Though much of the content of TheArtificer's recent blog is true regarding "alcohol bragging" at Vanderbilt, several unjust assumptions are made about the non-religious body at Vanderbilt that ought to be refuted. Namely, TheArtificer's assumption that only the religious at Vanderbilt find purpose and that all of those who lack religion float in some obscure limbo of mediocrity. I disagree. Also, the blogger presumes that the religious body at Vanderbilt lives on a higher level of morality than the non-religious body, which I also believe to be false. On one's meaning in life, TheArtificer writes: "For the religious, the answer is clear, but for those without religion, the question is weightier." This is too narrow a view on an impossibly broad subject. Having religion, at some point, becomes a personal decision, but it is not the only decision a person can make for their purpose in life. For some, religion is tradition, a mark of their heritage, and for others, it is an active lifestyle which they have every right to pursue. Those who choose not to participate in organized religion do not omit their ability to reflect on "deep questions." I agree with TheArtificer that at some point people must come to terms with their spiritual selves, but that does not have to take place within the walls of a religious structure or in the company of religious brethren. It can take place anywhere at any time; some of the most profound religious philosophers in world history have been deists, atheists, or solitary beings who possessed no means of sharing a house of faith or a family of faith with others like themselves. Which brings me to another matter of debate: the classification of the non-Christian as atheists. TheArtificer says: "For instance, a Christian would seek the approval not of atheists, but of other Christians. And the amount of approval the Christian receives from said group is dependent on how well the individual is fulfilling the aims of that crowd." This is concerning on a number of levels. Firstly, why is it presumed that the faithful will only mix with others within their faith? Is that not why we have an Interfaith Council, why Vanderbilt hosts religious dialogue forums, and why faith groups co-sponsor ecumenical events, to prevent this very closed mindset from proliferating? I am likewise saddened by this portrayal of Christian circles as judgmental cliques because I am sure that many Christians do not dole out character critiques in this fashion. It disappoints me that TheArtificer feels that one's place in a religious body is solely dependent on one's personal piety to that faith, conveying the idea that the judgment of one's peers in a religious group holds more weight than the judgment of its deities. From any religious or non-religious perspective, I hope that is an alarming statement. I want to touch on the assumed higher code of morals for religious people as well. Alcohol consumption is clearly portrayed as a moral deficiency in TheArtificer's article and one that is simply not practiced by the truly religious. It is more inflammatory to insinuate that religious people have found their purpose in life and therefore do not partake in such behaviors than it is to say what I believe to be undeniably true: that a significant percentage of Vanderbilt's alcohol consumers hold legitimate religious beliefs and practice their religion with considerable frequency. These people have a building in which they can practice their beliefs and a group with whom they share their innermost reflections should they choose to do so. They discuss "deep questions" pertaining to their purposes in life. They also consume alcohol in considerable quantities, despite the moral purpose TheArtificer claims they have found in religion. Religion is not the only answer to destiny's call, and it is rare to find someone who perfectly adheres to the minute principles of an organized faith. Every sentient being perceives the world in a different way, and therefore cannot possibly hold the exact same beliefs as another, even one who labels him or herself with the same title. Religion undoubtedly affects human behavior and individual reflection, but let us not assume that non-religious people, whatever that term connotes, are trying to "lose themselves" to compensate for their lack of religion. That's not the way to keep it classy.

Tags:

Submitted by andreea360 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 11:35.

I feel sorry to see that

I feel sorry to see that today more people are making movies about drugs and alcohol. This is destroying the young minds that watch them. How about a movie about someone that gets out of an drug addiction treatment center and he lives his life, gets a job, makes a family and will live happy forever. How about this for a movie? To give a good example.

Submitted by Devin Saucier on Fri, 11/09/2007 - 19:14.

Failure Indeed

I'll provide two direct quotes for you, just to show one case. I could do so for each. "I want to touch on the assumed higher code of morals for religious people as well. Alcohol consumption is clearly portrayed as a moral deficiency in TheArtificer's article and one that is simply not practiced by the truly religious." "I am not saying that people who play video games, watch T.V., or drink (even to the point of drunkenness) have no meaning in their lives and wish to find it. I am simply positing that those who constantly either talk about how drunk they got the night before or how they can't wait to get drunk on the weekend, to the extent that it is a staple of normal conversation, have found no meaning in their lives."

Submitted by gordman on Tue, 03/18/2008 - 14:38.

Alcohol and the meaning of

Alcohol and the meaning of life should have nothing in common. Surprisingly many people don't really think like this, for some of us there wouldn't be life without alcohol... that's very sad. Drug rehab facility

Submitted by Devin Saucier on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 13:05.

Failure

Kelly, you wholly misunderstood my argument. Each of your critiques or claims of what I believe are false and are not anything near my intention. I was simply stating the case of the religious because I believe their meaning is well defined and in a sense predestined. It takes little effort to find your meaning in life if you adhere to a religion that tells you how to. My argument is that those non-religious do not have their purpose set in stone and must work to define it. I admire the non-religious more than the religious because the non-religious must create meaning while the religious abides by what is told to them. So in fact I am not stating that the non-religious don't have meaning, it is just a more difficult, and in my opinion admirable, journey. As for my "classification of non-Christians as atheists," I feel you failed to realize my argument was that of form. I was claiming that since you seek the approval of those with your own values, not of those with your opposite, people who brag about alcohol will tend to seek the recognition of others who brag about alcohol. In other words, if a Catholic were in want of approval for his or her moral uprightness, he or she would go to a priest and not a Marilyn Manson. In no way was I classifying non-Christians as atheists. Further, I never portrayed alcohol consumption as a moral deficiency. In fact, I clearly clarified that I was not saying drinking alcohol is morally reprehensible even to the point of drunkenness. This holds true for religious and non-religious. This was not the purpose of my essay. I myself drink. The purpose of my article was to comment on those who brag about alcohol consumption, not to condemn those who drink. I clearly stated this in the article. Finally, I believe religious and non-religious discuss deeper questions. I simply stated that people who brag about alcohol excessively likely don't. Perhaps a closer reading of the article prior to chastisement is in order. I fear you completely misread the paper. And by the way, shoddy critique... never classy.

Submitted by Commadoor on Fri, 11/09/2007 - 02:45.

Nope. Not Failure.

With respect, I thought that Kelly was spot on in her critique of your argument. While you may not have specifically been making judgments of people based on their religiosity or lack thereof, anyone reading your original article certainly would have gotten that impression. In journalistic writing, perception is what is important. Just because you didn't mean to offend or portray an issue in a certain way doesn't matter; it's how you wrote it and how you conveyed your message that is key. Your argument equated people without religious conviction to those who don't pursue deeper meanings in life, as well as to people who drink excessively to avoid meaning. I appreciate the clarifications you stated above, but those views were not stated clearly enough in your orginial article, so your indignation is unfounded. As an aside, I have difficulty accepting your argument that people who brag about alcohol consumption do so in part or because of a lack of meaning in life. I just don't think it's that profound of a moral/philosophical/ideological reasoning. People like to drink. People like to have fun. People like to convey to others that they know how to have fun. Drinking alcohol is illegal for most people on campus, and of course anything that is prohibited becomes more enticing- everyone wants what they can't have. When a person is bragging about how many shots they had/plan to have, they're just reflecting this desire to cross social limitations.

Submitted by Devin Saucier on Sat, 11/10/2007 - 02:24.

In regard to your final conclusion

You believe that people brag about alcohol to reflect a desire to cross social limitations. If this were the case then the day following a party, it would be unnecessary for two people who were at the same party to brag about how much they drank. It would be abundantly evident to each person that the other crosses social limitations. No, I believe it goes deeper, to a more fundamental purpose. These people are afraid.

Login or Register to leave comments.

Response to "The Motive of Alcohol Braggers" posted by TheArtificer