Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
But I don’t feel as if I have found something new to believe in. I feel as if I have come home to what I have always believed. I saw the TED video with Sam Harris speaking about science as a way to finding answers to moral questions, and realized I am not the only rational person on earth. Now I want to help spread awareness of critical thinking. As I am only an undergrad student I am not much of an expert on anything, and I don’t know the first thing about starting or running any kind of organization. My University is full of religious organizations (23) but no organizations with a goal like Project Reason. I could be tempted to argue that college itself is an organization dedicated to the idea of critical thinking, but not on the same scope as Project Reason.
I am new, so obviously feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any respect.
I would like to see if I can start a student organization related to Project Reason and the raising awareness of critical thinking, especially when it comes to critical analysis of religions and dogmatic belief systems.
So if/when I get this organization started is there any way to collaborate with Project Reason to coordinate and spread the idea that critical analysis of ALL subject matter is a good thing?
Also if there is anyone in the UCF area interested in helping or giving me some guidance then I am open to it. I have never been a part of anything really. Let alone trying to raise awareness of anything. I generally only open eyes that are in close proximity to me, it would be nice to increase my range a little.
But I don’t feel as if I have found something new to believe in. I feel as if I have come home to what I have always believed. I saw the TED video with Sam Harris speaking about science as a way to finding answers to moral questions, and realized I am not the only rational person on earth. Now I want to help spread awareness of critical thinking. As I am only an undergrad student I am not much of an expert on anything, and I don’t know the first thing about starting or running any kind of organization. My University is full of religious organizations (23) but no organizations with a goal like Project Reason. I could be tempted to argue that college itself is an organization dedicated to the idea of critical thinking, but not on the same scope as Project Reason.
I am new, so obviously feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any respect.
I would like to see if I can start a student organization related to Project Reason and the raising awareness of critical thinking, especially when it comes to critical analysis of religions and dogmatic belief systems.
So if/when I get this organization started is there any way to collaborate with Project Reason to coordinate and spread the idea that critical analysis of ALL subject matter is a good thing?
Also if there is anyone in the UCF area interested in helping or giving me some guidance then I am open to it. I have never been a part of anything really. Let alone trying to raise awareness of anything. I generally only open eyes that are in close proximity to me, it would be nice to increase my range a little.
Welcome!
Unfortunately Sam is wrong about science answering moral questions, but that is a long pointless debate along the lines of gods and religions.
I am a supporter of the SSA, their purpose is to setup secular student organizations at schools and they have tools to help do that. I highly recommend you check them out.
Unfortunately Sam is wrong about science answering moral questions, but that is a long pointless debate along the lines of gods and religions.
I am a supporter of the SSA, their purpose is to setup secular student organizations at schools and they have tools to help do that. I highly recommend you check them out.
I don’t thing arguing (professional/educational arguments) is ever “pointless”. You also relegate morals immediately to the realm of mystics and witchcraft for no apparent reason other then the idea “it always has been and it always will be”. Instead of asking yourself, what is science? Surely you don’t believe science to exclude psychology, sociology, and the various sciences of the mind? Although this is most likely a topic for a different formate. Coming to understand what science really is might alter an opinion or two out there. I enjoy controversial debate… I can’t seem to help it =]
It was also his critical analysis of organized religions that drew me in the most. Which also seems to be the point of Project Reason, unless I misunderstand it somehow. That critical analysis is what I aim for in a new organization on my campus and I will look into the SSA. Thank you very much for the link and I will go there immediately following this post.
Unfortunately Sam is wrong about science answering moral questions, but that is a long pointless debate along the lines of gods and religions.
I am a supporter of the SSA, their purpose is to setup secular student organizations at schools and they have tools to help do that. I highly recommend you check them out.
I don’t thing arguing (professional/educational arguments) is ever “pointless”. You also relegate morals immediately to the realm of mystics and witchcraft for no apparent reason other then the idea “it always has been and it always will be”. Instead of asking yourself, what is science? Surely you don’t believe science to exclude psychology, sociology, and the various sciences of the mind? Although this is most likely a topic for a different formate. Coming to understand what science really is might alter an opinion or two out there. I enjoy controversial debate… I can’t seem to help it =]
It was also his critical analysis of organized religions that drew me in the most. Which also seems to be the point of Project Reason, unless I misunderstand it somehow. That critical analysis is what I aim for in a new organization on my campus and I will look into the SSA. Thank you very much for the link and I will go there immediately following this post.
Thanks again
That’s like saying there are no dumb questions, there are. After spending a few thousand hours talking in circles about the same thing come tell me how it’s never pointless.
I know what science is, you can not school on it.
This is the typical conflation and confusion I see repeated on this subject, that science finding an answer to something is the same as science determining if it is moral/immoral.
If you like debate you came to the right place. As for Project Reason I don’t know what it does, this is just the death match forum.
I’m just a visitor here, so I can’t say much about Project Reason. I’ve also never organized anything like what you are talking about.
But it looks like there was a group at UCF last year that tried to get some things rolling. I’m not sure they’ve been active over the last year, but maybe some of them are still around and could give you contacts and advice.
And on a side note, I thought Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape was a great book. I think that science not only can answer moral questions…I think it has answered moral questions.
I think Sam’s message, that the scientific community should not cede the discussion of morals and ethics to philosophers and theologians, is extremely important.
Best of luck to you on starting something at UCF, and let us know how it turns out!
That’s like saying there are no dumb questions, there are. After spending a few thousand hours talking in circles about the same thing come tell me how it’s never pointless.
I know what science is, you can not school on it.
This is the typical conflation and confusion I see repeated on this subject, that science finding an answer to something is the same as science determining if it is moral/immoral.
If you like debate you came to the right place. As for Project Reason I don’t know what it does, this is just the death match forum.
Well again, I do like debate. So I must disagree with your assumption that my liking debate of controversial issues is the same as saying there are no dumb questions. Furthermore, the fact that there truly are dumb questions (as you seem to claim) suggest a greater need to spread awareness and increase critical thinking. Not ignoring it and accepting “dumb”-ness at face value. Not to mention your analogy is quite obviously incorrect and makes no sense without my needing to draw any more attention to it.
I could go on to try and enlighten you to the idea that perhaps the goal of debate is not to convince the other side that your position on an argument is true/better, but to sway those who may be on the fence or not otherwise grounded to one side in particular who might be watching/listening/reading in on such matters. Based on your apparent firmness in belief on the matter (much like most devout believers of all kinds), I doubt you could be convinced that civil arguments could be seen this way.
As far as schooling on science, that was not my intention. I simply asked that it be defined before it be written off is all. There is no need to take such a defense stance on the subject if you truly know what it is to be scientific. Also in your response you to my question you did not give an objective answer. Saying you know something does not make it true. Although I am sure you know that as well.
I have actually come for information on, and to further, Project Reason. This thread was more of a call for help to like minded individuals with more experience than I on the matter of starting up a student organization. Mission accomplished at that. Amazing how fast things can move along.
I’m just a visitor here, so I can’t say much about Project Reason. I’ve also never organized anything like what you are talking about.
But it looks like there was a group at UCF last year that tried to get some things rolling. I’m not sure they’ve been active over the last year, but maybe some of them are still around and could give you contacts and advice.
And on a side note, I thought Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape was a great book. I think that science not only can answer moral questions…I think it has answered moral questions.
I think Sam’s message, that the scientific community should not cede the discussion of morals and ethics to philosophers and theologians, is extremely important.
Best of luck to you on starting something at UCF, and let us know how it turns out!
I agree with you in all respects. So there are 3 of us that I know of =]. I will also check out the organization from last year. I went to the list of Student organizations and did not come across them. If they have since not continued on, then I will pick up where they left off. Thank you very much for the heads up, and I will keep you posted.
I checked out their site. The upcoming events is for april of last year. So they are probably not active and I did not find them on the list of organizations. But I will try to contact someone to see if anyone is still interested.
That’s like saying there are no dumb questions, there are. After spending a few thousand hours talking in circles about the same thing come tell me how it’s never pointless.
I know what science is, you can not school on it.
This is the typical conflation and confusion I see repeated on this subject, that science finding an answer to something is the same as science determining if it is moral/immoral.
If you like debate you came to the right place. As for Project Reason I don’t know what it does, this is just the death match forum.
Well again, I do like debate. So I must disagree with your assumption that my liking debate of controversial issues is the same as saying there are no dumb questions.
Well that’s nice but it’s not what I said.
Furthermore, the fact that there truly are dumb questions (as you seem to claim) suggest a greater need to spread awareness and increase critical thinking. Not ignoring it and accepting “dumb”-ness at face value. Not to mention your analogy is quite obviously incorrect and makes no sense without my needing to draw any more attention to it.
Good luck with that.
I could go on to try and enlighten you to the idea that perhaps the goal of debate is not to convince the other side that your position on an argument is true/better, but to sway those who may be on the fence or not otherwise grounded to one side in particular who might be watching/listening/reading in on such matters.
And gods could be watching/listening/reading in on such matters too. But you already seem to have all the facts so no sense in getting into a pointless debate.
Based on your apparent firmness in belief on the matter (much like most devout believers of all kinds), I doubt you could be convinced that civil arguments could be seen this way.
LOL. Pot meet kettle.
As far as schooling on science, that was not my intention. I simply asked that it be defined before it be written off is all. There is no need to take such a defense stance on the subject if you truly know what it is to be scientific. Also in your response you to my question you did not give an objective answer. Saying you know something does not make it true. Although I am sure you know that as well.
defense stance? No, just friendly chitchat.
I have actually come for information on, and to further, Project Reason. This thread was more of a call for help to like minded individuals with more experience than I on the matter of starting up a student organization. Mission accomplished at that. Amazing how fast things can move along.
That’s like saying there are no dumb questions, there are. After spending a few thousand hours talking in circles about the same thing come tell me how it’s never pointless.
I know what science is, you can not school on it.
This is the typical conflation and confusion I see repeated on this subject, that science finding an answer to something is the same as science determining if it is moral/immoral.
If you like debate you came to the right place. As for Project Reason I don’t know what it does, this is just the death match forum.
Well again, I do like debate. So I must disagree with your assumption that my liking debate of controversial issues is the same as saying there are no dumb questions.
Well that’s nice but it’s not what I said.
Furthermore, the fact that there truly are dumb questions (as you seem to claim) suggest a greater need to spread awareness and increase critical thinking. Not ignoring it and accepting “dumb”-ness at face value. Not to mention your analogy is quite obviously incorrect and makes no sense without my needing to draw any more attention to it.
Good luck with that.
I could go on to try and enlighten you to the idea that perhaps the goal of debate is not to convince the other side that your position on an argument is true/better, but to sway those who may be on the fence or not otherwise grounded to one side in particular who might be watching/listening/reading in on such matters.
And gods could be watching/listening/reading in on such matters too. But you already seem to have all the facts so no sense in getting into a pointless debate.
Based on your apparent firmness in belief on the matter (much like most devout believers of all kinds), I doubt you could be convinced that civil arguments could be seen this way.
LOL. Pot meet kettle.
As far as schooling on science, that was not my intention. I simply asked that it be defined before it be written off is all. There is no need to take such a defense stance on the subject if you truly know what it is to be scientific. Also in your response you to my question you did not give an objective answer. Saying you know something does not make it true. Although I am sure you know that as well.
defense stance? No, just friendly chitchat.
I have actually come for information on, and to further, Project Reason. This thread was more of a call for help to like minded individuals with more experience than I on the matter of starting up a student organization. Mission accomplished at that. Amazing how fast things can move along.
That’s great! Quit while you are ahead?
Your humerus conversational strategy would be more effective if it were accurate. Writing something (especially on a public forum) and then turning around and claiming that you never wrote it immediately takes away any credibility you might have had. As I am not experienced with online forum format, I will not be able to respond in a similar style as you just did. But I will draw your attention to the large quote above.
The very first thing you say (write) is, “That’s like saying there are no dumb questions” and then you turn around and claim you never said it.
“Good luck with that” - It is a very common thing to say, when you actually have nothing to say of value.
“And gods could be watching/listening/reading in on such matters too. But you already seem to have all the facts so no sense in getting into a pointless debate.” The first sentence has no apparent relevance at all. As if you said it merely for the sake of saying it. I do not think I have all the facts, but I do have some.
“LOL. Pot meet kettle.” - I never made a firm stance on anything. I hypothesized that debate could be more then just trying to force people to see your point of view and change their minds about something. I suggest it could be used to help people who have not made up their minds yet to do so. If you want to discuss why this can absolutely not be true of debate then I am open to it. You did not engage such a discussion however. You are all to eager to label me a “pot” in an attempt to discredit my argument. Which when looked at carefully (dare I say critically), simply does not succeed.
“defense stance? No, just friendly chitchat.” - My apologies on behalf of my grammar. I meant defensive stance, but I think that was clear. Taking the stance of “I know it all and I can not possibly gain from a critical analysis of how “science” is defined” is a defensive stance… within some friendly chitchat =] You are defending your breadth and depth of knowledge on science. I study linguistics as a hobby, and I do not pretend to be an expert. But I am informed and the comment you made has all the characteristics of a defensive stance. Me saying I study linguistics as a hobby is me “defending” my ability to spot a defensive comment when I see one. It is not an insult to be accused of being defensive. Only an observation. What I meant by saying what I did was this. If your knowledge of science is truly profound then it will be self evident in a discussion, and saying you know it all is not a very strong argument in any discussion of any topic.
“That’s great! Quit while you are ahead? ” - If “quitting while you are ahead” is your personal strategy in life then I am sorry because I do not share it. Where would this country be if everyone did such a thing? Clearly I am taking that comment seriously, and it was meant in a lighthearted sense. As is everything I have said. =] I am only practicing for future nay sayers
Your humerus conversational strategy would be more effective if it were accurate. Writing something (especially on a public forum) and then turning around and claiming that you never wrote it immediately takes away any credibility you might have had. As I am not experienced with online forum format, I will not be able to respond in a similar style as you just did. But I will draw your attention to the large quote above.
The very first thing you say (write) is, “That’s like saying there are no dumb questions” and then you turn around and claim you never said it.
That’s not what I said either. OK, I feel sorry for you so I’ll rehash this quickly for your sake.
You said: There are no pointless arguments
I said: That’s like saying there are no dumb questions
You Said: I must disagree with your assumption that my liking debate of controversial issues is the same as saying there are no dumb questions.
I said: That’s not what I said
And it’s not. I said if you love debate you came to the right place which was a completely separate statement from the no dumb questions statement which was specify to your no pointless arguments statement and absolutely nothing to do with your love of debate.
The rest of what you wrote is filled with the same kind of poor comprehension and projections. You should be embarrassed of making such a big deal out of your errors. But I know you won’t, I can tell by your writing that you have already decided that you know better and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be the one in error.
Your humerus conversational strategy would be more effective if it were accurate. Writing something (especially on a public forum) and then turning around and claiming that you never wrote it immediately takes away any credibility you might have had. As I am not experienced with online forum format, I will not be able to respond in a similar style as you just did. But I will draw your attention to the large quote above.
The very first thing you say (write) is, “That’s like saying there are no dumb questions” and then you turn around and claim you never said it.
That’s not what I said either. OK, I feel sorry for you so I’ll rehash this quickly for your sake.
You said: There are no pointless arguments
I said: That’s like saying there are no dumb questions
You Said: I must disagree with your assumption that my liking debate of controversial issues is the same as saying there are no dumb questions.
I said: That’s not what I said
And it’s not. I said if you love debate you came to the right place which was a completely separate statement from the no dumb questions statement which was specify to your no pointless arguments statement and absolutely nothing to do with your love of debate.
The rest of what you wrote is filled with the same kind of poor comprehension and projections. You should be embarrassed of making such a big deal out of your errors. But I know you won’t, I can tell by your writing that you have already decided that you know better and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be the one in error.
Seeing how you are incapable or unwilling to notice a paraphrase when you see one, I will explain what one is. First I will define it for you.
Paraphrase is restatement of a text or passages, using other words. The term “paraphrase” derives via the Latin “paraphrasis” from the Greek para phraseïn, meaning “additional manner of expression”. The act of paraphrasing is also called “paraphrasis.”
So when I wrote “I must disagree with your assumption that my liking debate of controversial issues is the same as saying there are no dumb questions.” I was “paraphrasing” (hence I did not surround it in quotations when i first wrote it) what you meant by “pointless conversations”. Your version is not very intellectual and needed some clarification as to what is really being discussed. To make it perfectly clear “debate of controversial issues” is my paraphrasing your “pointless conversations”. Even further on a point for point basis… Pointless = Controversial and Conversations = Debate. I hope the obvious nature of the paraphrase has been revealed to you.
GAD “I feel sorry for you so I’ll rehash this quickly for your sake.” - Another attempt to establish some kind of dominance by putting yourself in an imaginary position in which you could “feel sorry” for me. A dominance that you clearly do not have. Another tactic to try and assign value to a valueless response.
GAD “The rest of what you wrote is filled with the same kind of poor comprehension and projections. You should be embarrassed of making such a big deal out of your errors. But I know you won’t, I can tell by your writing that you have already decided that you know better and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be the one in error.” - If you are still confused as to the content of my response I will be happy to go over any specific issues you may have (with the paper, not issues in general ). If you can show me evidence that I am in error then I am open to accept and own it. You have not shown any evidence of anything other then your inability to perceive something as basic as paraphrasing.
Not too mention you are clearly getting emotionally involved. You went from “friendly chitchat” to trying to belittle and berate. Feeling sorry for me, telling me how embarrassed I should be, and other hostile remarks without a shred of factual truth behind them are the words of an emotional person lashing out because they can not draw on facts to support their ideas. Every single religious devotee I have engaged in conversation resorts to these same tactics when the conversation comes down to provable facts and truths.
Seeing how you are incapable or unwilling to notice a paraphrase when you see one, I will explain what one is. First I will define it for you.
Paraphrase is restatement of a text or passages, using other words. The term “paraphrase” derives via the Latin “paraphrasis” from the Greek para phraseïn, meaning “additional manner of expression”. The act of paraphrasing is also called “paraphrasis.”
So when I wrote “I must disagree with your assumption that my liking debate of controversial issues is the same as saying there are no dumb questions.” I was “paraphrasing” (hence I did not surround it in quotations when i first wrote it) what you meant by “pointless conversations”. Your version is not very intellectual and needed some clarification as to what is really being discussed. To make it perfectly clear “debate of controversial issues” is my paraphrasing your “pointless conversations”. Even further on a point for point basis… Pointless = Controversial and Conversations = Debate. I hope the obvious nature of the paraphrase has been revealed to you.
GAD “I feel sorry for you so I’ll rehash this quickly for your sake.” - Another attempt to establish some kind of dominance by putting yourself in an imaginary position in which you could “feel sorry” for me. A dominance that you clearly do not have. Another tactic to try and assign value to a valueless response.
GAD “The rest of what you wrote is filled with the same kind of poor comprehension and projections. You should be embarrassed of making such a big deal out of your errors. But I know you won’t, I can tell by your writing that you have already decided that you know better and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be the one in error.” - If you are still confused as to the content of my response I will be happy to go over any specific issues you may have (with the paper, not issues in general ). If you can show me evidence that I am in error then I am open to accept and own it. You have not shown any evidence of anything other then your inability to perceive something as basic as paraphrasing.
Not too mention you are clearly getting emotionally involved. You went from “friendly chitchat” to trying to belittle and berate. Feeling sorry for me, telling me how embarrassed I should be, and other hostile remarks without a shred of factual truth behind them are the words of an emotional person lashing out because they can not draw on facts to support their ideas. Every single religious devotee I have engaged in conversation resorts to these same tactics when the conversation comes down to provable facts and truths.
As I said, you think you know better and that is that. The fact that I know what I said and told you that what determined I said was wrong makes no difference to you as you study linguistics and have decided you know what I said better then me. Oh, but you were “paraphrasing”, I guess not being very intellectual I don’t understand how “paraphrasing” combines and changes the context of independent statements.
In any case blah, blah, blah same old story, a newbie shows up ready to share the truth that they have discovered and anyone who doesn’t kiss their ass or care is the one with the intellectual and emotional problems. I would say that this proves my claim that there are pointless debates but you have already determined there is no such thing and I don’t want to go down that hole again.
Again a reply of subjective claims with no objective basis.
Also if you go to the start of all this I was just asking for help/advice on a student organization. You started on with other claims and I simply engaged you in the conversation that you started. I never came here to “school” but I do argue with facts and definitions when possible. I also never said that YOU were not intellectual, just that one particular choice of words that was not very specific. If I made you feel like less of a intellectual being then I assure you that was not my intention.
I am sorry you are so vexed with this conversation. I did not know you were that sensitive.
In all reality I have been provoking you the whole time because I think it is funny. No matter your response (and you will respond) I will not continue this thread. It has long since served its purpose.
Again a reply of subjective claims with no objective basis.
Also if you go to the start of all this I was just asking for help/advice on a student organization. You started on with other claims and I simply engaged you in the conversation that you started. I never came here to “school” but I do argue with facts and definitions when possible. I also never said that YOU were not intellectual, just that one particular choice of words that was not very specific. If I made you feel like less of a intellectual being then I assure you that was not my intention.
I am sorry you are so vexed with this conversation. I did not know you were that sensitive.
In all reality I have been provoking you the whole time because I think it is funny. No matter your response (and you will respond) I will not continue this thread. It has long since served its purpose.
You give yourself to much credit, but yes, it has been funny.
Kelevra,
Greetings from a fellow newbie, sorry to jump in this thread late;
My friend and I are hoping to start such an organization in the fall. I believe we would be in agreement that the university/college setting is of vital importance in disseminating the message of reason and rationality. That being said, we are going to avoid the labels “atheist”, “freethinker”, etc…I am in accordance with Sam Harris that use of such labels can be counterproductive, even detrimental in perpetuating rational discourse with others; in particular, the term ‘atheist’ erects an immediate partition between the purveyor of science and most religious listeners. This is a hurdle we don’t have to clear if we fly in under a different banner. Of course, in promoting science and reason, we will be directly confronting religious dogmatism, ancient myths, and superstition. I am interested to hear your views on using the aforementioned labels in student organizations.
Sincerely,
Shane
