Everyone is a number in this dystopian near-future where cameras track your every move. Score above 90 and your set for life. Score below 75 and you’re on your own, kid.
The Cycler Series
The Cyler Series: What would you do if you woke up one day as a member of the opposite sex? For Jill McTeague, this is no hypothetical question. It’s real life!
|
Douglas Rushkoff’s fabulous new comic book, Testament seeks to take back the Bible from those joyless Fundamentalist swine. Thanks to boingboing for the link. 34 Responses to “Faith=Illness”Leave a Reply |
|
RSS Feed
See? I’m not the only one spreading this particular meme. While I’m duking it out with Time Warner Cable to get my #$%&^ internet connection up and running, check out the following inspirational blasphemer:
While I am no fan of fundamentalism, orthodoxy, or anything which in general tries to tell me what to think, I believe there are certain memes (in your words) circulating about western society, particularly the Christian hellfire and damnation memes, which poison people’s minds to religion. I’m no Christian. I was raised in a Conservative Jewish household which kept kosher and lit the candles on friday night. I am wondering, though, why most of the atheists I know are from Christian households? Former Christian athesists out there, please tell me, is this because you were told to blindly accept these teachings without thought, and that your rational mind rejected this as abhorrent?
I can’t think of any Jew I know personally who has confessed of their atheism. I know there are former Jews who are atheists, but I would speculate that the number, percentage wise, is far lower. Why?
I once read a book whose central thesis was that Judaism and Protestantism were the only religions in recent history to promote active reading of the Bible (or in less recent history, reading in general), and this led to the author’s speculation that these two cultures were more well informed (at least traditionally) than others.
I don’t know if that’s ever been true (it reeks mildly of racism, imo), but I do know that Judaism has a millennia old tradition of questioning authority. Judaism is never about, “accept this or die in fiery hell.” In fact, the Talmud, perhaps the greatest body of literature from the Jewish culture, is all about asking questions. What do we do if this? What do we do if that? And, to satisfy our anti-orthodox minds, the Talmud does not divulge just one answer. Usually, there are several acceptable answers, yet all of them are written for your perusal. The reason? Jewish scholars expect the reader to come to a decision on what is right. If that’s not faith, what is? Faith in man.
I’m particularly secular, and my beliefs are not limited to one religion or even one idea about the nature of God. But, I do have faith in something I can only define as a conscious, living universe, and I have, at times, let me faith in that something carry me. Now, I ask, do you think I’m ill? Am I a frightfully deceived, mind-controlled automaton?
Great post, Matt.
I am a non-practicing Catholic raised in a home where at least one parent might have been described as devout. I am married to a Jewish woman and my children are being raised in the Jewish faith through our association with a reform temple. I have seven years of higher education at a Jesuit college and law school. My faith (which is derived from a strong Catholic influence) is deeply personal and in no way do I believe it renders me mentally ill or otherwise deceived.
Quite to the contrary, Jesuit Catholic tradition holds as essential, indeed demands, that the transformation of any individual – and the larger world – can only come about if a deep thirst for knowledge is combined with a strong sense of spirituality. That knowledge, in turn, is not to be solely derived from religious teachings or dogmas. Rather, it must be derived from actively confronting the world, however mean it may be and whereever wisdom can be found.
In this regard, any work of science, math, literature or art that can reasonably be said to glorify mankind by showing the best of human endeavoring, even if it challenges or otherwise contradicts religious faith, is worthy of study. And, only by actively confronting the world can we glorify ourselves through our own actions.
Faith, thus, is hardly an illness but a force that drives the active mind to understand the world, his or her place in it, and to strive to do things that glorify the best of human potential. There is nothing to fear from the inclusion of this type of faith in a person’s world view.
For what its worth, I find Lauren’s whole hate religion “meme” crusade to be solipsistic and frankly beneath her otherwise keen intelligence. If this is what dominates conversations in her circles in the East Village and London, I am glad I rarely go South of 42nd Street or across the Pond.
Matt, you may have hit on something in your association of active atheism with Christianity. Judaism does indeed seem to embrace the questioning of authority more than Christianity. In fact, Jesus, a Jew, was one of the greatest questioners of authority.
That said, I am not willing to forgive or overlook any institution which encourages people to accept on faith things which are patently asinine. And, I’m sorry, Rocketeer, but that is precisely what Catholicism does. The fact that the Jesuits have such a rich tradition of intellectual curiosity only points out the inherent hypocrisy of their ways. But then hypocrisy is the signature of the Jesuits, something I witnessed in the flesh in my days at a Jesuit college. Perhaps it was a “deep thirst for knowledge” that led a clutch of “celibate” priest/professors at my alma mater to attempt to seduce my boyfriend and his roommates without any apparent shame. Perhaps they were “actively confronting the world” by sending them pornography. And before you throw the “few bad apples” defense at me, Rocketeer, consider the widespread cancer of child-rape the Church has spawned. Here are some other things the Catholic church taught me:
Gays and lesbians are sinners.
Condoms are sinful.
Divorced people are going to hell.
Fetuses have more rights than women.
Lovely, ethical stuff, no? The logic-pretzels into which smart people are willing to twist themselves in order to avoid the plainly simple truth that Catholicism blows, never ceases to amaze me. Nor will I cease or even waiver in my commitment to shedding bright–yes, sometimes harsh–light on the warty, festering evil that is the Catholic church until the day when little girls and little boys are no longer subjected to its insidious indoctrination. There is open-mindedness, Rocketeer, and there is delusion.
Amen, soul sister. From your perch upon your high horse you preach the fire and brimstone like the best of them. As for your allegations regarding those Jesuits who were allegedly trying to bugger your college boyfriend and his roommates by plying them with porn. Your style of argument reminds me of the great communicator Ronald Reagan, he was a master at thwarting complex debate by resorting to highly personal anectdotal evidence, the veracity of which others cannot challenge. Even assuming there is a shred of truth to your seduction fable, I trust the Jesuits were unsuccessful in their efforts to steal your man. Anyway, all the Jesuits ever did to me (and my roommates) at my college was dole us out well deserved C+ grades. Shine on crazy diamond.
All I know about the Jesuits is two fold:
a) Frank Herbert’s Bene Gesserits were supposedly distant cousins of the Jesuits (Bene in Semitic languages usually means son-of or child-of), which makes them at least peripherally cool in my eyes, and
b) WFUV, one of my favorite radio stations, which has been broadcasting the amazing Big Broadcast for three decades now, is run and supported by Fordham University, “The Jesuit University of New York.”
When dealing with religion, I go by the golden rule: I don’t care what anyone else does or believes or professes to be the truth, so long as they don’t try to tell me what my truth is. That goes for believers and atheists alike.
matt, i’m intrigued by your first post about aetheists being mostly from christian backgrounds. i was raised catholic and it’s true that we weren’t really encouraged to question things. why? one guess would be because of the way the catholic “meme” evolved and was spread. the catholic church teamed up with the powerful nations to convert “savages.” it provided answers and explanations. it was part of the establishment and in order for the church to survive, a person’s “catholicness” was never meant to rival their “nationalistic” state.
judaism, on the other hand, never had a culture of converting people. in fact, in many jewish circles, it’s impossible to convert to judaism. on top of that, being jewish trumps everything…your country, your color, your village, despite the nationalistic climate of europe and everywhere else. so perhaps this outside influence had to be countered by “questioning” everything.
i don’t know…just random thoughts. thanks for provoking me.
rocketeer…i’m a person of faith as well and lauren’s posts sometimes make me a tad uncomfortable. but i find that usually means she’s touching on something i need to explore a bit more myself. she’s always trying to stick a needle in my balloon of faith. God bless her!
Excellent insights, egipsey. The evolution of religion is indeed interesting,
having much more to do with cultural and political factors than spiritual ones. On
the subject of faith, I have often thought that faith is a bit like musical talent.
Some people are simply born without it. If so, paint me tone deaf. I am unable to
believe in the prior existence of something I have invented, and I have never been
able to understand how large groups of people pull off that trick. Perhaps I’ll
devote an entire post to the subject so that those of you with the gift can
enlighten those of us without.
Now, let’s chat for a moment about tolerance. Here’s where I stand: tolerance of
intolerance equals collusion. The Catholic Church is a sexist, homophobic
institution. It does not permit women to hold positions of power and it is
considering disallowing gays from holding positions of power. You say, Rocketeer,
that the Jesuits did nothing harmful to you. Well, the KKK never harmed me any.
Still, I am equipped with sufficient empathy to understand and oppose such
pracitioners of bigotry. Supporting or even excusing the church is no different
from joining a country club that doesn’t permit Jews, or one that permits Jews, but
doesn’t allow them to hold positions of authority. Would you send your kids to a
summer camp that didn’t allow black kids to be captains of the kickball team?
Probably not. So why are you so open-minded about sexism? Is it so much to ask our
educated brothers to spare a moment of sympathy for their sisters, daughters, and
mothers who bear the burden of your masculine privilege in this patriarchal society?
Apparently so. But please, Rocketeer and Matt, spare me the smug pose of
magnanamousness when opening your hearts to these oppressors of women. It would be
nice to be able to count on men like you to help us expand equality for tomorrow’s
women. But then we’ve managed this far without you.
I must add that I am neither smug nor magnanimous when dealing with any organization that denies the rights of any individual. I find it appalling when Falwell and others say that gays are sinners, and I find it disgusting that in an orthodox synagogue the women must sit apart from the men. I find it utterly self serving and hypocritical when the Pope says condoms are a sin when HIV is rampant in Africa, yet they have hundreds of missionaries there. And I have always been supportive of women and women’s rights throughout my life. I wonder then, is posturing yourself as the protagonist and men the antagonist the answer? In the yin and the yang, one has a spot of black, the other a spot of white. Neither can exist without the other. Same with men and women. Why do you lump me in with a group of anti-feminists when I have done nothing to deserve such a moniker?
As for faith “in the prior existence of something…invented,” tell me, did you invent the Cosmos? Did you invent the ineffably large volume of gas and dust that condensed into stars and matter and living things like trees and people? I’m not saying some magical being waved his magic wand and all this came about. I think that understanding of God is too naive and too simplistic, but surely you see in the Cosmos something bigger than yourself, something which you cannot entirely define, something which over countless eons has pushed matter slowly towards a consciousness of itself? I ask you, what is this thing pushing? And how can a thing become conscious if it isn’t already? To the athiest this is a product of a clockwork universe. To a theist, it is a product of some ineffable and conscious force. I accept your atheism, can you accepy my belief?
I must have missed the part where Matt supported sexism (maybe it got deleted like my earlier post
.
Going back to his original point about which religious traditions lose people to atheism, many Jews I know did actually move to Atheism. But more moved to more individualistic forms of faith, where God becomes more abstract or naturalistic. Some went to Buddhism. So I’m not sure the basic premise is correct, though I know lots of Catholics who violently resent their former traditions whereas many Jews I know still consider themself “cultural Jews” despite abandoning the religious elements. But the changes in the trappings of faith aren’t all that different from what I’ve seen.
The particular things people seemed to reject were:
1. Structure / Organization — which goes to Lauren’s rant about patriarchy. I think people of even modest sensitivity can come to see the dangers of top-down faith, and many choose to abandon it or even fight it. [aside to Lauren: would a religious matriarchy be better than a patriarchy? Both concentrations of power would bear similar fruit, IMO]
2. The “Personal God” (where “personal” means God has a personality). I’ve seen people come to realize that the God of the bible is much more of a parental surrogate (imposing rules, being particular about how and when one washes one’s hands, etc..). For me, if God exists, the best way for us to grow as adults is to let us learn for ourselves, not be shepharded as sheep. I mean, what is free will if we’re given the rules and an eternity-sized threat? Goodness has to come from within. Rule-following (see item 1) is not the true test of goodness.
3. The idea that the universe exists for us. The whole notion that Man has dominion is kind of egotistical and immature. And I see a parallel in moving from core Judeo-Christian beliefs to Atheism or Buddhism as a move towards personal responsibility for growth vs. entitlement. But I don’t think that requires losing spirituality.
And on the question of faith, I have lots of it — but it changes from day to day. I have faith in science — not in the absolute truth of any given theory, but in the process of finding out. And I have faith in people finding their own ways. That doesn’t mean I’d never fight for a cause. But given a magic stick to force people to do the right thing (as I see it), I’d be very wary of simply replacing the leaders of organized Religion as the inquisitor du jour. In other words, the solutions need to be better than just an equal force in the opposite direction.
Avi said: “In other words, the solutions need to be better than just an equal force in the opposite direction.”
Abso-fucking-smurfly.
I’m glad I’ve fulfilled my daily quota of controversy. Matt, I know you’re not a sexist. That is precisely why I found your tolerance of the Jesuits so beneath you. And because this blog is a take-no-prisoners kind of affair, I elected to use you and Rocketeer as examples of the face of patriarchy today. It is not a conspiracy of palm-rubbing misogynists looking for ways to keep women down. It’s enacted daily by men and women through thousands of acts of careless dismissal and misplaced tolerance. We do not open our minds to the practitioners of apartheid. We do not open our minds to the pracitioners of anti-semitism. But when it comes to sexism, we are too quick to embrace multi-culturalism and relativism. That is my point. The Jesuits are an all-male organization that oppresses women. I don’t care how good their radio station is. They still blow.
Avi, you know I would never intentionally delete one of your posts. I’ve been getting mountains of blog spam and it’s possible you were accidentally thrown out with the bathwater. Sorry, babe. Did I read your comment correctly? Are you accusing me of becoming a new Inquisitor? Sounds kinky, and I’m all for that. But lest there be any confusion, I have no intention of burning anyone at the stake, least of all Matt. I have been waiting for a long time for someone to explain the mystery of faith to me. I’ve found Matt’s attempts the most satisfying, but there remains for me an unbridgeable gap. I share Matt’s appreciation for the vast unknowns of the cosmos and am intrigued by what appears to be a “natural” cosmic evolution toward consciousness. Where we part, as far as I can see, is on how we react to what we don’t know. I’m comfortable not knowing; I accept it. Whereas Matt, if I’ve gotten this correctly, believes that a conscious force is guiding all of it. While I have no problem admitting that it’s possible that a conscious force is guiding things, until someone proves it, it’s only an interesting theory to me. Another theory is that we are tool using monkeys who have mastered survival and are forced to divert our surplus mental capacities to invented pursuits like “what’s it all about?” Admittedly, the second theory lacks the poetry of the anthropic principle but then nature is full of cosmic buzz-kills like, I don’t know, death.
I do find it interesting that only egipsey appears to enjoy the not so gentle probing of her faith. Me? I love when someone blasts a hole in my pre-conceived notions. I savor the opportunity to defend my opinions. And on the few occasions I have been forced by the power of a superior argument to reverse myself, I’ve gotten an almost sensual pleasure from admitting defeat. So, while I can not apologize for calling a spade a spade re: the Jesuits being stinky poo-heads, I do regret leaving anyone with the impression that my sharp pointy faith-probe was intended to stop inquiry rather than further it.
Lauren, I won’t call you the Inquisitor, except in the nicest possible sense. I hope that doesn’t ruin the kink.
Ironically, the comment that got lost started with a mea culpa from me after I lost a comment you made on my old blog on that “God is for the emotionally ill” post which came to mind here. I’m guessing it’s the fact that I included a link in my comment that caused it to get tagged as possible spam. [Wordpress has some plugins to automatically reduce spam, btw. I get almost none.]
Anyway, on the main point, I’d say that people who don’t allow questioning of their beliefs probably don’t understand the difference between faith and belief. They they might just be using conditioning as a substitute for faith, with the more loudly professed beliefs masking as deep an insecurity.
The play “Doubt” almost touches on this, at least in the version I saw. The author sets up the emotion of Doubt as the opposite of Certainty (the nun/sister is certain the father/priest is a pedophile, but then she has doubt). But the true opposite of Doubt isn’t Certainty, it’s Faith. In this case, faith in people, which the sister doesn’t have. I wish the author had delved into that more, but the audience seemed more absorbed with the mystery of “did the priest do it or not?”
As for God, I can say I don’t believe in some grand intelligent being either, since any “personality” requires a line separating what it is from what it isn’t, which implies that God can’t be everything or everywhere. That’s the logical contradiction, related to the old “is Evil part of God?” question, which for me is moot.
But I do have faith in God as a force of nature, as an essence in life and in us. I see it as intimately tied to creativity, where God is the force that builds, that creates, that causes us to evolve. It doesn’t have to be intelligently directed to give credit to the aspects of nature we call “good.”
So yes, I can say that God created us, but not through any conscious act. If anything Humanity may survive long enough to evolve into the current mainstream conception of God, which should make things quite interesting. Perhaps people are just worshipping a future version of ourselves as we would want to be. Hopefully that vision evolves too.
The opposite of that force, btw, isn’t evil in my conception. It’s Entropy — the tendency towards randomness, chaos, and bland uniformity. If it’s true that entropy wins over time, then I take some of my faith from the fact that we exist at all. So for me, there’s only two possible explanations for our self-conscious existence: total chance plus the anthropic principle, or a force I’d call God.
Maybe I’ve boiled my beliefs down to such an essential level and un-dis-provable that there’s little logic can do to challenge it. But for me, what’s left is faith. I don’t know if that helps at all, but there it is.
My gosh this is all great stuff. We should write a book.
Oh, wait. We all are…
I appreciate all of the thoughtful posts. Even though the institution of the Church may be slow to shed its dogma and we can lament that it sometimes follows on issues where it should lead, those failures do not render all of its good works a nullity nor do they qualify the Jesuit order as “stinky poo heads” just because Lauren says so. Also, I find Lauren’s railing against organized religion to be somewhat hypocritical because, in the McMansion infested suburb where I live, rampant consumerism is the true religion and young kids are its most fervent converts (the younger the better). Because Lauren’s own pockets are lined with high fashion industry monies — she does not lament the stunning negative pressure that the religion of consumerism puts on young girls and boys to conform nor have I ever read a single word she has written about how this pressure to conform — whether by owning this month’s latest fashion or product — threatens to rob children of their youth long before it should be taken while destroying their sense of healthy body image. Her silence on this religion is deafening.
But, forget all that because this was originally about faith as mental sickness. In the faith debate, I firmly believe that the Jesuit’s educational philosophy offers helpful guidance in answering that most important of questions, namely, how shall we live? And, to the extent directed at my postings, I resent the implication that Lauren’s comments have caused me any insecurity or that my view of faith amounts to a tortured “logic pretzel.” While there is much to admire about Lauren and her usually keen commentary, her arguments on this topic are not articulate or well formed and instead smack of immaturity and are suggestive of someone who has smarts but not emotional depth.
Let’s consider Lauren’s condemnation of the Jesuit’s against the facts. The first Jesuit college opened at Messina in Sicily in 1548. For the last five and a half centuries, Jesuits, around the World, have educated generations and generations of the finest scientists, mathematicians, scholars, authors, philosophers, political leaders, social activists, poets and authors we have known. More importantly, the Jesuit educational ethos, which has not changed much over the past five hundred or so years, offers a comprehensive and sustainable way of making sense out of the most fundamental vacancies of human existence.
Ignatius, the founder of the Jesuit order, was convinced that God deals directly with us in our experience and that God is “working” in every thing that exists and that, therefore, we must strive to find God in all things. Even if you take God out of Ignatius’ particular view, you are still left with much. The basic premise being that the World is incarnational and that you can only experience life by immersing yourself in the events, relationships and issues that form your day. Ignatius found God in the margins of his life and he refused to believe that his deepest desires, his most profound relationships, the challenges he faced on a daily basis were the result of some accidental ebb and flow of a design (to borrow from Frost) of a darkness to appall. He believed that his daily toil was a series of privileged moments through which God was revealing him/herself. Now, even if you do not believe in God, you can benefit from an Ignatius world view that requires you to confront your own experiences directly while recognizing that the very profundity and transitory nature of these same experiences renders them important.
Moreover, to understand the value of our particular experiences and their connection to the larger whole, the Jesuitical philosophy demands that we examine data, challenge evidence, discern relationships, study cause and effect and the varied implications of any course of action in light of expected consequences. Jesuits think that you cannot understand the meaning of your own experiences without a broader understanding of the World. Again, even leaving God out of it, this philosophy comports with an examined life.
In addition, Jesuit educational philosophy demands that we understand that we are not solitary creatures and that we cannot shrink from the World into an insular life. To be fully human demands that we immerse and find our place in the relationships and institutions that define our family, friends, communities and institutions. Again, even leaving God out of it, there is nothing wrong with a philosophy that demands that we take responsibility for and fully immerse ourselves in our relationships.
Finally, for the Jesuits, it is not enough to live fully immersed in the World. Rather, the Jesuitical mandate is to create men and women for others. God aside, what is wrong with a philosophy that strives to educate the whole person so that the person can participate in the transformation of the World, particularly as it concerns our striving for social justice and equality. In short, the Jesuit’s do not think you can be a “whole” person without an educated solidarity with other human beings in their hopes, fears and needs.
Lauren would dismiss all of that with one or two childish insults.
Rocketeer, do you honestly believe the Jesuits have a monopoly on embracing the world, analyzing facts, and being charitable? My gripe is not that they stand only for horrendous things; it’s that they stand for any horrendous things. Sexism is horrendous and they have made no apologies for it, nor have they altered their position on the subject. You let them off way too easy by saying the church “sometimes follows on issues where it should lead.” The Jesuits have, in fact, continued to embrace sexism despite their full-blooded awareness of its harm. And for that, Rocketeer, they remain stinky poo-heads.
As for the religion of consumerism, I think we have discussed this elsewhere. High fashion does not promote rampant consumerism for the simple fact that it’s too expensive. The average person can’t afford a walk-in-closet’s worth of designer clothes. Therefore they will buy less and enjoy each item more. Look at the pages of Italian Vogue, Numero, or Ten and you will find considerably less enthusiasm for rampant consumerism than you will find in a single aisle at WalMart. Rampant consumerism is how soul-deadened drones attempt to mimic the phony photo-op fantasy lives of the celebrities they gawk at on TV. If you want to raise children who grow into full-fledged human beings rather than mindless consumers try turning off the TV .
Regarding the so-called negative impact the fashion industry has on body image and its contribution to anorexia, I have this to say: why are Americans getting fatter instead of skinnier if they’re so influenced by Kate Moss’s waistline? It’s a phantom, Rocketeer. Whatever pressure fashion magazines are putting on people it pales in comparison to the influence of Dunkin Donuts.
This has been an impressive intellectual exchange. Now, to dumb things down a bit, I add my two cents:
Getting back to Matt’s original query about the dearth of self-proclaimed atheistic Jews, I think Avi hits the nail on the head about there being plenty of “cultural Jews” out there who are simply more likely to describe themselves as “non-practicing” rather than atheistic. This may have something to do, I believe, with Judaism encompassing a strong culture as well as a religion. I remember in High School asking some of my friends–in typical, inarticulate fashion–”What are you?” (meaning, what is your ethnicity, nationality). The Christians would answer by saying e.g., “I’m Italian” or “I’m Polish” rather than “I’m a Catholic” or “a Protestant.” The Jews answered by saying “I’m Jewish.” Because of this strong cultural self-identification with Judaism, a Jew may be less likely to proclaim his/her atheism or to renounce religion with the same vigor as Christians, even if they’re nonbelievers. At least that’s my hypothesis.
Personally, I’ve slowly gone from mildly religious, to agnostic to atheist (there goes my chance of ever running for public office) for the reasons Lauren sets forth in her second-to-last post. But I also strongly believe in tolerance of the beliefs of others. For me, one of the most distasteful aspects of religion is the promotion of intolerance (if not outright hate) of other beliefs and religions. (Catholic doctrine is that all Muslims, Jews, etc. are doomed to burn for eternity in Hell. Sorry, Avi, Matt. I’m not sure what the Jesuits say about this). I wouldn’t want to be guilty of the same offense as the church by painting with a broad brush and condemning all religious practitioners (98% of the American public) many of whom embrace, for example, the teachings of Jesus but decry the specific church doctrine and practices Lauren is pointing to (e.g., pedophilia, sexism, gay-bashing, etc.).
Don’t delete my post, Lauren!
I would never intentionally delete you, E.D. You may be my neighbor in hell one day. We’ll be in good company there, I think.
I read recently (and I’m sorry I don’t recall exactly where so I can’t link) that Americans revile atheists more than almost any other group of people. Even more than lawyers
I remember marveling at that, because I couldn’t think of any crime, vice, or pernicious event spawned by the philosophy of atheism. Then it occurred to me that despite the fact that atheism is not something you do to people, to a believer, atheism is an assault on their most precious belief. If God is one’s source for meaning and morals and an atheist comes along and says, “Guess what, Sailor, there ain’t no God” the believer is left with a gaping hole where meaning used to reside. Since atheists don’t rely on God for meaning and morals, we have rich alternative sources for these things. But just as a person rendered unexpectedly blind doesn’t suddenly acquire improved hearing, the believer confronted with atheism doesn’t suddenly comprehend the awesome power of human reason and the delicious enigma of unknowing. So, while it’s unfair that atheists are vilified for all sorts of values they don’t espouse (nihilism, pessisim, moral relativism to name a few), it’s up to us to improve our image somehow.
E.D., what’s most remarkable to me is how pedophilia, sexism, and homophobia are structurally reinforced by some organized religions, not always intentionally, but in a fairly clear cause-event cycle.
That was part of my post that Madam Inquisitor so callously deleted as spam.
My main point was that there are two extremes of “biblical study” — those who _read_ the bible to understand the best and worst of human nature (which is valid, even if it was penned by Man) and those who _use_ the bible to validate and reinforce their own mental illness (i.e., find whatever they had in mind in the first place). The latter camp seems incapable of _reading_ anything that invalidates their position, such as “thou shall not kill” for example.
Can organized religion cause illnesses as Lauren suggests? If sexual repression and emotional oppression of young men can cause (or at least prevent the treatment of) sexual development disorders, then yes. If the bible itself takes positions of intolerance and xenophobia, then to the extent people don’t question that, yes again.
But more often than not, I think it’s a case of religion being the co-dependent spouse, which is why some people many not get past their issues until they leave it and get treatment. Even if religion has the best of intentions, it’s keeping far too many people in a rut.
Gosh darn it, Avi. Damn my spam filter for deleting you. I shall have a stern word with it. Please continue to poison our minds with your delectable mind viruses.
Lauren, I’d recommend using the Akismet anti-spam plugin and setting the number of links allowed in a comment to 1 or 2 (seems to be 0 now). It should cut down on spam moderation by 99%.
On Atheism and Hell, the thing that saddens me about Atheism is the corresponding belief that this life is all we get. I think it tends to either make people make the best of this life or take the best of this life. Of course, closet Atheists who fake religiousity may wind up in the latter camp more often than not.
And while I believe Hell is an entirely personal affair (as in, if you unconsciously believe you’re going, you’ll create it for yourself), I can’t dispose of an afterlife either. I have to believe that we are, even in this limited existence, more than we seem.
Besides, it’s just too much pressure to have to get everything right in one lifetime. Even when I play videogames, I like to start over until I perfect the moves.
But that could be just another example of people (me) creating religion to suit their (my) own emotional needs. I’m sure Atheists would like to think they’re beyond all that, but chances are, there’s an emotional need that is driving them too.
Don’t forget, Avi, atheism only means you don’t believe in God. How God managed to acquire a monopoly on an afterlife is a mystery. While I can’t swallow the whole pearly gates mythology, I’m open to the idea that consciousness (which, let’s face it, we barely understand at all) can take other forms than the one we experience now in our meat bodies. You said yourself that humans may be evolving toward a kind of godhead through technology. There are plenty of people who believe we will create an afterlife through technology. I think Ray Kurzweil believes he’ll see that day himself. And he’s older than both of us.
Agreed. Atheism doesn’t imply Existentialism, but it seems common enough to mention. Perhaps it’s really Existentialism that implies Atheism?
As for Kurzweil, my big question for him is that if there is a natural afterlife or even reincarnation, might we royally screw things up by living forever? Imagine if we’re all really super-powerful beings who voluntarily trapped ourselves in these frail, limited bodies, you know, to learn something and grow. Wouldn’t it be ironic then to trap ourselves forever with ever diminishing returns?
On the other hand, if we do only get shot at it, then don’t we have an obligation to stick around and fix that little oversight? Maybe a thousand years of life is what it takes to understand what life is all about?
Personally, though, I’d much rather have reincarnation than immortality. I’d also much rather have wisdom than some vast technological power over nature, but maybe that’s just me.
Lauren said: “I read recently (and I’m sorry I don’t recall exactly where so I can’t link) that Americans revile atheists more than almost any other group of people. Even more than lawyers
I remember marveling at that, because I couldn’t think of any crime, vice, or pernicious event spawned by the philosophy of atheism.”
Not for nothing, but the “philosphy of atheism” was an integral part of the ideology of Stalinism and the Soviet Union. Although history suggests that not all of the soviets (and perhaps not even Stalin) were ever actually atheists, the list of crimes that their atheist system of government spawned is hardly rivaled in history. The number of deaths attributable to Stalin’s reign of terror has been estimated as high as 40 million people. Therefore, the idea that a nameless survey, conducted on an undisclosed date, in which an unidentified question was asked, might have supported the conclusion that Americans didn’t much care for “atheists” as a group, is not really that surprising at all. While it is impossible to know what role atheism had in contributing to the terror of the Soviet State, it is equally impossibe to entirely reject the notion that it did play a part. And I would submit that Atheism may not be as benign as you suggest. Like any belief system, even a system of non-belief can be dangerous.
I know, I know that organized religion has caused considerable woe over the centuries as evidenced by radical Islam which is a current scourge of the Earth. Even so, Missile is on to something here regarding governments that adopt atheism as the state religion. The track record of those governments, and the fallen Soviet empire remains the best example, is a horrible stain on the history of personkind.
I think Avi has touched on it eloquently in some of his posts as has Matt, the problem with Atheism as a belief system is that once you liberate yourself from a belief in God, or even more broadly a belief in some force larger than yourself, you are necessarily standing on the edge of a void staring into the face of total moral nihilism. And, even while some atheists are no doubt morally centered people, I think they reflect the exception and not the rule — at least where the exercise of political power is concerned.
If someone does the right thing out of fear of Hell or sheer self-interest (getting that prime cloud in heaven before your neighbor does), it’s okay with me. But is that individual really a better or more moral person than the Atheist who does the right thing simply because it’s right? Both are certainly a lot better than the religious person who does the wrong thing but wraps it in the bible.
I’d argue that the Marxists got at least that part right. The way to the “Superman” is for individuals to take personal responsibility for their own morality (among other things). In other words, we shed the parental/authoritarian forces and grow the fuck up.
The fact that the Soviet Union was such a miserable failure in so many respects is not, I’d guess, a result of Atheism, but of a substitution of political authoritarianism for that of religion. The people never had a chance.
I’d even suggest that Atheism tied to real moral education can accelerate individuals more than any religion on earth. The fact that it doesn’t is more a function of our poor or non-existent moral education, IMO.
When staring into that void of moral nihilism, the key is learning how to cross it, not get stuck on the starting bank.
(not that I’m claiming any special moral prowess, btw).
This whole topic becomes even more fascinating if you begin to treat humanity metaphorically as an evolving human. At first we are babies, utterly helpless beings whose only desire is to eat, shit, sleep (read simians) But in a few years (read millennia) we start to explore the world and in so doing gain a (small) consciousness of our place in it. We believe in ghosts and fairies and angels and monsters.
But the world is so much bigger than we are, and we are terrified of the great big Unknown. Along comes Mom & Dad (read God figure) to scold us and guide us and tell us myths about the world that may or may not be true to assuage our fears. And we use these tales, regardless of whether they really happened, as valuable lessons to help us grow (read the evolution of religion). But as wise a story as the Boy Who Cried Wolf is, the real world tends to be much more complex than a myth, and try as we might to apply it to everything, it doesn’t always fit. (read the hard-liners who believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago.)
In our growth we stumble and fall many times as we try to make a place for ourselves in the world, but our insecurity grows with our egos. We become solipsistic in our teenage years and the world revolves around us (So does the Sun and the planets and the universe.) But maturity and awareness of the world soon painfully disabuse us of that notion, and we begin to wonder if our parents (i.e. religion) have all the answers. It is then that we become aware of our own power to affect the world (read the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution.)
Humanity, as I see it, is about to make the transition from child to adult. We are about to leave the nest. This means forming our own opinions about the world and the shedding of our parents antiquated beliefs. But one should not, I think, abandon ones parent’s completely, regardless of their faults. Without them, we would not be here, able to discuss this. The important thing, of course, is to grow.
geez…i don’t check this blog for a day and look at the reading i have to do! don’t you people have jobs??
We’re writers.
I suppose the phrase “godless communists” didn’t help the atheist’s cause all that much. Missile, while I would never argue that atheism will prevent people from becoming murderous sons of bitches, I don’t think you can blame Soviet atrocities on atheism. Atheism was a way of neutralizing the influence of organized religion so as to create an all-powerful state. It was neither the motivation of the Soviets nor the essence of their political philosophy. It was merely a means to an end.
Matt, I like your comparison of human cultural development with the growth of an individual human. I wonder, though, are we adolescents or infants?
Egipsey, Avi’s right. We are writers. But don’t let that fool you. My work suffers immensely because of the time I spend on this blog. But everytime my boss (me) tries to whip me in shape, I give her the finger and keep on blogging.
Lauren says: “I wonder, though, are we adolescents or infants?”
Adolescents. But adolescents are still children. When we “leave the nest” there is always a backwards facing and childish fear. We want the comfort of youth (i.e. the recent resurgence of strict orthodoxy in many faiths.) I believe these faiths (evangelical Christians among them) are afraid of the many changes in the world and seek the comfort of “the good ol’ days” by imposing outmoded and antiquated belief systems on their members.
But some of us are forward facing and are trying to reconcile what we’ve learned of the world with the knowledge given to us by our parents. I believe this second camp contains those like you who question the concept of a deity and also those who believe in some form of spirituality but do not prescribe to any particular orthodoxy about that faith. I would consider myself in this group.
In a human being there is always ambivalence during any period of rapid change, and the human race, taken as a collective entity, is having such a period, in my opinion. Some will look back and hold on tight to mommy and daddy. Some will take the leap in stride. And some will fall in the middle.
People have been “trying to reconcile what we’ve learned of the world with the knowledge given to us by our parents” for centuries. Moreover, because technology and science are constantly on the march, our world view is subject to constant and sometimes radical altering and so is our core belief system. Even so, a challenge to a core or fundamental belief is something to be embraced not run away from because it represents a true opportunity for growth.
Having left the nest awhile ago, and having had more than a few bedrock beliefs shaken to their core, I am sometimes comforted by Edgar Allan Poe’s Sonnet to Science, first published in December 1829, and its admonition that stark reason is fine, even inevitable, but it is not everything and it need not completely supplant imagination or our belief in something larger than ourselves:
Science! true daughter of Old Time thou art!
Who alterest all things with thy peering eyes.
Why preyest thou thus upon the poet’s heart,
Vulture, whose wings are dull realities?
How should he love thee? or how deem thee wise,
Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering
To seek for treasure in the jewelled skies,
Albeit he soared with an undaunted wing?
Hast thou not dragged Diana from her car?
And driven the Hamadryad from the wood
To seek a shelter in some happier star?
Hast thou not torn the Naiad from her flood,
The Elfin from the green grass, and from me
The summer dream beneath the tamarind tree?
I think the danger in that thesis, Matt, is it expresses a moral/evolutionary superiority for a whole group of people over another. Personally, I’d agree that an individual who finds her own spirituality is probably farther along than someone who clings to what’s comfortable for the sake it.
But let’s not forget that we all have unseen motivations and reasons for our choices. And someone who chooses Atheism may be in more, not less, of a rut than someone who chooses to be, say, Ahmish or even Born Again.
The problem with such a period of change is that for the people who think they’re moving ahead, there’s a responsibility to lead others (by example, hopefully) and not go college-dorm-crazy or else we all face a giant pull-back by the fearful fundamentalists who really just want their mommies.
(and I fixed the typo link in my name above. No wonder no one ever comments on my blog
Lovely poem, Rocketeer. I’m familiar with the sentiment. And I can understand the horror many must have felt when science tore down the poetry of their lives. But there is tremendous poetry in science if you look very closely. While I still enjoy reading Keats and Milton now and again, I find myself drawn to the breathtaking mystery of fractals and chaos more and more. And no one who understands quantum mechanics can remain immune to its dark charms.
Good fix, Avi.
I totally agree that there is unbelievably beautiful poety in science, and I would urge you to read Scott Russell Sanders’ sparkling short story “Beauty” which is published, among other places, in the anthology Best American Essays 1999. I leave you with the conclusion of his essay, which is humbling in its eloquence:
“All nature is meant to make us think of paradise,” Thomas Merton observed. Because the Creation puts on a nonstop show, beauty is free and inexhaustible, but we need training in order to perceive more than the most obvious kinds. Even fifteen billion years or so after the Big Bang, echoes of that event still linger in the form of background radiation, only a few degrees above absolute zero. Just so, I believe, the experience of beauty is an echo of the order and power that permeate the universe. To measure background radiation, we need subtle instruments; to measure beauty, we need alert intelligence and our five keen senses.
Anyone with eyes can take delight in a face or a flower. You need training, however, to perceive the beauty in mathematics or physics or chess, in the architecture of a tree, the design of a bird’s wing, or the shiver of breath through a flute. For most of human history, the training has come from elders who taught the young how to pay attention. By paying attention, we learn to savor all sorts of patterns, from quantum mechanics to patchwork quilts.
This predilection brings with it a clear evolutionary advantage, for the ability to recognize patterns helped our ancestors to select mates, find food, avoid predators. But the same advantage would apply to all species, and yet we alone compose symphonies and crossword puzzles, carve stone into statues, map time and space. Have we merely carried our animal need for shrewd perceptions to an absurd extreme? Or have we stumbled onto a deep congruence between the structure of our minds and the structure of the universe?
I am persuaded the latter is true. I am convinced there’s more to beauty than biology, more than cultural convention. It flows around and through us in such abundance, and in such myriad forms, as to exceed by a wide margin any mere evolutionary need. Which is not to say that beauty has nothing to do with survival: I think it has everything to do with survival. Beauty feeds us from the same source that created us. It reminds us of the shaping power that reaches through the flower stem and through our own hands. It restores our faith in the generosity of nature. By giving us a taste of the kinship between our own small minds and the great Mind of the Cosmos, beauty reassures us that we are exactly and wonderfully made for life on this glorious planet, in this magnificent universe. I find in that affinity a profound source of meaning and hope. A universe so prodigal of beauty may actually need us to notice and respond, may need our sharp eyes and brimming hearts and teeming minds, in order to close the circuit of Creation.”