist (whose religion has nothing to say about marriage), say, or a Hindu (which has incorporated both over time), determine which view is morally superior? What is the basis for ethics? Majoritarian rule of some sort? If not, then what else?
Nov '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Sooooo.... can somebody find something to sue them for, then, or what?
Seems only fair; the left is big on everything being fair, and any time a christian pokes his head up he finds himself on the business end of a subpoena.
These free thinking chaps should really spend the next five years of their lives in a byzantine and vastly expensive labyrinth of legal challenges, just for the look of the thing.
Edited on Jul 28, 2011 at 7:18pmMay '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Brandon Zaffini:
Second, I was struck by what the kids "believe," which includes "critical and creative thinking, ...mutual respect and living ethically," and lastly, "arts and crafts." Pardon my ignorance, but I thought all these were activities, things people do. I suppose the meaning is that these kids believe these activities to be worthwhile. Then again, so do most religious people. So where is the dividing line here?
Perhaps that's the point. There isn't, nor should there be, a dividing line which separates religious people from nonreligious when it comes to these fundamental values. Why do you think there should be?
May '11
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Why are you hating on atheists?
Sure, the camp is silly, but what's it to you?
That there are nutball atheists should not be a surprise to anyone who can see just as many nutball religious people.
May '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Forrest and Mark:
There are many atheists who live good, decent lives, who care for the poor and are truly good Samaritans. There are many corrupt and sinful Christians, who are truly hypocritical pharisees. Sometimes I fit this category all too well myself.
The point is not to compare actions. Instead, I was just wondering what basis or standard we can use to determine what is right versus what is wrong? Yes, I know. We could always drag out Kant's Categorical Imperative or other such tiresome, rote doctrines, but they don't really answer the question. After all, why is the Categorical Imperative right or true? Because?
Perhaps I was a little heavy-handed on my commentary as regards this camp. I just thought it amusing, but also telling. There is something sadly comical about an ethics class that poses moral dilemmas without providing any reason for the existence of morality--or that concludes Hitler made really, really, really bad choices because--well, just because.
Oh yes, and the closed, confining nature of the camp was just ironic. Couldn't pass it up.
May '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Brandon Zaffini:
The point is not to compare actions. Instead, I was just wondering what basis or standard we can use to determine what is right versus what is wrong? Yes, I know. We could always drag out Kant's Categorical Imperative or other such tiresome, rote doctrines, but they don't really answer the question. After all, why is the Categorical Imperative right or true? Because?
[...]
There is something sadly comical about an ethics class that poses moral dilemmas without providing any reason for the existence of morality--or that concludes Hitler made really, really, really bad choices because--well, just because.
Let me turn the question around. You're asserting that without appealing to God, you can't have any sound basis for morality. Can you elaborate on what in particular is the basis for your morality? Why is your morality right and true? Because God said so?
Edited on Jul 29, 2011 at 12:26amSep '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Of course, the fact that you would categorize non-believers who live "good, decent lives" as "good Samaritans" is telling in and of itself. Not only does the metaphor not fit (the parable of the good Samaritan deals with unexpected succor from a member of one hated group to a member of another, adversarial group), the insinuation that, again, the non-believer is by nature expected to lead a less than moral life is absurd and insulting to anyone with a working brain.
Sep '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Clearly, you did not digest my first comment. Just because you have made choice from among the plethora of potential providers of "absolute moral truth" does not make your choice any more "right" than a non-believer's appeal to reason and evidence. Whether you realize it or not, you are still making a relative decision. Why is your God right? Why not the morals of Zeus? Or of Shiva? Or of Allah?
All of your work still lies ahead of you.
The point here is that you already know what is right and what is wrong - you don't require divine permission to be good or to be bad.
Again, do you really believe that no one on earth got it right prior to Moses' encounter with the burning bush? Really?
Sep '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Huh? Some would think it sadly comical (or just, well, sad) that you require some sort of perceived supernatural intervention in your life in order to understand that the slaughter of an entire culture is inherently wrong. How many times must it be said that you do not require divine permission in order to be good?
The credulous never cease to amaze me with this stuff. I take it, then, that the verses of the Old Testament that call explicitly for the extirpation of the Amalekites are just fine with you, "handed down" as they were from on-high? Or perhaps you feel a certain kinship with those elements in Israel who ponder the question of whether the commandment to exterminate the Amalekites applies currently to the Palestinians? Again, really?
Reason and evidence are just fine, thank you.
Sep '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Though not an atheist myself, it has always seemed to me that atheists should be some of the most morally upright citizens of any society. If you do not believe in deity, judgment, forgiveness or afterlife, you should consider any action that deprives another individual of the chance to experience all the benefits of the one chance they get on the merry go round of life to be categorically unacceptable. That's not to deny that selfish action is a part human nature, but, a live and let live philosophy would seem to better enable a long term, functioning society.
May '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Mark, I wasn't planning on answering the Euthyphro question through Ricochet reply posts (there is a good Christian response to this issue, by the way, that is readily available to anyone with Google). Similarly, Forrest, I didn't intend for my post to cover Biblical narratives like the killing of the Amalekites and the Philistines (there are plenty of good Christian sources on this as well. Let me know if you want some). And yes, you're absolutely correct when you suggest my "work still lies ahead of" me, so to speak. I wasn't proving Christianity in this post though. If you thought that was my aim, then you really misunderstood me here.
My point (or one of my points) was that the materialist worldview of the atheist cannot even accept the notion of morality. To be honest, it's doubtful that a materialist worldview can accommodate the idea of absolute truth, and thus logic and reason as well. If all things are the result of spinning atoms, on what basis can we say something is good or bad? The very idea of morality is contrary to the purely naturalistic explanations demanded by your system of thought.
May '10
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Brandon Zaffini: Mark, I wasn't planning on answering the Euthyphro question through Ricochet reply posts (there is a good Christian response to this issue, by the way, that is readily available to anyone with Google).
My point (or one of my points) was that the materialist worldview of the atheist cannot even accept the notion of morality. To be honest, it's doubtful that a materialist worldview can accommodate the idea of absolute truth, and thus logic and reason as well. If all things are the result of spinning atoms, on what basis can we say something is good or bad? The very idea of morality is contrary to the purely naturalistic explanations demanded by your system of thought.
There are plenty of good responses to how you can have morality without appealing to God on Google, as well. If you just want to keep telling each other to essentially "go to the library to find my reply to your question" I don't see much point in having a conversation.
Your second paragraph is full of some pretty bold assertions. I'm actually a monotheist myself, but I find it frustrating to see my compatriots make such arguments.
Mar '11
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Brandon Zaffini:
My point (or one of my points) was that the materialist worldview of the atheist cannot even accept the notion of morality.
I think you're conflating nihilism with materialism. The total reductionist philosophy employed by the nihilists doesn't hold much water with today's atheists, for good reason. The nihilists seem to ignore that individuals can have their own implicit purposes.
The atheist must hold that emotions and intentions (human autonomy) rose out of nature. The theist believes that God endowed humans with those traits. Whichever you believe, once you acknowledge that humans have those, all philosophy and morality must follow.
Jul '11
Re: Atheists Can Have Church Camp, Too
Mark Wilson
Brandon Zaffini:
So where is the dividing line here?
Perhaps that's the point. There isn't, nor should there be, a dividing line which separates religious people from nonreligious when it comes to these fundamental values. Why do you think there should be? · Jul 28 at 9:44pm
Before we ask should, perhaps we should ask why. It seems pretty clear that the premise of this camp rests on the fact that there is a dividing line.
"Atheist swimming, atheist hiking, and atheist stargazing?"
By stipulating an atheist approach to these activities, they imply a religious counterpart. I'm very active in my faith, and I've never heard of doing any of these in a religious way; these are amoral activities. It seems that attendees of this camp would disagree and that they are more focused on rejection of theology than they are of affirmation of their philosophy. Of course, that is the most fundamental precept of atheism, so that shouldn't be surprising.
-E
Edited on Jul 29, 2011 at 10:10am