The Hazards of Confronting Believers
Sunday, April 05th, 2009 | Author: Moody

One of the most difficult positions held by atheists—a de facto position following of course from the main proposition of atheism—is that there is no divine aid or comfort to be looked for in difficult times. Religious people are fond of saying that they are “carried through the hard times” by their beliefs, by their deity. They say, over and over, that they don’t know how they’d cope if it wasn’t for “God” being there for them. Some of their stories are quite moving, emotionally and psychologically. That there is not a shred of evidence in them, or despite the fact that they are talking about their own actions based on what they believe and not on any demonstrable intervention on the part of said deity, seems lost to them. Their belief is tantamount to proof for them because they sincerely feel that it is what led to their successfully navigating some difficulty or surviving some hardship. It is difficult to argue with this position.

When an atheist says to a believer that there is no “God”, she or he is saying to the believer that there is no help for life’s worst times, that the person is on his or her own. It is something like a psycho-social replay of the scene in Bambi when Bambi’s father looms over the young deer and says, “Your mother can’t be with you anymore”. Of course, in the movie the young Bambi has no choice but to accept this and then deal, without support, with all that follows. In real life, the believer is under no such obligation to accept what the atheist is saying. The atheist is simply and immediately cast in the role of “Bad Person” or “Mistaken Person”, and the believer distances him or herself in at least a psychological way.

I feel a certain amount of distress over this.

I’ve no desire to hurt anybody’s feelings or depress anyone. I’m not trying to make anyone angry. It is something I wrestle with regularly, because I know that for many religious people there is a huge emotional investment in their belief system. Religious people rely on their beliefs for comfort. It is self-comforting by proxy, and never mind that said proxy is imaginary. The fact is that a lot of people do not know how to deal with life’s hardships without holding on to the belief that there is an overarching beneficent being who cares about them like a good parent cares about her or his child. It has been my experience that for many religious people this is the real sticking point, the one thing that they cling to the most and will fight hardest to maintain. They simply will not face the idea that there is no-one “out there” to care for them. Nor is it any useful argument to point out that if they were right then there would not be so much tremendous suffering in the world, for how could there be such a loving, caring deity that would tolerate for a moment the utterly horrific enormity of such abysmal suffering? (I am here not going to address those whose mental acrobatics would include the unwholesome idea that those people suffer whom “God” has decided should suffer for whatever reason.)

While there are certainly plenty of religious people who perform all manner of mental gymnastics, twisting logic in ways that defy all sense, there are more religious people who automatically eschew any real consideration of their beliefs from a skeptical or critical position. Many of these people are perfectly content to accept what science has discovered, because they simply assume that their holy book is filled with metaphorical, symbolic and allegorical material which science has no bearing on, which transcends the world that science deals with. When bad things happen that go beyond the pale of empathetic comprehension—that is, when bad things happen that they are incapable of psychologically handling—their response is to pray for the victims and beseech “God” in the name of mercy and forgiveness and love to disallow such horrible events. They do not often think, “Why would God allow this at all? It makes no sense! How could God let such evil occur?” When such horrible events continue to occur, they simply pray some more. It would be dangerous to a believer’s faith to consider that there has been no end to the horrors of life in all this time. There are no fewer wars, no fewer famines, no fewer diseases, no fewer disasters, no fewer murders, no fewer rapes, no fewer incidents of child abuse or deaths, in supposedly religious societies than supposedly non-religious societies. In short, the world is no different than one would expect if there was no all-loving, all-caring, beneficent “God” at all.

This is why, I suppose, I’ve met so many believers over the years who maintain what I’ll here call a ’small belief’. A small belief is one that serves immediate, personal ends that may or may not extend to some larger community (family, church group, societal node). A small belief allows one to say in the privacy of one’s personal prayers, “God, I don’t understand why you let those people die in that earthquake, but I’m sure you had a reason. Thank you for loving me and taking care of those people now that they’re in Heaven”, without ever suffering an intense headache from all the latent cognitive dissonance.

It is the small belief that is the hardest to extirpate. Even when the believer does not maintain a relationship with a particular church, she or he can hold on to the idea that there remains a personal relationship with “God” that is unshaken, unshakable. All those people who don’t go to any church, who don’t have any set prayers or rituals, who don’t even consider themselves religious yet who, if asked, will nod and say that of course they “believe in God”, are keepers of the small belief. When a loved one is in hospital, these people will invoke “God” through impromptu prayers for the loved one’s recovery. When someone dies, these people will invoke “God” in the eulogy, and say that they know that the dearly departed is “in Heaven” even though they don’t really think too much about what they’re saying.

The small belief seems innocuous, but it is insidious. If a person maintains this small belief in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is most certainly no “God” as the small belief posits, then the atheistic position will remain an outsider’s position. Given that there are more people who hold to the small belief than who don’t in society, and given that these believers will see atheism as an outsider’s position because it runs counter to their small belief, atheists can expect an uphill battle on the cultural stage. It’s like fighting a phantom. Worse still, the apparent innocuousness of the small belief makes any atheistic argument against it seem like bullying or unkindness. As I indicated in my post, “Where’s the line?“, familial or intimate relationships put pressure on the atheist to hold her or his tongue in part because a confrontation with someone we care about or have no reason to disrespect is easily seen to be cruel.

How do we set about dismantling belief in an imaginary deity or deities if, in the end, we cannot confront the small belief that would remain like a seed for future religions?

Tags: , ,
Category: Atheism, Ethics, Religion/Spirituality, Society and Culture
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
  • I am not happy with the continued comparison to the Bush administration, which I'm sure was your intent. Personally, I find it a bit misguided. What "atheists tend to write"? I mainly read Daylight Atheism, Unreasonable Faith, and Pharyngula, three blogs I find to be very useful for understanding the atheist perspective. I find myself to be especially in tune with the first of these. Ebon Muse has addressed a number of the issues you allude to here in the second part of your comment to me. He has done so more eloquently than I have done, I think. I am not here attempting to appeal to authority, I simply must give recognition to a better writer than I am. I have not read Dawkins' or Hitchens' books on the atheist perspective. I have read most of Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale (I was interrupted while reading it by life and have not yet been up to picking up where I left off). However, I've certainly read a good number of articles by Dawkins, and I have never heard him employ the language of war w/r/t atheism's future. Typically, I read certain fundamentalists using such language w/r/t infidels and unbelievers.

    As for atheist charities… I have to say that you have picked a fine cherry for your argument. Might I note that atheists do not tend to discriminate in their charities? Whatever gets the job done seems to be what works for atheists. You might want to check out the following, if you'd be so inclined: Atheist/Secular Charities (eighteen general charities are listed right at the top, followed by many issue-specific charities). Also, Ebon has his own response. I would suggest that you might find these two links point to something a great deal more substantial than 100 books. Finally, I would like to note that back when my own money problems really were starting to bind me to the living-paycheck-to-paycheck model of American life, I managed to donate to the relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina. I did not, however, have any identifier on my check noting that I am an atheist or secular humanist.

    It seems to me that you, too, have done something. You helped those in need recently, even. Was it incognito? Would you not be willing to organize on behalf of those who are not religiously affiliated? Are you sure you were the only person there who doesn't believe in "God"? Don't you see that you have the answer to your questions: "Where is the atheists' sense of ethics and morals, and community, lived as clearly? Where is their belief that living a life committed to doing what is best for others is what gives meaning to their lives? And if you lack that, why would you expect that anyone would want to join you?" Where is your sense of ethics and morals, dear brother? Clearly you have them.

    It has in fact been my personal experience that in a predominantly religious environment, being open about one's disbelief is a fast-track to being ostracized or proselytized at. And while there are certainly those religious groups that do not attempt to convert those whom they're assisting, there are plenty of stories (from history to the modern day) of missionary zeal astonishing in its coldness toward the human rights of others. It is difficult to swim against the tide or the dominant flow of the river. It is difficult to always be told to "sit down, you're rocking the boat". It is difficult to regularly be told that the best thing you can do is be quiet, keep your unpopular ideas to yourself, and don't upset people by pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. It is difficult to try to find a new way in a world obsessed with the old and its preservation at all costs. Nevertheless, the atheists I know are making the effort for the good of all people. If they are a bit testy, it's from being assailed by those who are predisposed to thinking that no good can come from atheism.

    By the way, while I "let them figure it out for themselves" do I also let them (or their brethren) slip creationism/ID into the school curriculum? Do I let them discriminate against the LGBT community? Do I let them dictate public policy regarding sex education and a woman's right to choose when to get pregnant or terminate her pregnancy? Do I turn a blind eye when they decide to refuse someone treatment at a clinic or hospital?
  • [continuing from previous comment]

    What bothers me about the things atheists tend to write about is that it is as naive as the Bush administration was going in to the Iraq invasion. There's going to be bloodshed no matter what, but if you have nothing ready to take the place of what you want ripped out of the existing culture then your "success" will become a calamitous and very bloody failure. That, of course, assumes you could ever have any significant success to begin with. Unlike Iraq, there really is no "simple way" to take out the control structure of religious thought. It doesn't matter how good your bombs are if you have no place to drop them or, more to the point, no end to the places you would have to drop them.

    (And at the risk or now sounding like a complete "Rene fan boy" ... ) I think this is what Rene was getting at with the comment that we need to start building an "Atheist church."

    I could put that another way. It's like you are standing on the outside of a fortress with a sledge hammer banging on the walls because you know that all the people inside are living under the illusion that what's inside the those walls is the real world and you are determined to show them that they're wrong. What you need to be doing instead comes in three parts.

    First, you need to: 1) drop the hammer, 2) turn around and 3) walk away. They can build walls faster than you can break through them and, somewhat ironically, all that unquiet, destructive intent of yours just makes them thank God they have those walls to protect them.

    Second, you need to live a life that isn't focused on proving someone else wrong. Instead, you need to be explorers and discoverers of new ways to fulfill those ancient needs. You need to find ways that exceed what is best in faith-based philosophies. You need to recognize that easily 99 times out of 100 when you find some notable humanitarian action it is not one that was started by atheists or secular humanists. When I read that the American Humanists Association's charity website is bragging about collecting 100 textbooks for Afghani medical students (http://tinyurl.com/ccj6gh) I don't quite know what to do. Laugh? Cry? I mean, really, wtf? A national charity organization that thinks 100 textbooks is worth writing about?

    I love the story about the husband and wife doctors Reginald and Catherine Hamlin who came to Ethiopia in 1959 and confronted the terrible heartache of fistulas destroying the lives of thousands of young women (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beautiful/hamlin.htm... I really question whether or not this story would be possible without the religious faith of the Hamlins. It should be, to be sure, but where is the secular support system for such self-sacrifice and generosity? I've gone to Mexico to help build homes for poor families. I went two weekends ago with a group of about 40 people to help clean up two vacant buildings that are intended to be used as transitional housing for poor, mentally ill patients that can't be treated for a variety of reasons at the county hospital or homeless shelter. In both cases this was with a group from two different Christian churches that, once a month, don't have their regular service but instead go out somewhere to serve. They do it to "glorify their God." I do it to love and I do it with them because there is no one else.

    And that doesn't even begin to address the countless small, personal acts of kindness that go on in religious communities. In a functioning religious community -- one closely tied to practicing some form of the Golden Rule -- no one goes uncomforted or hungry or lonely except by choice. It's a way of life for them, not some assumed behavior reserved for special occasions. Where is the atheists' sense of ethics and morals, and community, lived as clearly? Where is their belief that living a life committed to doing what is best for others is what gives meaning to their lives? And if you lack that, why would you expect that anyone would want to join you? You need to be able to replace their belief that God give meaning to their lives with a belief that "our actions give meaning to our lives."

    Third, once you have something to replace what their faith brings to their lives, then simply live with them and among them and let them figure it out for themselves. When it comes up, let them know you don't believe in God (or in gods) but you do believe in loving others and in serving the communities you find yourself in and in the natural sense of morals and ethics that grows from caring for and about people and in living as a responsible citizen of a world with limited resources and ...
  • I remember quite clearly the terrible sick feeling I had in March of 2003 watching Baghdad succumb to chaos and destruction following the "liberation." Really, how stupid do you have to be to not understand what the almost-overnight elimination of a dictatorship leads to? To have nothing with which to fill the resulting vacuum was more criminal than the act of removing Hussein from power, I think.

    And isn't this Rene's point? Let's imagine that the world wakes up tomorrow and every single person of faith suddenly realizes they have been deluding themselves and, more significantly, that they have been leading a life based (to some degree at least) on these delusions. These people wake up transformed. They know there is no god. They realize there is no one answering prayers. They understand questions like , "Why am I here?" and "What did I do to deserve this?" have no answer beyond what facts and science can reveal. There is no "everlasting;" no "hereafter;" no eternal reward or punishment.

    You (any atheist, not you personally) would have to be stupid to start shouting "Hooray for our side!" or "Mission accomplished" -- incredibly stupid because you would be just hours or days away from, if you'll excuse the term, hell on earth.

    I don't believe in God but I most certainly believe in the "Idea of God." Donald E. Brown, in his 1991 book, "Human Universals," lists over 200 universal traits in people -- characteristics or behaviors common across all cultures (http://tinyurl.com/7yeaz) -- and among those are several relevant to this discussion including: religion and the belief in the supernatural; belief in magic; music related in part to religion; myths; proverbs and sayings; rituals; rights of passage; sexual regulation; ... Again as Rene has suggested, we seem to have evolved in such a way that we are prone (or susceptible) to both a belief in the supernatural and the inclination to weave that belief into our culture at all levels. It doesn't really matter if god does or does not exist because the idea of god does and it's part of the fabric of our lives, like it or not.

    [continued]
  • [Note: I am re-posting this comment as it appears to have been borked somehow. Although the comment was preserved (in WP), it was not being displayed here for some reason, even though it initially did. I am beginning to feel less than pleased with IntenseDebate's system, as I believe at least one other comment has been lost altogether and the only apparent culprit is the new comment system I'm using. If you have not seen this comment until now, I apologize for the probable confusion w/r/t some of the second comment.]

    Hey, Brother! Thanks for taking the time to comment at such length! :-)

    I have to say, I am unsure what to do with the first three paragraphs here. I don't know any intelligent atheist who thinks it would be a good thing if belief disappeared overnight. And really, it's a rather bizarre hypothetical musing. It's like some inverted rapture! Lol... So, I am going to pass on further comment there.

    Richard Dawkins has in fact called himself a "Cultural Christian", and I think it's an important distinction. Christianity will, for ages to come I'd think, be a part of Western Culture (and be an influence on the thoughts of people the world over). Those of us born in this time and place are molded in an environment heavily influenced by Christianity, while those born in this time and some other place are so influenced by Islam or Hinduism or whatever. This is inescapable, and is not necessarily a bad thing. One doesn't want to throw out the bathwater with the baby Jesus, as it were.

    As to our susceptibility to belief in the supernatural and our penchant for weaving it into our culture, I would suggest that false positives and confirmation bias are known traits that have to be dealt with as best as we can. We have a lot to learn about how these relate to the development of the human psyche and its ability to function in the world. As I've read elsewhere (no reference, I'm sorry to say), it's better for us to mistake a shadow for a deadly tiger than mistake the tiger for a harmless shadow. On the other hand, the person who jumps at every shadow has a problem, no?

    Nor would I suggest that we do away with rituals or our quest for so-called higher states of mind. The neocortex is still a mystery-laden puzzle to us, and a great deal of research shall have to be done on it before we've any absolutely clear consensus on its capabilities, limitations and role. The temporal lobes, when stimulated, produce in many a sense of "not being alone", of there being "someone there". Some people feel that this presence is "God", others that it's some sentient je ne sais quoi. What's interesting is how, in religious trance or deep meditation, the temporal lobes are activated while the parietal lobes "…appear to nearly shut down. The parietal lobes give us our sense of time and place. Without them, we may lose our sense of self" [Source]. Clearly the brain operates this way for a reason, but sussing out that reason is going to take a lot of work. As you once said to me, evolution doesn't work toward perfection, it works toward what's good enough.

    [To be continued.]
  • Very close to my situation at home, so you have my condolences. It is a sticky wicket for us, I think. On the one hand, respect for someone, esp. a loved one, cannot be overestimated in its importance in a relationship. One simply cannot have a good relationship without it. On the other hand, self-worth and personal integrity are also of prime importance in a person's life. You have the right to be yourself, and anyone who, by whatever means, puts you in the position of having to curb or occult some aspect of who you are as an individual is, however unfortunately, putting up a wall between you both. Naturally, both observations apply to either person.

    My situation is not as bad as yours seems to be. My partner's beliefs are invested more in the value of her traditions than in the metaphysical or superstitious ideas behind them. But I have learned that it is a sore spot for her nonetheless. So, I tone down my usual outspokenness and keep my snarkier or more potentially offensive opinions to myself. This seems to be all right for me, psychologically, perhaps because I love partner "as is" and accept the differences as ultimately trivial matters in our life together.

    A "collective lack of faith in society"… A phrase that I think needs some reworking. What if we looked at it as a "collective lack of delusion"? What if we looked at it as a "collective desire to better grasp the real world"? What if "faith in society" was just that?—faith in society? I think that humanism, the humanist philosophy, coupled with a robust and healthy education, could go a very long way toward solving the potential issues a loss of faith might engender. What do you think?
  • I'm a secular humanist so I agree with your final well made point.

    But could we be underestimating the positive influence of this delusion, and overestimating the capacity for rationality in humans?

    We are surely right in the long term, but what about in the short term? Maybe us mannered atheists are right to not be so zealous in our arguments.
  • I think that it is very difficult to gauge what we are capable of so long as we are so hampered by a culturally ingrained "belief". Children are not born believing in "God". It is possible that--in a totally primitive, insular and isolated setting--some form of belief in the supernatural would spontaneously develop. What is most certain, however, is that it would be unlike the belief of any other religion. You would not expect to see a belief in Krishna, Jesus, Mohamed,--or Attis or Ba'al for that matter. Any specific belief a child has is the product of indoctrination, either by the parents or by the larger social group, or in reaction to these*.

    We know that a well-rounded, quality education today can undermine superstitions and irrational beliefs. (This is, of course, why so many fundagelicals want to homeschool their kids.) But there is more to it than that. There is a shift toward polarization in this country (and in other places around the world). If you go back half a century or more you find that beliefs were more general in their manifestation, more homogeneous in societal terms. Education was fairly robust then, as well. But people were not anywhere near so polarized. There was a national upsurge in religious affiliation brought about by the experiences of two World Wars. The groundwork was laid then for both great and terrible things, the fruit of a paradigm shift that dropped from the tree in the mid to late 1960s.

    I am not doing justice to the history here, and am running too far afield. My main point is that, in the end, the Information Age, the explosion of general access to vast amounts of knowledge via the Web, the breakthroughs in genetics, neurology, geology, ecology and other fields related to the theory of evolution and the modern synthesis, have all gone toward undermining the fundagelicals and mysticism generally. We have entered an age that in a de facto manner pits science against religion and superstition. Atheism is becoming a viable, sensible and solid alternative to the decaying position maintained by religion(s).

    It seems to me that the possibly (but not necessarily) "positive influence" of the delusion in question is threatened not simply by atheism but by science itself (and so by education in light of science) because the delusion cannot well stand against them. The only recourse of the religious is either in radicalization or dilution, either of which is incapable of providing sustenance or nutrition to the possible "positive influence". That there is probably a better way to deal with the problem of religion I have little doubt. However, I am unsure about the timely arrival of that better way. Chemo must be employed until some better curative measure is practicable.

    * It is to be remembered that some beliefs may arise not as a reaction against some other set of beliefs but instead as a reaction to those who maintain them. For instance, a young person may ostensibly become Wiccan in response to her or his parents Christianity, but psychological analysis may well discover than in fact the new belief has primarily arisen due to the young person's need to differentiate her or himself from the parents. This is not to say that there is never a genuine conversion, but only to suggest that children do on occasion rebel, consciously or unconsciously, in such a way. I would further suggest that where a belief has arisen as a reaction against the holders of some other belief, the conversion will be less likely to stick; e.g., a child may well abandon Wicca and return to Christianity once her/his relationship with her/his parents has stabilized in a healthy manner.
  • That religion as it stands today is largely unsustainable is very apparent to me as well. Hence urgency on the part of Atheists and Secular Humanists to divorce ethical standards from such untenable doctrine.

    But I am also convinced that people will remove their addiction to religion only by finding something that replaces it. This new something needs to bring together people in common rituals, gives them some certainty in life, a sense of something greater than us that is a source of hope and morality. Does our future 'better way' provide these things?

    I'm convinced that our very genes drive us to search for these things, and reversing a few hundred thousand years of evolution is not a realistic propect.

    Btw do you have a more extended post on the history? That was an interesting rundown, albeit too brief!
  • Rituals are an amazing thing. We create them for nearly everything, even when they are barest boned (say, when we make a point to go to Denny's restaurant on specific days, but it could be a Denny's in a different city or state). We ritualize birthdays and other anniversaries. We ritualize how we set up our homes when we move in. Etc. What makes religious rituals 'special' is their supposed grounding in the supernatural or the metaphysical; "God" makes religious rituals special or extraordinary.

    Having attended a Universalist Unitarian church off and on--it being a place where you cannot guess exactly what anybody's particular belief will be--I can say that a sense of community, a sense of shared purpose, with rituals designed to bring people together for that community and purpose, is just as effective with or without any given belief. I think that people are naturally inclined to want to work together, to find and define purpose together. "God" seems really superfluous in the end, and I'd go so far as to say that it makes sense that "God" was merely added onto something that humans were already doing well before written history began.

    Our "future 'better way'" is in fact the oldest, natural way. If you teach the children well about the foundations of healthy cultures, about how societies best work, about how people have tirelessly worked to overcome conflicts and apparently intractable problems, then that is what children will grow up looking for in the world. Give a child a sense of wonder at the world; give that child too a desire to see people get along and improve their lives; give that child a full and secular education; give that child opportunities to practice the principles of kindness, compassion, caring and loving; give that child the tools and support s/he will need to overcome the adversity and trouble that naturally come along in a person's life; you will have in the end, most likely, a well-adjusted human being whose faith is in humanity (and secular humanism). Rituals will naturally evolve from this. Don't reverse,--redirect.

    As to the history to which I alluded vaguely, I do not have any longer post on that. I was extrapolating from what I've read and what I've learned over 42 years. A little research via Google should help flesh out the salient points for you.

    Thanks again for all your comments. :-)
  • I think you are right about a lot of that. Time to build an Atheist church then. :)
  • Ah... Not a "church"... nor a "temple"; both words are firmly rooted in religious belief. My suggestion: an atheist Colloquium, taken in the Latin sense of "conversing", and in the academic sense of it being a place where "The audience is expected to ask questions and to evaluate the work presented" (source: Apple Dictionary).
  • It sounds like what you've called a "small belief" is a kind of short-circuit that uses the idea of god to close any loops left open by unexplained circumstances. I suspect it has intuition at it's root; that is, rather than thinking about the situation and comparing alternative explanations, an intuitive answer appears and is grasped; an intuition instilled by years of exposure to (and use of) similar explanations for a variety of situations.

    If that over-reliance on intuitive explanations (no matter how invalid) is the root of those small beliefs (and possibly larger beliefs), then I think the only way to resolve the issue is to create a culture in which fewer people rely on them. That's a huge task since it's human nature to jump to conclusions; it takes a lot of effort to consider things rationally. To that end I think one thing that we really really need to do, is to show people how they can experience, without religion, all the benefits they currently associate with religion.
  • Thanks for the comment. :-)

    Human beings are prone to confirmation bias and false positives. This is, on an animal level, potentially advantageous to us. It is better to mistake the shadow for a tiger than the tiger for a shadow. But the confirmation bias and weakness for false positives together serve superstition (how else explain the survival into this day and age of astrology?*). We really do need to show people a better way through better thinking. A solid general education, a firm grounding in "Critical Thinking", and the continued effort through the school years to instill in students a sense of wonder and excitement for/about the world; that, I think, would be the proper course.

    * I believed in a vague form of astrology for a long time, coming up with all manner of excuses and justifications for it. Some things are hard to shake. I still feel embarrassed about the superstitions I harbored for so long. Becoming an atheist was, for me, like waking up from a dream during which I sleepwalked in public doing idiotic things. On waking, I knew who I was and knew what it was I had dreamed and what I had done while sleepwalking. It has been very difficult to shake the sense of embarrassment, even knowing that I wasn't awake and wasn't really responsible for my dream. ::shrug:: Ah, well, live and learn! ;-)
  • This is a very real issue for me. Someone who is very close to me, a person I respect above all others for her courage, patience and strength in the face of uncommon hardship, is also deeply religious. Her source of hope is her faith, and I would not think for a moment to criticize her for it, though her superstition infuriates me at times.

    This also makes me question whether a collective lack of faith in society would make things better, after we have credited all the advantages and debited all the disadvantages.
  • I say pain because for most people, the... ecdysis... of constricting belief is an act that is often painful, and thus avoided by those who are not mentally flexible. Perhaps the most wonderful evolutionary tool we possess is the one which can destroy us, in that pain is, except for actual physical damage, often only as we choose to define it. We can spin our pains from ephemera, as it were, as well as our pleasures.

    In essence, attempting to redefine the universe is incredibly uncomfortable for the majority of people, as they are no longer in possession of the fortress of certainty. Losing certainty for someone for whom it has been a lifelong possession (mostly, at any rate) is terrifying. It isn't called crisis of faith for nothing, after all.
  • Far be it from me to wish pain on anyone who is not actively malevolent in the world. That being said, I have no compunction against sticking a pin into the "God" balloon if it happens to intrude into my life to the degree that it interferes with my personal, private, pursuit of happiness (or what have you; by whatever ethics-based definition). I am aware that some people may innocently/innocuously run roughshod through my orchids, and I try to take that into consideration, I really do, but—I am not going to assume a Buddha smile while they attempt to redefine the laws (literal laws, or of the "social contract" variety) to better support their delusional orientation.

    It is simply our duty as ethical human beings to stop mollycoddling the religious when they are so clearly pursuing the overthrow of present day society in favor of revisiting the Bronze Age on us all. That John or Jane Doe isn't particularly political or even interested in what others do in their private lives does not exculpate him or her when clearly he or she is willing, however passively, to support fellow religionists who are in fact and practice particularly political and who are pointedly interested in what others do in their private lives.

    I have a co-worker who is Catholic. I will not say anything to hurt her feelings w/r/t "Good Friday", right? Right. But were she to come to me or say publicly that she's so glad the Pope is helping people in Africa I would be obliged to puncture that balloon in the name of all those people being misinformed (to possibly deadly effect) about contraceptive prophylactics.
  • There is very little effective difference between a small belief as you posit it, and a large one. Either way, the comforting belief exists. If anything, the small belief is the much larger one, in terms of practical effects. The loudest, most verbose theist is simply the easiest one to find, to debate with.

    The vast majority of theists are , in my experience, what you term those holding small belief. There is no examination involved, because nothing has ever spurred such examination in any real sense. Surrounded by information that supports a specific worldview, inundated by social validation of that worldview, why would they ever bother? And spurred may be the most accurate metaphor, as in application of something unpleasant, sharp, forceful. You will not pull even a single theist away from their beliefs, very likely, by acting as a spur. Only be way of example, by being ethical, by helping others, by showing that faith does not equal comfort, and that humans can accomplish wonders without the omniscient eye of a judging deity watching over them.

    In all honesty, I suspect atheists ask far too much of the "normal" theist, when they engage with them. The tone of your writing, for instance, involves a great deal of education, of experience, of choice to read widely and deeply, and retain what you read. All of this runs counter to the normal experience of people in our society. You are choosing a road less comfortable, in which the rocks have nothing but sharp edges, and while this also gives you the option of examining all the lovely quartz in the rocks, and perhaps even vales which others will never experience, the end of the road is a ravine full of nothingness. And given all this, how could you wonder at the willingness of people to accept a lie that the road continues?

    To look on the lie of theism for what it is means rejection of the normal societal boundaries with which most circumscribe their universe. We are animals after all, and animals do not voluntarily choose pain. Those who do, are often those who already do not fit in, in the usual sense. So you ask those of small belief, those whose faith grants them meaning, to discard it for nothing.

    The dismissal of deity will take centuries more, I suspect, even with all of us preaching to the choir, in the hopes that those outside the church of no church will hear it and finally wake up.
  • Well spoken, my friend, and I tend to agree with you.

    I do want to say this, however: If I have no heaven to look forward to, I also have no hell to fear; if I have given up the idea of immortality, I have also realized the importance of this life; if I have forsaken absolute morality, I have learned to truly consider ethics. My friend, I have not chosen pain,—I have acknowledged it. And having acknowledged it, I have given up the denial and placebos so that I might learn how to live with the pain that cannot be escaped, and to treat the pain that I experience.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« Where’s the line?
Tree of Æons »