Letter: Good without God: The Freethinkers’ response to Pastor Wartick
Written by Kent State Freethinkers Sunday, 30 January 2011 16:03
In his recent letter to the editor, Kent Wartick, a pastor of the Faith Lutheran Church in Kent, let us know what he thought of our recent advertising campaign. His letter was inspired by a PARTA bus sign that dared viewers to “Imagine No Religion.”
The sign was one in a series of advertisements designed and funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation in conjunction with the Kent State Freethinkers. They were part of a nationwide ad campaign aimed at raising awareness while encouraging the critical analysis of religion's influence on society. This inquiry has made many churchgoers uncomfortable, partially because of their twisted understanding of what it means to be nonreligious.
You see, in Pastor Wartick’s florid imagination, a world without religion is also a world with science. However, his contention that Christians’ scientific contributions were based on their religious faith is fundamentally flawed. Science is a human endeavor that spans all races, sexes and creeds. By his logic, we should also praise the Pantheon of Greek gods for ancient Greece’s contributions to mathematics. His reference to Copernicus and Galileo’s ideas on heliocentrism were especially misguided, since these early scientists were sanctioned heavily for daring to defy scripturally established church dogma that placed the earth in the center of the universe.
Wartick goes on to imagine that an irreligious world would be full of suffering and strife. After all, why would anyone be good if not for the promise of heaven and the threat of hell? It is clear, however, that scripture is not an adequate source of moral guidance. According to the Bible, God himself commits genocide and explicitly endorses slavery. Most religious people tend to emphasize the parts of the Bible that they find redeeming while ignoring the abhorrent. The fact that we are able to make these moral judgments proves that we don’t derive our moral intuitions from holy books.
So where do we get our understanding of morality, if not from religion? The humanist approach to morality rejects the need for supernatural guidance while affirming our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives based on universal concepts like empathy, justice, honesty and love. The Humanist Manifesto III, available from the American Humanist Association, states that “the lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully.”
Far too much of our national dialogue on morality is centered on issues that have little to do with human happiness and flourishing. Religious leaders have hijacked our discourse with inflamed rhetoric over gay marriage and the fate of unconscious blastocysts, while distracting from the important issues of social justice and global climate change. Solutions to these real-world problems will be found through the hard work of people, not through divine revelation or the unquestioned adherence to Bronze-age traditions. The moral primacy of religious ideas will need to be challenged if we’re going to find real world solutions to these difficult problems.
Wartick ends his letter by listing a few “responses” to his perceived threat of the “New Atheism.” We add that you should also consider reading “The Humanist Approach to Happiness” by Jennifer Hancock, and “Good Without God” by Greg Epstein. We believe that the goal of higher education should include the ability to objectively analyze arguments in order come to your own rational conclusions about the nature of the universe - not reading only what your religious leaders want you to read.
This letter represents the consensus opinion of the Executive Board of the Kent State Freethinkers. Contact them at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by P. Burnham, January 31, 2011
In what way have the Freethinkers been intolerant? The issue taken with Pastor Wartick's piece by the Freethinkers was the assertion that only Christians are responsible for everything good under the sun. His thesis is that beauty, morality and hope are strictly determined by a nearly 2,000 year old book; this is a coded message of demonizing and de-humanizing a group of people.
What the Freethinkers did was simply state a lack of belief in a God or gods. In my short time on campus I have seen the negative reaction to this simple statement over and over. Freethinker's posters and chalking that advertize meetings were quickly destroyed. The Freethinkers put a display in a glass case and it was essentially vandalized. The Stater's opinion page runs two articles in which the first writer was offended by the display case; the second article (Pastor Wartick’s) outright lied and hoped the flock would just go along with it. Within the first week I came to school here after transferring, I was essentially told that I was going to hell by a man proselytizing near the student center. I did not complain then and the Freethinkers are not complaining now.
You sir, are seeing what you want to see in this. Have you read either article? Perhaps because you’re not an outsider you are unable to see Wartick’s obviously hateful insinuation. You are hiding behind an ancient book and a genocidal creator in order to cast your proverbial stone at an entire community. You should be ashamed by saying (again coded) that we deserve to go to hell. Eternal punishment is not justice, it’s insanity and that’s not a value system I choose to believe in.
It seems to me that your reaction, like anyone else offended by our mere existence, is that of insecurity. All the Freethinkers did was offer a rebuttal. Like a frightened child you throw a fit, saying “look, they said something that we don’t believe, see, they’re the intolerant ones.” Like a child you can’t yet see that you are making statements that show your lack of understanding. And like a child you need to be corrected so that you may learn tolerance yourself.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Mark, January 31, 2011
-
- +1
-
-
written by Sharon H., January 31, 2011
JustSayin is wrong in his supposition of our intolerance: this is a forum for back and forth exchanges, and as much as he wants to demand it, the truth is that NO ONE is free from some sort of bias. And you can't get much more biased than a concept that says if you disagree with me, you're going to HELL where you will suffer pain that you deserve. Well done, freethinkers.
-
- +2
-
-
written by JustSayin, January 31, 2011
To me the Freethinkers’ rebuttal came across as young people who like to share ideas…but only if those ideas agree with the Freethinkers’ ideas. And in reading their retort, a wise saying comes to my mind: “If you throw a rock into a pack of wild dogs, the one that yelps, is the one that got hit.”
-
- -5
-
-
written by Nerdcore, January 31, 2011
-
- +1
-
-
written by Steve Robbins, January 31, 2011
My 2 cents--stop paying attention if you are so inclined.
I will gloss over the fact that he decides not to mention any contribution that any other religion or group has made to our culture...as if music and art didnt exist until some time after 30ish A.D. Maybe he takes after H.D. Thorough, "I should not talk about myself so much should I know anyone better."
One of the main problems that I wish this article was long enough to hit on can be found in Kent's article where he says that the world would not be beautiful without religion. WHAT????? Without human art the world would not be beautiful? Lets assume this is true. Because human architecture would not be extravagant, because Michaelangelo (and others) wouldn't have painted the Sistine chapel, because do-re-mi wouldnt have been invented...that's why the world would be dreary? That only humans, and specifically only those who believe in the Christian god can make beauty is...we'll just say incorrect. Go outside, look at national geographic, take a cell biology class, a cosmology class even. LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL!
What irks me is that some religious individuals have handed over their free will, accountability for their own fate, their own actions, and the definition what we call beauty and worth to a standard to be judged alongside a being of purported unimaginable perfection! What a standard to compare life to!
This sums up my feelings very well. It is slightly crude at points in that it uses the F word once and it does not have a favorable view of religion. But I hope no one will be offended by hearing an alternative opinion. To be clear, I'm not so concerned with the parts of the video which have to do with religion, but the parts that have to do with what science an do.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk
These statements apply, of course, not to all religious individuals. In differing form and scope I think that this idea is, albeit arguably, ingrained in the concept of monotheism.
-
- +2
-
-
written by P. Burnham, January 31, 2011
I'm happy they did though, publicity is nice and the subtext of Wartick's letter was that of intolerance. Perhaps his flock should examine what he has to say, intolerance is not very Christ-like.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Dan MacGregor, January 30, 2011
-
- +3
-
-
, many of them exclaim. Whatever your spiritual beliefs are, that is your truth, and if enough people believe something then it is true. That is the idea behind coming together for a purpose in church. Unfortunately, a growing number are doubting religious efficacy as defectors find true freedom. Many denominations are losing members, but again it is the fault of the nonbeliever. Others understand that religion is not necessary for continued growth of the human population, obviously, but it can be difficult to be in the minority when considering a group that has an enduring purpose.
Keep in mind that other unwavering religions outnumber christians in volume and longevity.