Saturday, 03 January 2009

• Ithiliya & "Why Big Religion Tends Not to Make Sense"

  Intro:

  On my previous post, "Would Skynet Listen to Christians," Ithilya and I had a rather long discussion that was somewhat off topic.  Even though I wanted to free up the comment section there, it was good, so worth reposting.   
  

  ---

  Ithiliya said:
  

  Help me out here... exactly why does the existence of a diety place more value on a human life than if there were no such diety?

  I'm not an atheist, I do believe in some form of the Divine, but I don't understand why the value of a human life is less if we came to being through pure accident and more if through a Divine Hand.  A human life is a human life, no matter what or Who created it.
  

  ---

  @ithiliya - I agree.  I don't see why the value of human life should change regardless of divine circumstances.  But Christianity tends to be a bit...insecure with the idea that its theology isn't providing a necessary service.  Superfluous to the good life and no evidence?  Uh oh...  In my opinion, this logic seems to be a self serving anti-humanistic bigotry to save face for the fact its divine ethics are crap.  You don't have to deal with how messed up they are if you HAVE to have them or else you don't got nothing.  I would wager such a dysfunctional outlook is a necessary part of the coherency of being so wrong.  I'm sure everyone is different though, so many people just accept it because that's what they are told.  Who doesn't want a reason to think you've got what everyone else needs?  And since good reasons to value human life are lacking in their scripture (since right off the bat humans take the fall for what should be God's mess up), this is what Christians can end up selling themselves to help make up the difference (among many other things). 
  

  Ben

  ---

  Ithiliya said:

  @WAR_ON_ERROR - I just had a conversation with someone via their comments section about the story of Adam and Eve.  I tried explaining to her (I think it was a her) that the concept of a caring and loving God didn't match up with this story since a) God put the temptation there, b) God didn't give Man the ability to understand Good and Evil when He created them, c) God allowed the snake/Satan to crawl around the garden being all convincing-like, and yet d) God completely overreacted by not only punishing Adam and Eve (by forcing them to live unbearable lives because they ate a damn piece of fruit) but by punishing every single person who came from them (in other words: EVERYBODY) no matter their eventual guilt or innocence.

  Her response?

  Something along the lines of: "I pray that one day you will realize that God is loving and caring" blah, blah, blah.

  I explained to her that her prayers were already answered.  It was BECAUSE I believe God (the Divine, the Unknown, whatever) is loving and caring (or at the very least, not a vindictive asshat) that I couldn't believe that the story of Adam and Eve is true.  She assumed that I believed the story and therefore refused to believe in a loving God.  Which just made me think: WTF?  

  I personally think that Christianity can provide a "necessary", or at least beneficial, service without being all "fire and brimstone" or "if God didn't exist that would mean your life is worthless" stuff.   It can make someone feel loved, like they're not alone, feel like their life will go on beyond death so that they don't have to fear it, that they'll see their deceased loved ones again, give them a sense of community, etc.  Yes, these are pretty much the same benefits every other religion gives people, but then again all shirts pretty much serve the same function, too, yet people seem to like to wear different ones, and there's nothing wrong with that.

  The whole "purpose" thing is really funny to me, because of another discussion I'd had with a more "traditional" Christian who believed that one does not go to church to be spiritually enlightened, but rather to praise or "serve" God.  Now THAT, to me, is funny.  They really think that God "needs" their asses in those pews?  That He "needs" their worship? HA!  Someone thinks pretty highly of their self!

  ---

  @ithiliya - Right.  I argue that often; that if a good God exists, then we should reject the Biblical theology and go looking for the real God rather than embrace all the moral ills and ridiculous premises the Bible presents.  The point always falls on deaf ears and the existence of God fails to be demonstrated just as much as the morality of the Bible fails to be vindicated.  Somehow Christians often tend to just reject all manner of "checks and balances" on their belief system thinking their one way chain of Authoritarian free association from one dogma to the next is just as good as anything else.  "If there is historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, that means homosexuality is a sin."  Um...no it doesn't.  What if Jesus rose from the dead and homosexuality is not a moral evil?  There's no reason that can't be true, but there's just such a torrent of bias there that such points are unrecognizable to them, in my experience.  Nothing is argued independently, nor can it be.  Rather than argue that Bible moral x is actually virtuous in its own right, they'll instead try to justify the existence of objective moral values, non-physical things, or attempt to undermine some aspect of naturalism as though that actually means anything given the topic.  One can argue from a sound moral conclusion based on human experience that those more speculative matters must be in error, but they'll have none of that.  Some other form of theism that has its morality straight would still be a better conclusion even if atheism is false.  Christian dogma is a house of cards refuted at so many points and yet refuses to budge even a wee bit, because it can't afford to. 

  I wasn't necessarily saying there weren't any possible perks to Christian theology (or that it is 100% devoid of good things), but with the spiritual highs come the spiritual lows and decisions that need to be made.  When you are at rock bottom and you know you don't need it and there's not a very good reason to believe in it, there has to be a reason (and probably a bad one) to jump back on that Christian roller coaster ride again.  A religion of open ended perks has trouble sustaining itself in mass quantities like Big Religion does (I'd wager) and thus it seems it has inherited lots of unhealthy traits that keep that dysfunctional loop perpetuating itself (like the doctrine of hell as another example).  For example, it is startling to see certain erudite Christian apologetic xangateers "spend a week as an agnostic" as though the entire relationship hasn't jumped one huge shark coming back from that ontological hiatus.  What other kind of relationship does humanity embrace with such ridiculous standards (and yet respect)?  When was the last time you heard someone say, "For a week there, I wasn't sure my wife ever even existed...but I got over it."  You need bad reasons to back to such an obvious non-relationship (at least in terms of the "personal" relationship Christians tend to profess to have).  Big Religion has many tools on its belt to that end.  And that's my point (explanation of the original issue you brought up) regardless of perks.  The doctrine has to sink its teeth into human passions in a certain way while avoiding certain kinds of reality checks.  The idea, at least, is that relgions that did not acquire these particular traits did not perpetuate themselves as much.  So the traits won't necessarily make much sense on the spot.  They have to be appreciated in the grander a-rational scheme of human politics.   

  It never quite made sense to me either why the ultra deity would need anything from humanity (like worship or any communion at all).  Perhaps it is all totally beyond our comprehension and true anyway, but then the end result is humanity is forced to endorse the divine laundry list A-Z of things it doesn't understand, that can have extreme consequences for the way it lives, and with no objective means to know it has the correct arbitrary list of apparent extremes (not to mention being surrounded by people with different and opposing lists...).  It's at the very least an undignified way to live.
  

  Ben
  

  ---

  Ithiliya said:
  
  @WAR_ON_ERROR - I think it is only the religious person with issues, though, that falls into the category you've mentioned above.  There are plenty of people on this planet, of every single religion out there, who can live a wholesome life without taking their "crises of faith" so damn seriously. 

  The stable person can endure a rough patch in life (a weak generalization, I know... my apologies), but that rough patch isn't the first time they'll have questioned God's existence and it won't be the last, either.  The stable person is quite capable, even in difficult times, to contemplate the idea of God's non-existence and come out realizing that in the end, it doesn't mean a damn thing.  God doesn't "die"... if God existed then, he/she/it will ALWAYS exist.  If God didn't exist then, it means he/she/it never did and never will.  So there is no actual difference between the during-the-crisis period and back when everything was coming up roses.  Life goes on, as they say.  An individual's belief, or skepticism, isn't going to change a damn thing in the long run, so why make a big deal out of it?

  It is the unstable person who has something bad happen to them, who has a crisis of faith because of it, and then has to find a reason to climb back on the horse (and those reasons are, as you pointed out, almost always BAD).  The unstable person finds the non-existence of God to be a horrible, bad concept that means their life is even shittier than they thought previously.  Additionally, the unstable person probably feels so horribly about the concept of God not existing because that means God isn't on their side, helping them out, and never was, so they've always been on their own (many religious people translate this "being on your own" into "life has no meaning").  In other words, the unstable person wants to know that God will actually DO something for him or her... they see belief in God as a destination, not a journey, if you will.  Once you "arrive", you are showered with gifts, but only after you "endure" the traveling to get there.  The stable person isn't quite so egotistical and self-centered... religion for them is a path that one explores on the way to the destination (becoming an enlightened person and/or leading a peaceful existence).

  But, yes, you're correct.... the Big Religions (at least it seems from the "small person" point of view) do seem to latch on to these unstable, weak people.  Or maybe the weak people latch on to them, and they just take advantage of it.  I'm not sure if they (the Church) are doing it from a marketing angle (for lack of a better term) or from the angle of defending the beliefs of their faith and evangelism.  In other words, are they doing it on purpose (like Cardinal Glick and his "Catholicism Wow!" campaign in DOGMA) or if it's just a byproduct of their honest, fervent belief?  Also, I'm not sure who propagates more the concept of a Godless existence being horrible: the Church or the Believer.  I've never encountered a church, honestly, that even explored what existence without God would mean (except, maybe, the circle group at the Unitarian church I used to go to).

  ---

  @ithiliya - No need to apologize as long as you've made a point somewhere.  And you did. 

  You are correct that is only one category of religion, but at the same time, it does seem to be what makes the Big Religion's pockets that much deeper.  Most of the stable religious people skate quite free of many of these doctrinally integral dysfunctional issues and live practical lives that have little or nothing to do with them (all the while paying them lip service).  And surely that is evidence of their basic humanity that naturally displaces such dysfunction...if not rationally, then a-rationally (and that's actually a good thing even if their explanation of the disconnect makes no sense).   I never presume conspiracy first when incompetence will do.  People who are stable in the religion they were born in would probably be equally stable in another religion if they had been born into that (and have much the same  a-rational tribalistic attitude towards other religions), or perhaps just as stable if they were born into a society with no religion at all.  People are sponges and absorb what they are around, catering it to their needs.  The positives of our humanistic nature still prevails just as much as arbitrary religious nurture and people fall both ways across that line.  I'm sure many (or even most) Christians do not even "use" hell (for example) as a bumper to keep them in the faith and experience predominantly the positive joys other things about the faith bring them.  But the doctrine is still there and it affects the people it does affect and thus has a wider impact than religions that do not have such dysfunctional extortion gimmicks.  And it seems at least many of them still use it as an intellectual gimmick even if they are not truly afraid of it as a way to attempt to save intellectual face (like accusing non-believers of being on the foolish end of Pascal's wager).  So it has many dysfunctions that don't necessarily have to do with "rock bottom".  Surely you would not argue that things like the doctrine of total depravity, religious exclusivism, and eternal hellfire for most of humanity were born out of the best the human heart has to offer the world.  Something must keep these things in vogue (or at least afloat) and part of the explanation at least is probably in the category that I've described in my previous comment.

  Ben

  ---

  Ithiliya said:
  
  @WAR_ON_ERROR - Yeah, I agree.  Sometimes it seems to be a system of 1) This is what I've believed since I was little, 2) I must defend what I believe otherwise I'll be wrong, 3) You believe differently from me, therefore you must be wrong; otherwise, I am wrong and that just won't do, 4) Ultimately, I'm afraid of being wrong because it will have meant I wasted a lot of time, since I spent most of my spiritual "career" kissing God's ass instead of getting some kind of spiritual and/or philosophical growth out of it, or, even worse, it means that I don't have some kind of omnipotent parental figure watching over me, 5) Instead of getting into a deep and philosophically interesting yet dangerous and/or difficult and/or laborious conversation with you, I'm going to use the works of my faith as a short cut because I assume they mean the same thing to you as they do to me (after all, there can't be two correct interpretations of a work of faith, could there, and mine might end up being the incorrect interpretation, so we'll pretend mine is the only interpretation out there) and I will be very, very confused when you continue our conversation with the premise of a translation that is different from my own, and, ultimately, 6) When you disagree with me, I will simply end the conversation with "I will pray that someday you find God/see God's love/embrace God/enter inspiration knock-off here" 

  Those who don't follow this "system" probably would have been just as stable, or as good of a person, had they been a member of a different faith or no faith at all.  That doesn't mean that the particular faith they were born into or chose doesn't give them some kind of benefit.  One could just as easily explain what a rose looks like by showing a picture of it, but sometimes a poem about a rose is so much more profound.  For some people, the metaphor has more meaning than the thing itself.

  ---

  @ithiliya - It is a shame that anyone who is serious about what they believe regardless of what it is, is swamped by a majority of people who are not as serious and yet have disproportionately strong opinions about it anyway.  And there's no easy way to cut through that crap without just making it a lot worse. 

  I was never really able to get off the ground as a religious person (and was almost as you describe above), but now, in unbelief, the ability to accept and shape powerful metaphors for my own path to becoming a better me is refreshing.  This is especially so since it will never be wrapped up and bogged down with having to defend and believe controversial evidential claims ever again.  I look back and think...gee whiz, this is so much easier.  The freedom to grow naturally and sensibly without fear of the ridiculous passive aggressive extremes of a cosmic tyrant who won't give you any definitive feedback until the very end when it's way too late and the consequences are infinite.  I could go back and forth all day on positively mind raping questions that had no answers.  I wasn't about to accept the arbitrary spins that people would put on things just because that would be convenient.  I could come up with just about any arbitrary criteria to justify anything and if God's ways are so much higher than our ways, that's a very ubiquitous vacuum to try to follow.  Yet somehow wild card extremes are clearly in the grab bag of Christian doctrine with no place to roost, so to speak, and so that damage gets done anyhow.  Little personal growth is possible on those terms.  Given the persistence of the a-rational factors contributing to my faith and the unresolvable extremes in the mix, the best I could do was to try to avoid them and it never really worked (not surprisingly).  It's not really hard to do better than that, but I couldn't under the pretenses of taking Christianity seriously.  I'm sure other spiritual traditions wouldn't necessarily have the same effect, but incidentally those weren't the ones I was born into.  If the US was full of liberal Christians (and other pleasant religious traditions) who were remarkably sensible in public policy, there really wouldn't be a "war on error" to be fought.  It would be quite unjustified.  And yet too many of the ugly things of Big Religion are sitting right out there in the public square.  *shrug*  Wouldn't it be nice if major social issues were only about personal growth (or growth as a society) and not ridiculously contentious petty issues that should have been dead eons ago?  That's the world I wish I had been born into.  Oh well... 

  Ben

  ---

  Ithiliya said:
  
  @WAR_ON_ERROR - And this is why I wish Xanga would let you recommend comments :)

  I completely agree, except for one point:

  "If the US was full of liberal Christians (and other pleasant religious traditions) who were remarkably sensible in public policy, there really wouldn't be a 'war on error' to be fought."

  I'm way too much of a cynic to believe that.  If we all agreed on religion (or at least agreed to disagree) we'd find something else to argue about... most likely politics.  We'd all get vitriolic about something else that we believe in wholeheartedly yet don't really ultimately understand and a lot of misinformation is spread anyways (PC vs. Mac...  Fox vs. Warner Brothers regarding the possible delayed release of Watchmen [grrrrrrr]...  War on Drugs vs. legalization of pot... I could go on for a really, really long time).

  ---

  @ithiliya - I see why you disagree, and I could have put that better.  You're right.  I meant it in the subjective sense from my current perspective, since most of the errors I confront here are Christian errors.  Error correction would become more ubiquitous in the event our Big Religions decided to be, as I said, "remarkably sensible in public policy," but it would still be needed. 

  I can't believe there is that legal battle over Watchmen...that's just so sad to see how petty they are being.

  Ben

  ---

  Outro:
  
  I only took out a few minor tangents to this tangent and corrected a spelling mistake or two. 
  
  Ben
  
  

  
  

  • 1:47 AM
  • 137 Views
  • 12 eProps
  • 10 Comments