Our Mission & Our Name

The Secular Web is maintained and operated by the Internet Infidels, a group of dedicated nonbelievers who volunteer their time and effort to further our stated mission: "to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself."

We have a second mission which is just as important, and that is to support each other in creating a strong community of nonbelievers.

Whether you are a nonbeliever or a believer, you are welcome to particpate in our discussion forums.

Click on this link to learn more about us:About Us (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/)

Don

[DeceivedOne]

I find problematic the following statement on your homepage:

Our adopted mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself.

When you say that the natural world is all that there is, are you defining the natural world as everything that exists? If this is the case, then metaphysical naturalism allows for theism (No matter how God is defined, his existence would be the only prerequite for placing him in the natural world) as well as pretty much any metaphysical view that one can think up.
However, if you are not defining the natural world here (which I doubt that you really are), then your statement simply denies that anything besides the natural world exists. Here, the problem is that the natural world remains undefined. When you accept only the natural world, what does this mean? Are you materialists? Physicalists? Adherents to scientism? Holders of empiricism? Does one have to be a determinist to be a metaphysical naturalist? When God's existence is rejected, is this rejection due to a commitment to atheism, or is it supposed to somehow follow from your commitment to metaphysical naturalism? Must consciousness be reducible to the brain, or can consciousness exist in a separate dualistic realm, and can that separate realm be considered part of the natural world?
If you are going to draw attention in your homepage to the fact that you are metaphysical naturalists, then you should suggest at least some sort of metaphysics to define what you mean. I guarantee you that you are inviting many preconceptions (and probably many misconceptions also) from people who enter this website, because generally people already have a preconception of what a naturalist is (e.g. a materialist). Moreover, if the non-existence of God is the only implication that you want to be drawn from your assertion of metaphysical naturalism, it's better that you toss out any mention of metaphysical naturalism and simply assert that you are athiests.
The reason I put so much fuss into this matter is because it is on your homepage, and so every visitor is going to read the statement and evaluate it. Consider tossing out metaphyiscal naturalism and replacing it with atheism. Or, make the words metaphysical naturalism a link that can refer the visitor to an article that defines what metaphysical naturalism actually is.

[Richard Carrier]

Do note that when we launch our new web system next year we will have re-evaluated and possibly re-written our mission statement. But to the particular points for the present:

Metaphysical Naturalism does allow for some forms of theism. It would even be a theistic worldview if there were sufficient evidence of any deity. But most forms of theism (especially on the usual Christian theology) entail that God is external to the universe, in both space and time (the cosmological and ontological arguments usually must presuppose this), and Metaphysical Naturalism certainly excludes this view. For example, "God is transcendant" is regarded as one of the essential attributes in the definition of God by most churches. But there are exceptions, e.g. pantheism does not hold that God is transcendant, and the various kinds of non-Platonic naturalism advocated by all Greek philosophers, from Aristotle to Zeno to Epicurus, likewise depict the gods as within or a part of nature.

Thus, you are right: we do not assert any particular form of MN over others, but advocate the adoption of any form that you find most supported by the evidence. So we mean to include all kinds of MN advocates in our umbrella (or so far as I know). Hence, some of our supporters are Deists, and a great many are agnostics (i.e. they do not hold that there is no God, only that we can't be sure enough to assert there is). I myself am a Physicalist, and am writing an essay on my kind of MN, but that is not regarded as the belief advocated by the Secular Web, just one acceptable version thereof. Likewise, several of our authors advocate a quasi-Platonist MN (Jeff Lowder and Evan Fales, for instance).

As to the impression our mission statement gives, note that the home page version was edited for space. The full version is on our About page, and more info is in our FAQ, where you will find more than merely advocacy of MN as our mission. But as to what MN means, one need only visit our "Naturalism" section (Under "Nontheism") to see the variety of views this encompasses.

I know not if criticism will be as welcomed as support, but...

I was intrigued by an apparent parodox of ideas in the definition of this e-community. In one aspect it promotes toleration and free thinking. But it occured to me that the very essence of a belief in a closed universe is a very closed minded view. At this point, I take the agnostic approach and ask, "how can we know?" Isn't it a very narrow view of the universe which believes only in what it expects to find considering the infinitesimal amount we know about it. Usually it is the church that is pictured as the one who only accepts its own world view. But here, it seems to me very unscientific to exclude exploration in this metaphysical realm. After all, this is the heart of free thinking. A closed universe seems to me an assumption, rather than a verifiable conclusion. And if I may imitate Yoda in word order, a choice unwise indeed this is. Functionality does not exclude a non-natural realm that may at times interact with our own. It perturbs my open mind that an open-minded group would derive its entire identity from a closed universe. Then again, to philosophy I am a novice.

respectfully suubmitted for consideration.

[Cloud]

Hello,

Having stumbled across infidels.org as I traced the roots of a particularly interesting article, I feel the need to express my first impressions of the site, and more.

In reference to your home-page maxim, at: <a href="http://www.infidels.org" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org</a>

First of all, I truly appreciate the intellectual objective of your purpose. "the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and tolerance." is a very noble attribute, I think.

Initially, I was very impressed with the intellectualism. That the site was primarily targeted at Aethists is understandable, them being IMO more "reasonable" than most Christians anyway.
However, I keep on seeing the phrase "free thinkers" popping up on your site, and was intrigued even more by the idea that people, regardless of their religion or lack therof, theists or atheists, would be set at an impartial common denominator, "thought".

However, sadly, after reading through countless library articles, debates, and forum-postings, I've found a common hypocrisy.

and it is, I think, best described at the index page.

"we want to uphold the dignity of humanity and to encourage the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise." which is then followed with, "To disbelieve in the gods ..."

a premise which necessarily "invalidates" the expression of any theist who is a philosopher, scientist, or intellectual, because it eliminates the 'common ground' of "thought". (as it clearly states theism is incompatible with philosophy or science) and implicating that all theism is illogical.

that infidels.org should denounce organized religion is understandable, since religion has nothing to do with free-thought, IMO.

but you can't say both "our goal is to defend and promote Metaphysical Naturalism"
And that it is to encourage free thought, "knowledge, understanding, and tolerance." without in turn being invalid "free thinkers".

That all being said, I'm sure I'll certainly utilize the facilities here, containing accurate controversial arguments because they are useful, though not entirely objective.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Cloud:
. . . but you can't say both "our goal is to defend and promote Metaphysical Naturalism" And that it is to encourage free thought, "knowledge, understanding, and tolerance." without in turn being invalid "free thinkers".

A "freethinker" is "one who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation." [American Heritage Dictionary.] Our stated goal, "to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism," in no way conflicts with "freethought" (rejection of religious dogma)--in fact, the two go hand in hand.

One can be knowledgeable about, understanding of, and tolerant of other belief systems without agreeing that those other belief systems are valid.

--

For more information on this, see our Naturalism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/index.shtml) page, and specifically, Defining Our Mission (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/mission.shtml) by Richard Carrier.

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. Keep in mind that we are not responsible for what may or may not be posted in the discussion forums. You will find that misunderstandings of the terms "freethought," "freethinker," and "metaphysical naturalism" abound amongst discussion forum participants.

Why does your main page refer to nonbelievers? The fact that I do not believe in any deity makes me a "nonbeliever" in the eyes of theists, who by definition "believe" in them, but in no sense am I a nonbeliever.

I too, have "beliefs", like, "Reality", or "Death", for instance. It is incorrect to say that I do no hold beliefs, and more precise to say that I do not hold beliefs concerning gods.

Non-theist would be much better.

And, by the way, isn't it strange to have your domain named after the derrrogatory term referring to you by those who you would oppose?

Anyway, regardless of semantics, it's a great site, and one I recommend to all the thinking minds with whom I come in contact.

-= Russell =-

[-DM-]

Originally posted by &lt;Russell&gt;:
Why does your main page refer to nonbelievers? The fact that I do not believe in any deity makes me a "nonbeliever" in the eyes of theists, who by definition "believe" in them, but in no sense am I a nonbeliever.

The mere fact that you do not believe in any deity makes you a nonbeliever by definition.

--

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

nonbeliever noun
One who does not believe or have faith, as in God or a philosophy.

--

I too, have "beliefs", like, "Reality", or "Death", for instance. It is incorrect to say that I do no hold beliefs, and more precise to say that I do not hold beliefs concerning gods.

Non-theist would be much better.

In the context of the Secular Web, use of the term nonbeliever does not imply that a person holds no beliefs, only that a person holds no belief in a god. In the context of the Secular Web, not even the portion of the definition referring to "a philosophy" is applicable--unless by philosophy one has in mind a religious belief system.

And, by the way, isn't it strange to have your domain named after the derrrogatory term referring to you by those who you would oppose?

Given the definition of infidel, it doesn't seem strange to me.

--

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

infidel noun
1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle: an infidel to the prohibitionist cause.

---------

Anyway, regardless of semantics, it's a great site, and one I recommend to all the thinking minds with whom I come in contact.

-= Russell =-

Thank you very much. Inasmuch as the Internet Infidels, the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, and the Secular Web survive on the effort of volunteers (and the monetary contributions of supporters), positive feedback helps to keep us going.

Regards,
-Don-

I have just finished studying 2 yrs of philosophy at Cambridge University, England, and have now began a part II in theology. Today I discovered your website whilst on a search for easy info on the prophets Hosea and Amos (article by Gerald Larue) and I am confused to say the least. I can't understand why rational, self-professed athiests are wasting their time maintaining and supporting a website which is obviously heavily influenced by religion. Everything I have seen so far has something to say about God, or church, or religious belief, and is splattered with relgious art, and as a group, the users/managers of this website indeed define themselves using religious terms such as 'heretic' and 'infidel'. If one knows that god does not exist, then why waste one's time and energy referring to a domain which contains no actual referrent? And if one is a rational, philosophical atheist, then how can one use value laden language such as 'beauty' and 'good'? Surely these words are simply human fictions, which whilst we might like them, don't actually mean anything at all.

[-DM-]

I would say that if you consider what we are doing a waste of time, then most likely you have not read and understood the mission statement (http://www.infidels.org/) on our home page or our FAQ (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/faq.shtml), nor do you understand the negative aspects of religion and the pervasiveness of religious influences here in the United States--religious influences which would make this country a theocracy if they could get away with it.

--

We believe not only that there is no convincing evidence and/or argument for the existence of "God" but also that there is good evidence and argument against the existence of "God." It is therefore worthwhile to try to get people to accept this reality and to understand that humans will have to solve human problems--without expecting or relying on help from a nonexistent god. If one could know with absolute certainty that "God" did not exist, then there would be even more reason than there already is to attempt to get people to give up their belief in a "God."

--

"Beauty" and "good" are concepts which were created by humans. That fact does not make them "fictions." They do mean something else our dictionaries would not bother to include definitions of those words. The fact that humans in the past put those words into the mouth of "God" as if "God" were responsible for having given them meaning proves nothing whatsoever about the meaning, or lack of it, associated with those words.

-Don-

I find it rather interesting that a group of individuals so bent on not believing, would spend so much of their time discussing what others believe.

It's as if they are trying expunge years of believe from their craggy brains in the hope of one day - dare I say it - not believing.

Hmmm...

I'm unsure of exactly what it is I believe, but I believe I believe in it! :-)

I will say - this site is very interesting and informative and will return.

[-DM-]

Our mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/mission.shtml), the view that our natural world is all that there is. A logical corollary is that humans will have to solve human problems without believing that they will receive help from a nonexistent god. Thus, what is believed has a direct bearing on the future of mankind. It is important, therefore, to discuss what is believed, what should be believed, and what it is that influences belief.


Regards,
-Don-

[njhartsh]

A while back, I remember seeing something on the Secular Web about why the Internet Infidels had decided to use such a provocative title for themselves. It might have been on the ancient, pre-Forum feedback pages; I'm not sure. Anyway, I'm trying to find that explanation. (If I remember correctly, it referenced other minority groups' attempts to defang words like "queer," etc.)

I've tried to run a Google search for "infidel" through the search function on the homepage, but I'm not seeing the response I remember on the results list. Luther Burbank and Robert Ingersoll articles are plenty nice and interesting (and relevant), but they're not what I'm looking for.

Any ideas? Thanks.

- Nathan

[-DM-]

Jeffery Lowder, President Emeritus and one of the founders of Internet Infidels, provides the following:

Jeffery Lowder:
The name was invented by I.I. cofounder Brett Lemoine. Once Brett and I decided to form an organization to support what was then called the "Freethought Web," we were kicking around possible names for the organization. "Internet Infidels" was by far the catchiest of the names proposed, so we adopted it
-Don-

[visitor]

I frequently refer to your site for info and as a resource in my discussions with my believer friends.

One believer I am having discussions with commented that the "infidel" name left a negative impression on him, giving him pause in trusting anything the site might have to say.

I looked over your site in search of an explanation of why you chose "infidel" for your name but could find nothing.

Perhaps an additional item in your FAX explaining this would be illuminating.

For the time being, I have told my friend my guess that the name choice was probably a "jab" at believers who refer to us non-believers as "infidels".

[-DM-]

The following was previously offered by cofounder Jeffery Jay Lowder:

Jeffery Jay Lowder:
The name was invented by I.I. cofounder Brett Lemoine. Once Brett and I decided to form an organization to support what was then called the "Freethought Web," we were kicking around possible names for the organization. "Internet Infidels" was by far the catchiest of the names proposed, so we adopted it.Another reason for the choice of name had to do with the meaning of the word "Infidel." The actual dictionary meaning carries nothing in the way of a negative connotation:

The American Heritage Dictionary:
1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle: an infidel to the prohibitionist cause.But you are right, there probably should be something included in the FAQ. We'll discuss that suggestion and my guess is that it will happen--eventually.

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. See also the discussion here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60097&highlight=Infidels).

[Bill]

About halfway down in my essay HERE (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/o-hair.html) I recapitulate the history of the tension over the words agnostic and infidel. The Christian preacher, Dr. Wace, said this about the "agnostic," Professor Thomas Henry Huxley: His difference from Christians lies not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe the authority on which they are stated. He may prefer to call himself an agnostic; but his real name is an older one - he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever. The word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance. Perhaps it is right that it should. It is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe Jesus Christ. To that attack, Professor Huxley responded: The last objection (I rejoice, as much as my readers must do, that it is the last) which I have to take to Dr. Wace's deliverance before the Church Congress arises, I am sorry to say, on a question of morality.

"It is, and it ought to be," authoritatively declares this official representative of Christian ethics, "an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ" (l. c., p. 254).

Whether it is so, depends, I imagine, a good deal on whether the man was brought up in a Christian household or not. I do not see why it should be "unpleasant" for a Mohammedan or a Buddhist to say so. But that "it ought to be" unpleasant for any man to say anything which he sincerely, and after due deliberation, believes, is, to my mind, a proposition of the most profoundly immoral character. I verily believe that the great good which has been effected in the world by Christianity has been largely counteracted by the pestilent doctrine on which all the churches have insisted, that honest disbelief in their more or less astonishing creeds is a moral offense, indeed a sin of the deepest dye, deserving and involving the same future retribution as murder and robbery. If we could only see, in one view, the torrents of hypocrisy and cruelty, the lies, the slaughter, the violations of every obligation of humanity, which have flowed from this source along the course of the history of Christian nations, our worst imaginations of hell would pale beside the vision.

A thousand times, no! It ought not to be unpleasant to say that which one honestly believes or disbelieves. That it so constantly is painful to do so, is quite enough obstacle to the progress of mankind in that most valuable of all qualities, honesty of word or of deed, without erecting a sad concomitant of human weakness into something to be admired and cherished. And Professor Huxley never had the slightest doubt about what to label his own beliefs: I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. To resolve that tension, Huxley coined the word "agnostic" to describe his own beliefs. While he was still "atheist and infidel" in the eyes of the Christian, he need not adopt the "a priori reasons against orthodoxy" which he felt were at the root of the atheist and infidel schools of his own day.

=====

But to return to the word "infidel" for a moment, if there is any unpleasantness buried in that word, such unpleasantness is entirely the work of Christians, including Dr. Wace (above). A bit like gays who glory in calling themselves "queer" (as in Queer Nation), some of us glory in calling ourselves "infidels."

== Bill

[GFC]

"The natural world is a self-contained system - all that there is ."

This is an arguable proposition but by no means self -evident .
Therefore it is unsuitable as a mission statement / manifesto
which is obviously what you want to produce here . May I
suggest that you should subscribe to the principle of free enquiry
and to the notion of doubt as the great purifier and liberator .

[-DM-]

GFC:

I had hoped to get one of the old-timers to respond to your concerns, but it looks as if I am elected instead.

The crux of the matter is that we disagree that because a proposition may not seem self-evident and/or may be arguable that it is unsuitable as a mission statement. We also feel that the statement "The natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of a supernatural explanation and sufficient unto itself" best explains the evidence that we have at present. We are quite open to new evidence and convincing argument, however.

In any case, "the principle of free enquiry and ... the notion of doubt," although useful principles, do not comprise a worldview.

Regards,
-DM-

[Hartke]

Metaphysical Naturalism does allow for some forms of theism. It would even be a theistic worldview if there were sufficient evidence of any deity. But most forms of theism (especially on the usual Christian theology) entail that God is external to the universe, in both space and time (the cosmological and ontological arguments usually must presuppose this), and Metaphysical Naturalism certainly excludes this view. For example, "God is transcendant" is regarded as one of the essential attributes in the definition of God by most churches.

You haven't studied many Creeds or Systematic Theology texts given this view. Mostly all Christian Theologies hold to transcendence and immanence. Immanence is the view that God is also operative in His dealings with the world. The Bible is dense with teachings on this immanence.

Which forms of Theism can justify personal laws of logic, math, propositions, contingencies, etc.? If a deity is not personal in nature, then personal uses of these expressions or entities cannot exist. Logical law is both absolutely binding upon all minds and is inescapably personal in nature. So is math, beauty, propositions, future contingencies, and all abstracts.

Regards,

Hartke