Now on ScienceBlogs: Charles Darwin February 12, 1809 - April 19, 1882
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.
Lt Gen William Boykin, speaking of G. W. Bush, New York Times, 17 October 2003
« A novel creationist argument | Main | Sounds too familiar »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: May 30, 2009 8:13 AM, by PZ Myers
You too can pinky swear to abide by secular principles. It looks mostly harmless, although the 7th principle isn't entirely right.
7. In all of my actions, and without threat of divine retribution, I will strive to respect the dignity of all people.
I deal with too many creationists, and those are people without much dignity to respect.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/111196
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
PZ Myers 02.12.2012
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
ERV 11.26.2011
Jason Rosenhouse 02.12.2012
Jason Rosenhouse 02.10.2012
Comments
Posted by: Brian | May 30, 2009 8:22 AM
You're just being asked to respect their dignity. It doesn't apply if they have none, right?
Is that too letter-not-the-spirit? If so, then I'll just point out that you're pinkyswearing to strive. You won't break your promise if you strive and fail.
Posted by: Dave | May 30, 2009 8:33 AM
Pinky Swearers are not promising to give anyone more dignity than they deserve. By respecting the dignity of all people, one is not promising to give dignity to anyone's viewpoints, but rather one is just acknowledging that all people, as human beings, deserve some level of dignity. People may have views that are crazy, and they should be called out on it when they do, but each person, as a human being, nonetheless deserves some level of dignity.
Posted by: MadScientist | May 30, 2009 8:39 AM
I prefer to swear like Popeye the Sailor.
Posted by: AdamK | May 30, 2009 8:46 AM
I'm not one to join in. No church, no group, no organization, nothing. I'm not into believing and swearing and such.
Not that there's anything wrong with other people doing whatever they like.
Besides, if you don't get any magical powers, pointy hats or lacy underthings, what's the point?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 30, 2009 8:55 AM
So now the goddists can say "see, we told you that atheists had a dogma, rituals, and other trappings of religion."
Posted by: Zarathustra | May 30, 2009 8:57 AM
There is a difference between respecting the dignity of people and respecting their beliefs. I don't respect people's beliefs necessarily but I try to respect people unless they make it impossible. I don't see what's so hard about it.
Posted by: Dave | May 30, 2009 9:04 AM
There are many things I like about the Pinky Swear, but the best thing is that the swearers say they won't revert back to traditional religion for insincere reasons, such as to get married or to baptize their kids. So many people are not religious at all, but then go back to traditional religion for their weddings, etc. If the Pinky Swear does nothing more than get people to think twice about doing that, if it helps break that cycle, it will be a great public service.
Posted by: John Morales | May 30, 2009 9:08 AM
Call me cynical, but this seems to me to be a method to harvest names and addresses for marketing purposes (or worse, perhaps).
BTW, I had to look the expression up, not having come across it before:
Posted by: Carlie | May 30, 2009 9:23 AM
I thought the bit about "the appropriate context for sexual abstinence" was kind of weird. After saying that one would make morally informed decisions about sexuality, why throw abstinence in there as a special case? That was too much trying to force a point of some kind, although I'm unclear what it is.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 30, 2009 9:26 AM
Repeat after me: "I (state your name, give your home address and ATM PIN), do solemnly swear that I don't believe in gods and I do believe in a bunch of other stuff that has little to do with belief in the existence of a deity, so help me FSM."
Now pardon me while butter doesn't melt in my mouth.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 30, 2009 9:44 AM
Wittering about “dignity” reminds me too much of the Pope — what does “respecting dignity” actually mean? And what's this “I understand the appropriate context for sexual abstinence…”? WTF does that mean? No ass-fucking outside the kindergarten? Too weird. No thanks.
Posted by: Volly | May 30, 2009 9:49 AM
Your dilemma is understood by Unitarian Universalists everywhere.
Solidarity, my friend...
Posted by: smijer | May 30, 2009 9:56 AM
1) Several of those principles don't derive from secularism, though they are plenty compatible with it & are good to follow.
2) All people have inherent worth and dignity. Failure to recognize it is not the crime of the person who offends you. You can find little dignity in a person's ideas and actions without dehumanizing them.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 30, 2009 10:08 AM
"I commit to living by my humanist principles so long as those convictions are central to my worldview."
WTF?
My two pinkies just swore not to take the secular pinky swear.
Posted by: Frank Lovell
|
May 30, 2009 10:22 AM
"I deal with too many creationists, and those are people without much dignity to respect." -PZ
Well, agreeing to strive to respect the dignity of all people does not commit one to giving respect to a particular person's dignity beyond however much or little dignity that person's behavior reveals that person to actually have. Thus, I agree with PZ's expressed sentiment and yet also regard the suggestion to strive to respect the dignity of all people to be a reasonable suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DO UNTO OTHERS AS THEY WANT TO BE DONE
UNTO, OR ELSE LEAVE 'EM THE HECK ALONE!
------------------- The libertarian Golden Rule -----
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 10:24 AM
I already have a number of principles I try to live up to, most of which I developed after much thought, research, and experience. I don't really need a pithy little list formulated by someone else to be a decent person.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 30, 2009 10:28 AM
I agree with Naked Bunny. I've already got a way to deal with life, reality, and other people. I don't need to swear to follow a somewhat different path.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
May 30, 2009 10:41 AM
I think the mentions of sexual abstinence in particular derive from the fact that this appears to originate as an alternative to the abstinence pledges religious folks are trying to get teens to adopt. You know, the ones that end up only having teens making excuses ('oral sex isn't really sex, so I'm okay') or not learning about/taking precautions to protect themselves from pregnancy/STDs.
At least that's what I gather from the site.
I do like the bits about marriage and child-rearing, but I wonder how much of the traditional American-Christian wedding ceremony is becoming cultural rather than religious*. (I mean, look at Japan, where some brides adopt the white dress and some ceremonial elements because they look cool, regardless of the fact most Japanese aren't Christian.)
Also good to think about 'what one's convictions are', when one can't easily slot oneself into a religion. Especially for atheists/agnostics/various and sundry freethinkers.
* I wonder the same thing about holidays, too. I mean, I celebrate a form of Christmas out of family tradition, rather than because of religious conviction. (Heck, even my-sister-the-Catholic admits that the festival had been moved to December for non-religious reasons, something she apparently learned in RCIA. Surprised my mother, who had been educated in a Catholic school but is kind of a generic Christian humanist.) Giving it up would bother me in ways that forgetting about Easter (not a big holiday in my family, besides getting candy and dollar-store stuff from Mom) don't. I'm told some Jews are like that -- religiously atheist but still culturally Jewish.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 10:48 AM
Hey, OT, but speaking of vacuous little lists....
I'm in the middle of reading a lightweight self-help book called "QBQ!" by someone named John G. Miller. Anybody here familiar with his work? I have to read it for work, and it's really irritating me. His thesis, boiled down into a single sentence, is "if life gives you lemons, make lemonade", and he believes that business would be more efficient and people would be happier if we all strive to approach life with the same attitude as Ned Flanders.
I dislike people like Miller who gloss over the vast and complicated minefields of psychology when they write these books. "If you have a bad attitude -- as defined by me -- it's because you choose to have that attitude, and you can change it just by trying to change it." There are nuggets of truth in there, and I already take some of the approaches he suggests. But I think it's insulting to be told that my outlook on life is something I can just choose to completely overturn. I don't think it's right in this context any more than I think it's right when a homophobe tells me I just choose to be bisexual and can stop it if I would only try.
Sorry, I needed to vent a little. Obviously, I have a bad attitude.
Posted by: Frank Lovell
|
May 30, 2009 10:54 AM
"I already have a number of principles I try to live up to, most of which I developed after much thought, research, and experience. I don't really need a pithy little list formulated by someone else to be a decent person." -Naked Bunny
"I agree with Naked Bunny. I've already got a way to deal with life, reality, and other people. I don't need to swear to follow a somewhat different path." -'Tis Himself
Perhaps so, yet when I read these, I thought:????????????
Can't teach a sectarian or secular dogma new tricks, evidently. Ah well, live and learn (...or not...).
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 30, 2009 11:05 AM
... creationists, and those are people without much dignity to respect.
That depends on one's criteria for respect. How many of them drool?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 11:10 AM
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 30, 2009 11:15 AM
"...I have to read it for work, and it's really irritating me."
They make you read self-help books at work?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 11:28 AM
Yeah. Seems like they're missing the point of a self-help book, y'know?
Technically, they want me to read the book on my own time, rather than lose an hour of productivity. I have it in my bathroom, and I will tell them that, too, when I hand it back to the manager who came up with the idea.
Posted by: Carlie | May 30, 2009 11:31 AM
I think the mentions of sexual abstinence in particular derive from the fact that this appears to originate as an alternative to the abstinence pledges religious folks are trying to get teens to adopt.
I assumed that too, but that makes it even more weird to include it. Why shoehorn in some idea that abstinence in particular is a good thing that ought to be practiced? It's a little bit of caving to the wrong audience.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 30, 2009 11:40 AM
They can have my pinky when they pry it from my cold, dead anal sphincter.
Posted by: A. | May 30, 2009 11:40 AM
Some of you guys need to calm down. I mean, I get that you're so awesomely nonconformist & you have your very own handcrafted ethical framework & you don't have to sign anything cause it rails against your non-belief systems. But seriously. I'm sure whoever started up the Secular Pinky Swear site thought they were doing something good or fun and it's harmless. So please take the stick out of your ass for one second and stop acting too cool for school?
Posted by: KN | May 30, 2009 11:54 AM
I'm for anything that helps Americans realize that secular, nonreligious people can be good. And I'm for anything that encourages people to openly identify as secular, nonreligious, humanist, atheist, etc. And I'm for anything that encourages people not to have undeserved attachment to the outdated churches of their childhood. I've had lots of friends drift back to their family's churches for weddings, not because they believe the dogma and creed, but because they felt it was the only alternative. Good for the Pinky Swearer!!
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 30, 2009 11:54 AM
A., your concern is noted.
Posted by: Tulse | May 30, 2009 12:07 PM
I don't get all the complaining -- how are we ever going to have a International One-World-Government Communist Godless Atheist Cabal if people won't get on board? Didn't all of you Myers-worshipping groupthinkers get the memo at the last anti-Jesus meeting?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 30, 2009 12:10 PM
Says the guy about to launch into an insult-laden rant.
Posted by: A. | May 30, 2009 12:38 PM
Naked Bunny, I wouldn't insult any of you!! Or rant. I love everyone here. However, non-believers will occasionally become so caught up in asserting their rugged atheistic individualism that they become caricatures hell bent on taking the levity out of everything. It's not all a battle, right?
Posted by: amphiox | May 30, 2009 12:47 PM
Well, it just asks that you 'strive'. There does not appear to be any requirement to actually succeed.
Posted by: Don | May 30, 2009 1:03 PM
Hmm, the kit includes,
Instructions for preparing your gathering
Yeah, last time I followed instructions like that I had to re-decorate the front room. Still finding bits of goat.
It's a bit precious, isn't it?
Posted by: Twewi | May 30, 2009 1:10 PM
I think they thought they were, too. The problem is that abstinence pledges aren't harmless. Kids who strive for abstinence end up making stupid choices sexually because all they think is "don't do it don't do it don't do it," and that's an attitude that can't be maintained. We have sex drives, we want to do it, and our choice to do it or not has to be driven by a constant, rational assessment, because sheer will can break. I imagine this may be even worse for secular kids, becuase at least the religious kids have a reason, even if a misguided one, that they want to maintain abstinence.
Posted by: kev_s
|
May 30, 2009 1:22 PM
As long as they don't drool they deserve to be treated with dignity.
Posted by: Twewi | May 30, 2009 1:49 PM
I'll treat someone with a lack of facial neuromuscular control with a lot more dignity than a creationist, thank you.
Posted by: Helena Handbag | May 30, 2009 2:01 PM
Taken from the perspective of teens and college students who have friends trying to drag them to Intervarsity Christian Fellowship meetings, it might seem pretty handy. I sent the link to my 17 and 20 year old sons. They don't have to sign anything to be able to adopt the language used on the site as a way to help explain the roots of their own ethical standards. It may seem dopey to jaded adults, but it could be useful for a kid surrounded by religious pressure.
Posted by: Dave | May 30, 2009 2:19 PM
This is NOT an abstinence pledge. They are just saying that they have secular values and that they will make rational decisions about how they live their lives. Much more sensible than the religious right's approach. They are also saying they'll be open about their secular views, rather than hiding them to please others. That would be great to see more of.
To the person who questioned why the students say they will be open about their humanist principles "so long as they are central to my worldview." It's worded that way because it would be wrong for kids to promise to always be secular humanists. I don't think we would want kids making a pledge to be humanists forever - that would be an assault on their freedom of conscience. We may HOPE they'll be humanists forever, but we only want them to say they will be open about being secular humanists so long as they continue to be secular humanists.
Posted by: Blaine Christian | May 30, 2009 5:18 PM
And some people are over thinking this.
I read it, to me it was a riff on the "abstinence rings" and other such non-sense. Seemed reasonable and ultimately interesting if not harmless.
I signed up.
Posted by: Blaine Christian | May 30, 2009 5:20 PM
And some people are over thinking this.
I read it, to me it was a riff on the "abstinence rings" and other such non-sense.
The other parts of the site say the pledge is for "students" so that right there with the sex clause pretty much cements it for me.
Seemed reasonable and ultimately interesting if not harmless.
I signed up.
Posted by: Blaine Christian | May 30, 2009 5:22 PM
And some people are over thinking this.
I read it, to me it was a riff on the "abstinence rings" and other such non-sense.
The other parts of the site say the pledge is for "students" so that right there with the sex clause pretty much cements it for me.
Seemed reasonable and ultimately interesting if not harmless.
I signed up.
Posted by: eddie | May 30, 2009 9:52 PM
Some people are over posting.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
PS - that was me anonymous at the end of the drooling thread. I'm not sure how typekey expiry works but it apparrently can happen in mid comment.
Posted by: A. | May 30, 2009 11:15 PM
Twewi! It isn't an abstinence pledge in the least! How could one even read it as such??! It's simply a statement accommodating those among us non-believers who may decide - using completely secular reasoning - that abstinence is the best choice for them in their lives at this time. Given that most decisions regarding sexual behavior are dictated by one's religious notions (most unfortunately), it would be imperative for the people that created the Secular Pinky Swear website to make room for those who may regard abstinence as an option unhindered by superstitious baggage. Good for them!
Posted by: Timothy | May 31, 2009 5:19 AM
Is it possible to have respect for nothing? I feel like it can't, so there's nothing to worry about since creationists don't have any dignity.
Posted by: Carlie | May 31, 2009 9:17 AM
It's simply a statement accommodating those among us non-believers who may decide - using completely secular reasoning - that abstinence is the best choice for them in their lives at this time.
Of course it is, but it's entirely superfluous. Saying that a person will make their own decisions about their sexuality and activity already includes the option for not engaging in it at all - singling out abstinence makes it appear to be a special choice unlike all the rest that is so special it has to be mentioned separately all by itself.
Think about it this way: If the statement had been worded with any other sexual practice like so:
"Without need for religious reference, I will make every effort to take a mature, intelligent approach to decisions regarding my sexuality. I understand the appropriate context for sexual threesomes and appreciate the benefits that communication and maturity bring to intimacy."
Would you not find it a bit strange?
Posted by: Dave | May 31, 2009 10:24 AM
Even though the Pinky Swear is NOT an abstinence pledge, I don't think it is inappropriate that it mentions the word abstinence, because by doing so it is addressing an issue that is frequently raised when the issues of teen sexuality and sex education are discussed. Average Americans who are wondering about how secular kids approach sexuality might ask, "What do they think about abstinence? Are they simply hedonistic, believing in as much sex as possible with as many partners as possible, or do they sometimes understand the need for restraint?"
Silly as it may sound, many Americans view atheists as raging hedonists. As such, it is perfectly appropriate to mention the issue of abstinence head-on, by saying that secular kids do NOT pledge abstinence, but that they also realize, as most mature people do, that sometimes NOT having sexual relations might be a good option.