Triumph of reason

I think one of the reasons why we get along so well with our friends Pam and Andrew, who are quite faithful, is that they do not proselytize to us but instead are willing to accept us for who we are and not pass judgment. Of course, they understand the difference between being a good person and being a church-going person; not everyone in Tennessee seems able to draw that distinction. I have already come across some people who discover my lack of faith in the divine and immediately distrust me — one receptionist who worked at the firm said that she doubted she could work with someone who did not believe. (She found out, to her even greater discomfort, that believers were outnumbered by skeptics in the office, and that she was the only believer in the office who cared about the issue at all.)

But, while we have found good friends, we should have more than one other couple that we are friends one. So this morning, The Wife and I went to a lecture and roundtable discussion sponsored by the Rationalists of East Tennessee. This is a group of people who try to address the world on a rational, scientific basis and as a result attracts a lot of atheists, strong agnostics, and other religious skeptics. One guy had a T-shirt that read “You don’t need God to be good.” There were a lot of interesting and very friendly people there. In essence, this seems kind of like a group designed to provide some of the social and community benefits of a church for those who do not believe in a deity.

The speaker was Marty Carcieri, an old lecturer of mine from U.C. Santa Barbara. He is now a professor of political science at the University of Tennessee, and he recognized me almost immediately. He and I had sparred a little bit back when I was an undergraduate and quite a bit more strident and doctrinaire in my political thinking; it was quite gratifying to see that apparently, I made enough of an impression that fifteen years later, he still remembered me. He and I agree on the subject of his lecture today — Gonzalez v. Raich, the medical marijuana case from several months ago — and I offered to help out on the article he is thinking about writing on the subject. I hope he takes me up on the offer.

I’m intrigued by the group. Pretty much everyone there was bright and intellectual; everyone was friendly and pleased to meet others who shared the same set of values. Being so surrounded by very public and ostentatious displays of religious faith, it’s easy for a nonbeliever like me to feel a little bit oppressed and lonely in a place like Tennessee. Having some other people who feel more or less the same way I do is comforting and assuring.

Best of all, skepticism about the divine appears to be about the only thing that the members of the group agree on. There was plenty of vigorous and interesting discussion about the issue, and most of it was intelligent and well-informed. While the issues in the Gonzalez case are mainly legal and political, some of the group who have non-legal backgrounds (there were several scientists, for instance) were quick to grasp the concepts in question and work through them to various conclusions. Now, there are a few overly zealous and theoretical disciples of Ayn Rand and while there is certainly room for Randian thought in a political debate, “Randies” can get to be tiresomely doctrinaire themselves. But aside from that, the community of people appears to be blessedly free from any kind of orthodoxy and eager to accept new people.

Next week they have a book club meeting, and I’ll probably meet The professor at that. We got to meet his wife, and she’s in to NFL football, which was also funny — she’s a San Francisco fan but sadly predicted that the 49’ers would be the “19’ers” this year. So I hope we become social friends with them. If the discussion level at the book club is as good as it was at the roundtable, I think I’ll join the group.