You are such an amazing writer, Stacey. I’m happy to smile with you, the messenger! I must mention Ron Reagan’s TV commercial on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I believe he says: “ This is Ron Reagan, proud atheist and not afraid of burning in hell”. It always brings a pleasant smile to my face.
I will purposely crank the volume up on Monday nights during Rachel Maddow's show when I see that ad come on! The guy does not lack for guts. It's H-A-R-D to say the quiet part out loud, especially on national television.
It’s all true, and I concur with every sentiment! Your words aren’t offensive, it’s todays reality. It needs to stopped! Organized religion is the greatest hoax and Ponzi scheme in history. They’re all designed to quell free thought, put you in a box and be submissive to the power hungry, fire and brimstone “TRUTH TELLERS”, with the false hope of eternal bliss in some undisclosed location.But of course they can’t prove it, because it doesn’t exist. Mr Toad’s wild ride if you will. Why someone would want to be submissive and indoctrinated with fear and false hope is bat shit crazy to me. I’m gonna tithe my hard earned money for you to tell me how to think and feel, and in return I get hope and ideological fantasies that you can’t prove? Fucking brilliant scam! It’s laughable and sinister. We all get one chance at life and we’re all masters over our own destiny and bodies. Which brings me to women’s rights. Chick Fillet has a whole new meaning, pushing their religious standards which is perpetuating division. They are an abortion. Lastly, my favorite, “but he was a god fearing religious man”. What the fuck does that mean? People who don’t drink the Kool-Aid are lesser souls? So yes, the Crusades are back in the saddle, filled with fundamentalist fanatics hell bent on resurrecting the Stone Age.
GIVE THEM HELL, cuz! Seriously. We have to push back against the dangerous tide. Here in about a month, women in many states will not have access to reproductive healthcare. And for the zealots, the overthrow of Roe v. Wade is just the beginning.
I couldn’t agree more! With the whites slowly becoming a minority in the states and these culture wars of race,homophobia, xenophobia, fear and hatred have long been in the works. They have no platform of ideas to evolve the country as a whole. Instead, it’s a steady diet of monotonous sermons, lies and boogie men to feast on. And they fucking eat it up, which is scary in itself. You can’t lead a horse to water, but apparently you can lead ignorant rioters to blood. So fucked up.
Thanks so much for the link to Freedom from Religion foundation, I didn't know about them and was looking for organizations like them in the US. Although I'm not an atheist, I'm more drawn to Wicca and Buddhist principles, I don't talk about it. I once mentioned in a post on Facebook that I narrated several audiobooks on Wicca and someone asked if I was a witch. Oh boy! Its over 327 years since the Salem Witch trials and we're clueless as ever, remaining under the spell of our Puritan founders. I'm working on an article about female leadership and I'm not going to be as quiet on the part religion plays in our loss of women's rights here in the US. We're one of the few countries in the world going backward on this.
Amazing, isn't it? A country (the U.S.) that was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. Yet here we are, fighting for basic freedoms. Women aren't mentioned even once in the Constitution. That fact always chills my blood.
Stacey thank you so much for this article. I wholeheartedly agree with what you said and admittedly, fall into the category of fearing disappointment from loves ones who have made it clear to me how heartbroken they'd be to find out I, myself, am not Christian. I'm not. I don't know what I am. Optimistically agnostic? Maybe. I just try and be a good person and raise my small person to be a good person. I despise church. My skin crawls with Southern white evangelicalism because they are, by far, the most offensive, rude, mean, and selfish demographic I've encountered by far.
But you're 100% right -- I'm scared to say it. I'm afraid of confrontation and making people upset. I don't want to cause problems.
That doesn't fix anything though, does it? Just gives them more room to run over my discomfort and kindness to further their agenda on those of us who just want a quiet, peaceful life, pondering about the stars.
I love that you said this, will ponder on it, and will try to find the bravery to voice my real opinions in an effective way without being so afraid.
Finding a really smart super religious person is scarcer than hen's teeth, so it's no surprise you don't drink the Kool-Aid. If someone wants to practice their faith quietly in their own home or church, I have no problem with that. But religious overreach has become an enormously dangerous thing. Hey, I don't need to tell you.
If and when you're ready to push back, you'll do it. I'd rather you just take care of YOU and your beautiful family and your critters. That's what's important.
I've never believed that faith, per se, is the problem. I've known many people for whom their faith was their North Star, and they lived that faith honestly. It's when faith became a "faith economy" that things went sour. Because religion is administered by human beings, and human beings are eminently corruptible and venal (everyone has their price, right?), organized religion has become a vehicle for oppression, evil, and immorality.
Oh, and before I forget, "Christian nationalism" is neither.
Leading a moral and compassionate life using the example of Jesus Christ, or Wilson the Volleyball, has long since gone the way of the buffalo. Now religion- especially White Evangelical Christianity- is ruled by money, which corrupts everything it touches. It's not about the Gospel, Christian charity, or caring for the poor and downtrodden.
No, it's about judgment and casting out those who fail to measure up. Unless, of course, you're a member of Church leadership, in which case you've probably never met a temptation you could resist.
If you can't lead a moral life with a non-existent Supreme Being monitoring your every thought, word, and/or deed 24/7/365, you might want to consider the likelihood that you're a psychopath.
When my wife's family first met me and learned that I was an atheist, they didn't know what to make of me. The responses were quite comical- "We'll pray for you," which I was fine with if it makes them feel better. Parts of my own family are firmly convinced I'm going to HELL. That's fine; at least I have the best stories to tell.
Like Abraham Lincoln, my religion is simple: Kindness. I live by a very simple code- don't be a dick. If I can live up to that, I think I'm doing pretty well.
(Full disclosure: I'm an ordained minster and I hold a Ph.D. from the Church of Bacon. I can perform marriages, but worshiping bacon is far less morally complicated than worshiping an invisible being. Or a volleyball.)
"Don't be a dick." If we could even learn THAT simple rule, I'd be overjoyed. But as you say, there are people in this equation, and people (myself included) are infinitely corruptible.
I could worship at the Church of Bacon. I'd feel guilty AF about it though.
Bill Maher has also been a consistent, outspoken critic of organized religion (being agnostic in his well-researched and articulated commentary on all the major monotheistic religions). He is an avowed atheist (as am I, proudly and without shame).
I know you must have watched his documentary, Religulous!!!! That was the BEST thing. Ever. Funny. Appalling. Insightful. And I've got to hand it to Maher. He may be kind of jackass, but the guy has cojones the size of Christmas hams. It's HARD to go against your own kind, pissing off people on both sides of the aisle. He does it with impunity.
I adore him. I told Adam when we got married that Maher was my one cheating without penalty chit. Adam and as fine with that because, well, it’s Bill Maher and I am the only person on the planet that thinks he is sexy in addition to being smart as fuck and brave and well spoken.
You have assertively stated here what desperately required saying Stacey, and you have done so in a succinct and bracing manner. Religion, specifically Christianity, is a corrosive eating away at our democracy. It is the one unifying feature of all the hard-right's evils; racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ sentiment, unbridled greed, and the headlong rush into fascism. Often, even those who are opposed to these evils but are believers, unwittingly amplify and validate that which seeks to invalidate our secular democracy. Case in point, are those promoting the need for more prayer as a necessary corrective to mass shootings. I have seen people, whom I know to hold otherwise progressive views, espouse such sentiments. They are unaware that they are giving the Christian dominionists exactly what they want. When I come across these expressions I've been quick to debunk them. But I take your admonition to heart. From now on, I will not only push back against these sentiments I will make it clear that I'm not a believer in them too. I believe that, from my comments, most people can infer where I stand. But I will make it crystal clear from now on, because I think you're correct. Those of us who have freed ourselves from the social conditioning to believe need to share it, show others that it's possible and that you will be fine.
You would not think it would be this way. But the spiritualized ego is one of the most dangerous forces for evil on the planet. The old bromide "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" must have come from these exact same scenarios--Christian missionaries fanning out across the globe and trying to convert native populations, and now demented evangelicals attempting to force their way of life on everyone else. I'm so glad you're on my side in this war, Andrew. That means a lot to me.
I'm touched by your sentiment, Stacey, and I share it for you too. Those of us who are non-believers need to pull together, because, although their influence is declining, the Christianists power remains a powerful malign force in American life and politics, and is a primary reason for the issues that continue to bedevil us.
Thank you for these truths. I have found the more a person says they're Christian the more I distrust them. I have a sister-in-law who is constantly saying things like, "they must be nice (trustworthy, good, etc.) because they're Christian." She actually uses that as a barometer for trusting people and deciding if they're worth her time. Of course, she still loves me (so she says) but I can't help but point out to her on occasion that if we weren't related she wouldn't give me the time of day. And to be quite frank, this same relative is one of the most selfish and judgmental of all of my relatives. Someone who, in 2019 would wear a mask when her allergies were bad but stopped wearing one once it was required in most places. All the sudden she couldn't breath in one. I could go on but you get the picture. So the most "Christian" of all my relations is the least "Christ-like" of them all.
I have a feeling everybody loves you, Cheri. You just have that kind of vibe. Amazing, isn't it, how many of the most "Christian" people I know don't go to church. I'm sorry about your SIL. It's so so hard when you have to make nice with someone because you don't want to cause problems with the rest of your family. I just hate that.
The saying goes (which, apparently, made a truncated appearance in 'Downton Abbey'), "Religion is like a penis. It is a fine thing to have, and even be pleased or even proud of. But don't wave it around in public, and don't shove it down children's throats." I'm going to offer three terminological cavils.
The first: I would shift your focus from evangelicals to fundamentalists. Particularly given the ham-fisted stranglehold reichwhiner politics currently exercises on the culture, the distinction has been severely blurred. But it is not yet altogether erased. And it remains, I argue, a distinction worth maintaining.
Fundamentalism is the core reichwhiner approach to religion in every culture. Whether Christian, Hindu, Muslim, the fundamentalist holds that the sacred texts are not just absolute, they are "literally" true. (As the very notion of any text being "literally" true is philosophically "questionable" only to the extent that it is not rampaging nonsense on stilts is already one clue as to the problems with fundies.) In contrast, evangelicalism is 'literally' about evangelizing, about "sharing the good news." In theory (and, as noted, often ignored in practice) this does not entail fundamentalism. For example Katherine Hayhoe (with a "K"; I looked it up) is one of the leading Climate Scientists in the US, a vocal and passionate advocate for sweeping changes to save our environment, and an *evangelical* Christian. Evangelicalism leaves space for interpretation which fundamentalism violently denies. Hayhoe lives her evangelicalism in part by "sharing the good news" that it is not too late to save the planet. Your justifiable ire is really directed at the fundamentalists.
Per the 2nd point, "all religion is toxic". That is, frankly, indefensible on both logical and empirical grounds. On logical grounds, the "all" (known as a "universal quantifier") cannot be defended because we have not been exposed to all religions; we cannot possibly know what "all" religions are like. We can't even know what all human religions are like, because there is no evidence that we are done inventing new ones that we've had no opportunity to evaluate.
It is indefensible on empirical grounds: I draw you attention to the *Reverend* Doctor Martin Luther King. The entire American Civil Rights movement came from the *churches.* Secularists were involved, but they were never leaders, nor even especially important as driving forces. Secularists did not start it, they did not steer it, and they only joined in after the religionists had turned it into a going thing. So when you say that all religion is toxic, you are obliged to also say that the American Civil Rights movement was garbage from start to finish and ought to be burned down with the rest of it.
In addition, a couple of my friends from grad school went on to become ministers. Both are in liberal churches that are active in women's and LGBTQ rights activism. One is openly gay and living with his husband in a very red state. I am inclined by both nature and reason to rebel at the declaration that they are evil.
To the third point: the much vexed "G" word ("God"). Saying there is no evidence for "G" is again a 'universal quantifer.' ("There is no" is equivalent to "For *ALL* x, it is NOT the case that Px," where "Px" is read as "evidence for x".) This is problematic on two accounts:
(1) It assumes that we know what the word "God" means. More importantly, that we've taken account of ALL possible meanings of that word.
(2) It assumes that we know what the word "evidence" means.
Per #1, there are actually quite a few meanings assigned to the "G" word, quite beyond even those used among those 4200 religions. For example, Whitehead's concept of God is essentially (a) the basis of the rational structure of the universe, and (b) the font of creative advance/development of reality. Now, the only way you can reject (a) is by rejecting all of science as well, because science can only proceed on the basis of assuming that such a rational basis is real and actual. I suppose it is possible to reject (b), but that leaves one frozen in a Parmenidean block universe, for which there is no evidence. (Plus, it is a really sad view of reality.) Now, no one is going to go to church on Whitehead's "God." (I actually wrote that line into the book a coauthored with Randy, 'The Quantum of Explanation'! Am I proud of that? Fuckin'-A I am!)
Per #2: This clearly is a concept of God that is rooted in the Western tradition (and has significant parallels in the Eastern). The evidence here is largely formal and logical in character. But it is *evidence*. But one need not build one's redoubt on something so desiccated as formal logic.
On an empirical level we can turn to William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience." (<-- a really good book, by the bye; one that every educated person should read.) Now, I'm not going to measure the existence of God with my Radio Shack (do they even exist any longer?) voltmeter, but neither am I going to measure the existence of wood with such an instrument. The test, the measure, the evidence, must be tuned to the thing being looked for. If you're not looking for voltage, then the voltmeter is not going to help you, however fine tuned and high quality that instrument might otherwise be.
So if we're looking for "God", we must look with an instrument attuned to the task at hand. James' describes a variety of such empirical "instruments" and the "evidence" they provide. To say there is "no evidence" is to *legislate* away an entire universe of *actual* human experience. And human experience is supposed to be the fundamental basis of all empirical evidence. And this evidence is no more subjective than that discerned from a photographic plate taken at a telescope. The images on that plate are uninterpretable nonsense to anyone who has not gone through years of mentored training. Not entirely disanalogous to the years of mentored training the mystic and seeker must go through.
One last point that connects to all of the above. John Dewey, in his little book "A Common Faith," made the apposite distinction between "religion" and "the religious." The latter is often referred to as "the spiritual" or "spirituality." On the other hand, "religion" (in Dewey's terms) is the systematized collection of practices and dogmas that we recognize as the organized church. Dewey had few kind words for religion, but a considerable amount of praise for the religious. His discussion works well with James' "Varieties." Whitehead, on the other hand, quipped in his book "Religion in the Making" that "religion is what we do with our solitariness."
I always love your perspective, Gares, and I love it here. I stand firm on my declaration that there is no evidence that God (in the sense of any culture's specific religious totem) exists as of this writing. Now, if the Mars rover comes back with a note signed by the Almighty, that's different. Until then, the God question isn't even an unwritten book. It doesn't exist.
"in the sense of any culture's specific religious totem" -- That's like the gravitational constant. Nobody actually knows what it is. (Srsly) Yet, in some sense, it must be there, despite our resolute failures to actually nail it down. Your argument reduces to, "Unless I have absolute proof and irrefutable evidence, then I declare that it cannot possibly exist." By that standard, neither does gravity.
Yet the "varieties of religious experience," bouncing up and down on the title of William James' famous book, certainly qualifies as evidence even when, like gravity, we have no precise characterization of it. And human experience of the divine -- which is different from human interpretations of that experience -- is pretty nearly as ubiquitous as human experiences of gravity. For which we still lack a precise characterization.
Some definitions of "God" go no further than "the basis of a rational order in the universe." Some philosophical (the existentialists) and theological (the fideists) positions deny that there is such an order. Both of these openly embrace the openly self-contradictory nature of their positions. There is no arguing with people who reject reason that completely.
To reject the idea that there is a rational order to the universe is to reject the possibility of logic, never mind science. No argument can be offered to support such a position, since any such argument necessarily presupposes the validity of logic, and hence the rational order of the universe.
But why call that order "God"? Well, why not? The insufferably illiterate buffoons who've hijacked the term after 2500 years of Western (never mind the rest of humanity) culture shouldn't be allowed to legislate matters any more than the Bible gets to legislate that pi equals 4. (I mean, seriously, it's closer to 3.)
In Plato's 'Symposium,' the story revolves around a bunch of drunken, privileged, white male fools attempting to define "love," with Socrates cheerfully in the crowd. Folks take turns at making such a definition, and each such definition turns out to be a kind of story. And each story tells a better story than the one before it, so that the "meta" structure of these stories is not a circle but a spiral. And each step in the spiral never completes the circuit, but it does take a step closer to an idea, and ideal, that is itself impossible to actually articulate.
Jumping forward 2400 years, Iris Murdoch (yes, THAT Iris Murdoch) writes the 2nd best piece of metaphysical speculation of the 20th C. (no fault of hers, but no one in the past 2500 years could really compete with Alfred North Whitehead), in which she takes that spiral a step further. Her book, "Metaphysics as a Guide To Morals", not only talks about this spiral but exemplifies it by spiraling deeper even as it talks about it, into such problems as "good," "God," "language," "meaning" etc. The point being ...
It is complicated.
And you don't get to say there is no evidence when you've not made a good faith effort to even understand what the evidence might be, never mind actually is.
What is your grasp of tensor analysis, of differential geometry? Significant? Tenuous?
Non-existent?
Then how do you propose to hold an opinion on Einstein and relativity? Do you know that there are at least 10 fully viable alternatives to Einstein's theory? I've invested a little bit in learning about such things, which is why I have so little respect for gatekeepers like Stephen Hawking.
This is my objection to people who presume to legislate about the G-word. The infantile Fundies are scarcely worth the time it would take to piss in their faces. But that still doesn't mean we're in a position to legislate what all possible meanings and evidences might be. The demand you set down is simply indefensible.
Because it is *E*X*A*C*T*L*Y* what fundamentalists do.
"No religion as practiced has presented a credible argument for the existence of God."
Well, I don't know every religion as practiced, so I can't really address such a claim, beyond the fact that as a logician, I find universal quantifiers to be deeply suspicious. ( "No X is Y" is the same as "All X is Not Y", and that "All X" is a universal quantifier.) Universals can work in mathematics, but that's because mathematics gets to freely legislate what the universe is like. Within the scope of some specific discussion, that is.
That said, I would agree that, as far as I've seen, most religions are painfully narrow and poorly thought out. Most. I know of a few, as practiced, that admit of as much, and hold that their purpose is not to legislate God, but discover God. These are the same folks who do wacky things like openly embrace the teachings of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, person who do not self-identify as CIS, etc.
Per King, I remind you (all) that secularists played no meaningful role in the American Civil Rights movement. The only way you can globally damn all religion is to also damn that movement (which, if you participated in at all, it was on the coat tails of the religionists whom you declare must be universally damned.)
Everything you wrote is not only true but needs to be shared over and over again.
I have been a very open atheist for more than 20 years now, and witnessing the quickening attempt from Christians in the USA to take over the political arena and impose their unsavory and often cruel “laws” has driven me into action.
The discourse here ( I live in the Bible Belt) has even become openly aggressive towards anyone who is not supporting the Orange Savior or “Jesus”, or both.
I will not be intimidated or silenced as I do feel that this gullibility and obscurantism is putting our Democracy in grave danger.
If some of your readers are upset and clutch their pearls, be it.
You are such an amazing writer, Stacey. I’m happy to smile with you, the messenger! I must mention Ron Reagan’s TV commercial on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I believe he says: “ This is Ron Reagan, proud atheist and not afraid of burning in hell”. It always brings a pleasant smile to my face.
I will purposely crank the volume up on Monday nights during Rachel Maddow's show when I see that ad come on! The guy does not lack for guts. It's H-A-R-D to say the quiet part out loud, especially on national television.
Clearly, I have that commercial memorized!
It’s all true, and I concur with every sentiment! Your words aren’t offensive, it’s todays reality. It needs to stopped! Organized religion is the greatest hoax and Ponzi scheme in history. They’re all designed to quell free thought, put you in a box and be submissive to the power hungry, fire and brimstone “TRUTH TELLERS”, with the false hope of eternal bliss in some undisclosed location.But of course they can’t prove it, because it doesn’t exist. Mr Toad’s wild ride if you will. Why someone would want to be submissive and indoctrinated with fear and false hope is bat shit crazy to me. I’m gonna tithe my hard earned money for you to tell me how to think and feel, and in return I get hope and ideological fantasies that you can’t prove? Fucking brilliant scam! It’s laughable and sinister. We all get one chance at life and we’re all masters over our own destiny and bodies. Which brings me to women’s rights. Chick Fillet has a whole new meaning, pushing their religious standards which is perpetuating division. They are an abortion. Lastly, my favorite, “but he was a god fearing religious man”. What the fuck does that mean? People who don’t drink the Kool-Aid are lesser souls? So yes, the Crusades are back in the saddle, filled with fundamentalist fanatics hell bent on resurrecting the Stone Age.
GIVE THEM HELL, cuz! Seriously. We have to push back against the dangerous tide. Here in about a month, women in many states will not have access to reproductive healthcare. And for the zealots, the overthrow of Roe v. Wade is just the beginning.
I couldn’t agree more! With the whites slowly becoming a minority in the states and these culture wars of race,homophobia, xenophobia, fear and hatred have long been in the works. They have no platform of ideas to evolve the country as a whole. Instead, it’s a steady diet of monotonous sermons, lies and boogie men to feast on. And they fucking eat it up, which is scary in itself. You can’t lead a horse to water, but apparently you can lead ignorant rioters to blood. So fucked up.
Too fucking right! Every damned word!
Thanks so much for the link to Freedom from Religion foundation, I didn't know about them and was looking for organizations like them in the US. Although I'm not an atheist, I'm more drawn to Wicca and Buddhist principles, I don't talk about it. I once mentioned in a post on Facebook that I narrated several audiobooks on Wicca and someone asked if I was a witch. Oh boy! Its over 327 years since the Salem Witch trials and we're clueless as ever, remaining under the spell of our Puritan founders. I'm working on an article about female leadership and I'm not going to be as quiet on the part religion plays in our loss of women's rights here in the US. We're one of the few countries in the world going backward on this.
Amazing, isn't it? A country (the U.S.) that was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. Yet here we are, fighting for basic freedoms. Women aren't mentioned even once in the Constitution. That fact always chills my blood.
Stacey thank you so much for this article. I wholeheartedly agree with what you said and admittedly, fall into the category of fearing disappointment from loves ones who have made it clear to me how heartbroken they'd be to find out I, myself, am not Christian. I'm not. I don't know what I am. Optimistically agnostic? Maybe. I just try and be a good person and raise my small person to be a good person. I despise church. My skin crawls with Southern white evangelicalism because they are, by far, the most offensive, rude, mean, and selfish demographic I've encountered by far.
But you're 100% right -- I'm scared to say it. I'm afraid of confrontation and making people upset. I don't want to cause problems.
That doesn't fix anything though, does it? Just gives them more room to run over my discomfort and kindness to further their agenda on those of us who just want a quiet, peaceful life, pondering about the stars.
I love that you said this, will ponder on it, and will try to find the bravery to voice my real opinions in an effective way without being so afraid.
And I love you ♥️ -- Jess
Finding a really smart super religious person is scarcer than hen's teeth, so it's no surprise you don't drink the Kool-Aid. If someone wants to practice their faith quietly in their own home or church, I have no problem with that. But religious overreach has become an enormously dangerous thing. Hey, I don't need to tell you.
If and when you're ready to push back, you'll do it. I'd rather you just take care of YOU and your beautiful family and your critters. That's what's important.
I've never believed that faith, per se, is the problem. I've known many people for whom their faith was their North Star, and they lived that faith honestly. It's when faith became a "faith economy" that things went sour. Because religion is administered by human beings, and human beings are eminently corruptible and venal (everyone has their price, right?), organized religion has become a vehicle for oppression, evil, and immorality.
Oh, and before I forget, "Christian nationalism" is neither.
Leading a moral and compassionate life using the example of Jesus Christ, or Wilson the Volleyball, has long since gone the way of the buffalo. Now religion- especially White Evangelical Christianity- is ruled by money, which corrupts everything it touches. It's not about the Gospel, Christian charity, or caring for the poor and downtrodden.
No, it's about judgment and casting out those who fail to measure up. Unless, of course, you're a member of Church leadership, in which case you've probably never met a temptation you could resist.
If you can't lead a moral life with a non-existent Supreme Being monitoring your every thought, word, and/or deed 24/7/365, you might want to consider the likelihood that you're a psychopath.
When my wife's family first met me and learned that I was an atheist, they didn't know what to make of me. The responses were quite comical- "We'll pray for you," which I was fine with if it makes them feel better. Parts of my own family are firmly convinced I'm going to HELL. That's fine; at least I have the best stories to tell.
Like Abraham Lincoln, my religion is simple: Kindness. I live by a very simple code- don't be a dick. If I can live up to that, I think I'm doing pretty well.
(Full disclosure: I'm an ordained minster and I hold a Ph.D. from the Church of Bacon. I can perform marriages, but worshiping bacon is far less morally complicated than worshiping an invisible being. Or a volleyball.)
"Don't be a dick." If we could even learn THAT simple rule, I'd be overjoyed. But as you say, there are people in this equation, and people (myself included) are infinitely corruptible.
I could worship at the Church of Bacon. I'd feel guilty AF about it though.
I agree in full and am very worried of the way things are going not only in the US but all over the world
It seems that as soon as women get some rights and decisional power men use religion to take it away
The problem is also in smaller communities
Where there's very little possibilities and very little to offer to the young on cultural level
So religiong becomes something big
A way to be part of a community
Where it's easy that religion monopolieses all activities of a small community
I'm not good with words but yes
You are dam right !
You communicate beautifully! And I'm so glad you get it. The more people we have pushing back against the tide, the better. Way to go, Clara.
Bill Maher has also been a consistent, outspoken critic of organized religion (being agnostic in his well-researched and articulated commentary on all the major monotheistic religions). He is an avowed atheist (as am I, proudly and without shame).
I know you must have watched his documentary, Religulous!!!! That was the BEST thing. Ever. Funny. Appalling. Insightful. And I've got to hand it to Maher. He may be kind of jackass, but the guy has cojones the size of Christmas hams. It's HARD to go against your own kind, pissing off people on both sides of the aisle. He does it with impunity.
I adore him. I told Adam when we got married that Maher was my one cheating without penalty chit. Adam and as fine with that because, well, it’s Bill Maher and I am the only person on the planet that thinks he is sexy in addition to being smart as fuck and brave and well spoken.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Done! Okay, so here’s some drool-worthy information for you. John’s ex, Micki, dated Maher! You’ll have to ask John about it.
OMG! Yes let’s reserve time when I am in Amelia 😆
You have assertively stated here what desperately required saying Stacey, and you have done so in a succinct and bracing manner. Religion, specifically Christianity, is a corrosive eating away at our democracy. It is the one unifying feature of all the hard-right's evils; racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ sentiment, unbridled greed, and the headlong rush into fascism. Often, even those who are opposed to these evils but are believers, unwittingly amplify and validate that which seeks to invalidate our secular democracy. Case in point, are those promoting the need for more prayer as a necessary corrective to mass shootings. I have seen people, whom I know to hold otherwise progressive views, espouse such sentiments. They are unaware that they are giving the Christian dominionists exactly what they want. When I come across these expressions I've been quick to debunk them. But I take your admonition to heart. From now on, I will not only push back against these sentiments I will make it clear that I'm not a believer in them too. I believe that, from my comments, most people can infer where I stand. But I will make it crystal clear from now on, because I think you're correct. Those of us who have freed ourselves from the social conditioning to believe need to share it, show others that it's possible and that you will be fine.
You would not think it would be this way. But the spiritualized ego is one of the most dangerous forces for evil on the planet. The old bromide "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" must have come from these exact same scenarios--Christian missionaries fanning out across the globe and trying to convert native populations, and now demented evangelicals attempting to force their way of life on everyone else. I'm so glad you're on my side in this war, Andrew. That means a lot to me.
I'm touched by your sentiment, Stacey, and I share it for you too. Those of us who are non-believers need to pull together, because, although their influence is declining, the Christianists power remains a powerful malign force in American life and politics, and is a primary reason for the issues that continue to bedevil us.
Thank you for these truths. I have found the more a person says they're Christian the more I distrust them. I have a sister-in-law who is constantly saying things like, "they must be nice (trustworthy, good, etc.) because they're Christian." She actually uses that as a barometer for trusting people and deciding if they're worth her time. Of course, she still loves me (so she says) but I can't help but point out to her on occasion that if we weren't related she wouldn't give me the time of day. And to be quite frank, this same relative is one of the most selfish and judgmental of all of my relatives. Someone who, in 2019 would wear a mask when her allergies were bad but stopped wearing one once it was required in most places. All the sudden she couldn't breath in one. I could go on but you get the picture. So the most "Christian" of all my relations is the least "Christ-like" of them all.
I have a feeling everybody loves you, Cheri. You just have that kind of vibe. Amazing, isn't it, how many of the most "Christian" people I know don't go to church. I'm sorry about your SIL. It's so so hard when you have to make nice with someone because you don't want to cause problems with the rest of your family. I just hate that.
The saying goes (which, apparently, made a truncated appearance in 'Downton Abbey'), "Religion is like a penis. It is a fine thing to have, and even be pleased or even proud of. But don't wave it around in public, and don't shove it down children's throats." I'm going to offer three terminological cavils.
The first: I would shift your focus from evangelicals to fundamentalists. Particularly given the ham-fisted stranglehold reichwhiner politics currently exercises on the culture, the distinction has been severely blurred. But it is not yet altogether erased. And it remains, I argue, a distinction worth maintaining.
Fundamentalism is the core reichwhiner approach to religion in every culture. Whether Christian, Hindu, Muslim, the fundamentalist holds that the sacred texts are not just absolute, they are "literally" true. (As the very notion of any text being "literally" true is philosophically "questionable" only to the extent that it is not rampaging nonsense on stilts is already one clue as to the problems with fundies.) In contrast, evangelicalism is 'literally' about evangelizing, about "sharing the good news." In theory (and, as noted, often ignored in practice) this does not entail fundamentalism. For example Katherine Hayhoe (with a "K"; I looked it up) is one of the leading Climate Scientists in the US, a vocal and passionate advocate for sweeping changes to save our environment, and an *evangelical* Christian. Evangelicalism leaves space for interpretation which fundamentalism violently denies. Hayhoe lives her evangelicalism in part by "sharing the good news" that it is not too late to save the planet. Your justifiable ire is really directed at the fundamentalists.
Per the 2nd point, "all religion is toxic". That is, frankly, indefensible on both logical and empirical grounds. On logical grounds, the "all" (known as a "universal quantifier") cannot be defended because we have not been exposed to all religions; we cannot possibly know what "all" religions are like. We can't even know what all human religions are like, because there is no evidence that we are done inventing new ones that we've had no opportunity to evaluate.
It is indefensible on empirical grounds: I draw you attention to the *Reverend* Doctor Martin Luther King. The entire American Civil Rights movement came from the *churches.* Secularists were involved, but they were never leaders, nor even especially important as driving forces. Secularists did not start it, they did not steer it, and they only joined in after the religionists had turned it into a going thing. So when you say that all religion is toxic, you are obliged to also say that the American Civil Rights movement was garbage from start to finish and ought to be burned down with the rest of it.
In addition, a couple of my friends from grad school went on to become ministers. Both are in liberal churches that are active in women's and LGBTQ rights activism. One is openly gay and living with his husband in a very red state. I am inclined by both nature and reason to rebel at the declaration that they are evil.
To the third point: the much vexed "G" word ("God"). Saying there is no evidence for "G" is again a 'universal quantifer.' ("There is no" is equivalent to "For *ALL* x, it is NOT the case that Px," where "Px" is read as "evidence for x".) This is problematic on two accounts:
(1) It assumes that we know what the word "God" means. More importantly, that we've taken account of ALL possible meanings of that word.
(2) It assumes that we know what the word "evidence" means.
Per #1, there are actually quite a few meanings assigned to the "G" word, quite beyond even those used among those 4200 religions. For example, Whitehead's concept of God is essentially (a) the basis of the rational structure of the universe, and (b) the font of creative advance/development of reality. Now, the only way you can reject (a) is by rejecting all of science as well, because science can only proceed on the basis of assuming that such a rational basis is real and actual. I suppose it is possible to reject (b), but that leaves one frozen in a Parmenidean block universe, for which there is no evidence. (Plus, it is a really sad view of reality.) Now, no one is going to go to church on Whitehead's "God." (I actually wrote that line into the book a coauthored with Randy, 'The Quantum of Explanation'! Am I proud of that? Fuckin'-A I am!)
Per #2: This clearly is a concept of God that is rooted in the Western tradition (and has significant parallels in the Eastern). The evidence here is largely formal and logical in character. But it is *evidence*. But one need not build one's redoubt on something so desiccated as formal logic.
On an empirical level we can turn to William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience." (<-- a really good book, by the bye; one that every educated person should read.) Now, I'm not going to measure the existence of God with my Radio Shack (do they even exist any longer?) voltmeter, but neither am I going to measure the existence of wood with such an instrument. The test, the measure, the evidence, must be tuned to the thing being looked for. If you're not looking for voltage, then the voltmeter is not going to help you, however fine tuned and high quality that instrument might otherwise be.
So if we're looking for "God", we must look with an instrument attuned to the task at hand. James' describes a variety of such empirical "instruments" and the "evidence" they provide. To say there is "no evidence" is to *legislate* away an entire universe of *actual* human experience. And human experience is supposed to be the fundamental basis of all empirical evidence. And this evidence is no more subjective than that discerned from a photographic plate taken at a telescope. The images on that plate are uninterpretable nonsense to anyone who has not gone through years of mentored training. Not entirely disanalogous to the years of mentored training the mystic and seeker must go through.
One last point that connects to all of the above. John Dewey, in his little book "A Common Faith," made the apposite distinction between "religion" and "the religious." The latter is often referred to as "the spiritual" or "spirituality." On the other hand, "religion" (in Dewey's terms) is the systematized collection of practices and dogmas that we recognize as the organized church. Dewey had few kind words for religion, but a considerable amount of praise for the religious. His discussion works well with James' "Varieties." Whitehead, on the other hand, quipped in his book "Religion in the Making" that "religion is what we do with our solitariness."
I always love your perspective, Gares, and I love it here. I stand firm on my declaration that there is no evidence that God (in the sense of any culture's specific religious totem) exists as of this writing. Now, if the Mars rover comes back with a note signed by the Almighty, that's different. Until then, the God question isn't even an unwritten book. It doesn't exist.
"in the sense of any culture's specific religious totem" -- That's like the gravitational constant. Nobody actually knows what it is. (Srsly) Yet, in some sense, it must be there, despite our resolute failures to actually nail it down. Your argument reduces to, "Unless I have absolute proof and irrefutable evidence, then I declare that it cannot possibly exist." By that standard, neither does gravity.
Yet the "varieties of religious experience," bouncing up and down on the title of William James' famous book, certainly qualifies as evidence even when, like gravity, we have no precise characterization of it. And human experience of the divine -- which is different from human interpretations of that experience -- is pretty nearly as ubiquitous as human experiences of gravity. For which we still lack a precise characterization.
Some definitions of "God" go no further than "the basis of a rational order in the universe." Some philosophical (the existentialists) and theological (the fideists) positions deny that there is such an order. Both of these openly embrace the openly self-contradictory nature of their positions. There is no arguing with people who reject reason that completely.
To reject the idea that there is a rational order to the universe is to reject the possibility of logic, never mind science. No argument can be offered to support such a position, since any such argument necessarily presupposes the validity of logic, and hence the rational order of the universe.
But why call that order "God"? Well, why not? The insufferably illiterate buffoons who've hijacked the term after 2500 years of Western (never mind the rest of humanity) culture shouldn't be allowed to legislate matters any more than the Bible gets to legislate that pi equals 4. (I mean, seriously, it's closer to 3.)
In Plato's 'Symposium,' the story revolves around a bunch of drunken, privileged, white male fools attempting to define "love," with Socrates cheerfully in the crowd. Folks take turns at making such a definition, and each such definition turns out to be a kind of story. And each story tells a better story than the one before it, so that the "meta" structure of these stories is not a circle but a spiral. And each step in the spiral never completes the circuit, but it does take a step closer to an idea, and ideal, that is itself impossible to actually articulate.
Jumping forward 2400 years, Iris Murdoch (yes, THAT Iris Murdoch) writes the 2nd best piece of metaphysical speculation of the 20th C. (no fault of hers, but no one in the past 2500 years could really compete with Alfred North Whitehead), in which she takes that spiral a step further. Her book, "Metaphysics as a Guide To Morals", not only talks about this spiral but exemplifies it by spiraling deeper even as it talks about it, into such problems as "good," "God," "language," "meaning" etc. The point being ...
It is complicated.
And you don't get to say there is no evidence when you've not made a good faith effort to even understand what the evidence might be, never mind actually is.
What is your grasp of tensor analysis, of differential geometry? Significant? Tenuous?
Non-existent?
Then how do you propose to hold an opinion on Einstein and relativity? Do you know that there are at least 10 fully viable alternatives to Einstein's theory? I've invested a little bit in learning about such things, which is why I have so little respect for gatekeepers like Stephen Hawking.
This is my objection to people who presume to legislate about the G-word. The infantile Fundies are scarcely worth the time it would take to piss in their faces. But that still doesn't mean we're in a position to legislate what all possible meanings and evidences might be. The demand you set down is simply indefensible.
Because it is *E*X*A*C*T*L*Y* what fundamentalists do.
Let me take this one more step.
"No religion as practiced has presented a credible argument for the existence of God."
Well, I don't know every religion as practiced, so I can't really address such a claim, beyond the fact that as a logician, I find universal quantifiers to be deeply suspicious. ( "No X is Y" is the same as "All X is Not Y", and that "All X" is a universal quantifier.) Universals can work in mathematics, but that's because mathematics gets to freely legislate what the universe is like. Within the scope of some specific discussion, that is.
That said, I would agree that, as far as I've seen, most religions are painfully narrow and poorly thought out. Most. I know of a few, as practiced, that admit of as much, and hold that their purpose is not to legislate God, but discover God. These are the same folks who do wacky things like openly embrace the teachings of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, person who do not self-identify as CIS, etc.
Per King, I remind you (all) that secularists played no meaningful role in the American Civil Rights movement. The only way you can globally damn all religion is to also damn that movement (which, if you participated in at all, it was on the coat tails of the religionists whom you declare must be universally damned.)
siamo tutti buoni o cattivi dipende solo da chi racconta la favola
Thank you!
Everything you wrote is not only true but needs to be shared over and over again.
I have been a very open atheist for more than 20 years now, and witnessing the quickening attempt from Christians in the USA to take over the political arena and impose their unsavory and often cruel “laws” has driven me into action.
The discourse here ( I live in the Bible Belt) has even become openly aggressive towards anyone who is not supporting the Orange Savior or “Jesus”, or both.
I will not be intimidated or silenced as I do feel that this gullibility and obscurantism is putting our Democracy in grave danger.
If some of your readers are upset and clutch their pearls, be it.
But, It might also make them THINK.
I'm not the most eloquent, but I just had to say "I couldn't agree more"