God-Tinted Glasses
In an RE lesson years ago, I was introduced to an interesting concept: That atheists, unable to see the god(s) they (supposedly) depend on, are like fish, unable to see the water they swim in. Since then, that idea has rattled around inside my head, but recently it bumped into a brain-cell and some thoughts occurred:
Firstly, although a living fish may be unable to see the water it is in, I have little doubt it is very able to detect said water using its other senses. Meanwhile, nobody has any senses for detecting deities -- or at least, none that work reliably or have been proven to exist. (That dastardly classic problem of being unable to trust ones senses is still around!) What I am saying is: Just like an embarrassed puffer fish, the simile deflates under scrutiny.
Secondly, I wish to turn the concept on its head: What if atheists are right and this metaphorical god-water isn't really there at all? What if theists are, metaphorically, wearing God-Tinted Glasses?
There are many religions with many branches and they all contain logical flaws, (I intend to write more about these in future posts,) which, logically, prevent them from being completely, if at all, true. In addition to these flaws, different religions contradict each other by definition -- if they didn't, they'd be the same religion -- and this prevents there from ever being more than one "true religion." Knowing this, it is logical to conclude that most theists are, knowingly or otherwise, fooling themselves and each other into holding false beliefs.
But then which theists hold the true beliefs? Well, they all seem to be convinced that they personally do, despite a total lack of evidence and much careful reasoning to the contrary, so it's very likely they're all fooling themselves.
Some people try to get around the contradictions and other flaws. They claim that all religions are true by using wishy-washy ideas like, "We're all looking out different windows at the same light." Unfortunately, such statements totally fail to reconcile the myriad differences and merely sweep them under the metaphorical rug, where they will come out and cause trouble again later.
Yet more theists say things like, "Believe whatever is right for you," which is tantamount to admitting that the various religions offer little more than a selection of fantasies to choose amongst. Of course, it isn't quite that simple: The religion you claim to belong to can have a large effect on the sorts of places and people you end up going to and socialising with. What I fail to understand is why some theists think this is a good thing. Why should they let their religion dictate who they befriend, rather than simply sticking around with the people and places they normally get along with?
Regarding the aforementioned fantasies: I do not object to fantasies in general. I think it's fair to say that most people fantasise about things they like most of the time. I often think it's useful to have a dream I like, to aim for to give my life purpose.
Those who know me may be aware that I often cannot think of a way to get to where I want and have to ask for advice, but that is beside the point. The point here is that no dream can come true if it is self-contradictory, because it would then be both false and true, which makes no sense. To put it bluntly, regardless of how well motivated you are, you will never fulfil your dream or fantasy if you choose one that is self-contradictory. Thus, if your fantasy is religious, your efforts are futile and can only complicate things for everyone. I like simplicity; hence I am motivated to write this.
One of the things that rarely fails to surprise me is that my words appear to have no effect on religious people. I am mystified as to why they insist on clinging desperately to religious fantasies even after I've explained to them the conspicuously complete futility of their religious efforts. And if you think "clinging desperately" is too strong a phrase then bear in mind that most of the people I've argued with, especially those I meet online, have been unable to put up a coherent defence for their beliefs and have resorted instead to insulting or ignoring me personally.
There must be an infinite number of non-contradictory fantasies they could hold instead, but religious people are never really interested in what I say. It is as if they only pretend to listen, thinking in their closed minds, "The poor fool will be damned." Or they interrupt and exclaim that they must not listen because my words and intentions are evil. Or they listen patiently but quietly dismiss my every word as false -- and then they leave saying, "Thank you for questioning my beliefs; you have helped me to strengthen them," because they believe that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong by definition.
I get frustrated when people continue their misguided actions even after it has been explained to them that their efforts are actually observably detrimental to themselves and others. For instance, when two religious groups clash and both cling to their irrational beliefs with equal ferocity, the only possible eventual outcome is war. I suspect that theists hold onto their futile beliefs because they fear that the alternatives are equally pointless. Fortunately, at least one alternative is not: As a being with a mind, each of us is able to find a purpose in ourselves and in other things.
Good purposes for things tend to run along the lines of, "Food is for feeding hungry people." Meanwhile, a good purpose for people is to cause widespread knowledge and happiness. I attempt to do that by writing both philosophy and humour, which I put online. Those purposes do not require any gods, and yet I found them and try to work towards them.
If people got a better understanding of themselves and the world they would achieve better and wouldn't try to force others to do unreasonable things. I try to help but some just fool themselves even more and everybody ends up doing something utterly stupid like going to war about whose religion is better. All the theists in the world are fooling themselves and each other -- they are wearing differently-coloured God-Tinted Glasses, which prevent them from seeing sense. If they took them off, life would be simpler and therefore nicer.
posted by Pop! at 6:26 pm
8 Insightful insults:
Hey, it's great to hear from you again!
Interesting post... I'll return later to respond to it as a whole but until then there were a few things I picked out that I disagree with.
"For instance, when two religious groups clash and both cling to their irrational beliefs with equal ferocity, the only possible eventual outcome is war."
Not all religious people believe that the way to settle disputes of theology is war. First of all, I don't see either of the Christians in this diary trying to kill either of the non-Christians, nor have they shown any inclination towards such an action. Most religions actually suggest that such an action would be wrong, particularly Jesus in Christianity. They might not agree, but you can believe you are right without needing to kill the people who are wrong.
True, some people use religion as an excuse to fuel their aggression, as an excuse to violence, but some people are just determined to be violent. Look at football - many people use that as an excuse to fight too, but it doesn't mean that it's necessarily evil.
"Meanwhile, a good purpose for people is to cause widespread knowledge and happiness."
Yup, this is a good purpose, and is spread through religion as well as other methods, such as your own that you described. I personally hope to achieve it with writing, and just generally being as optimistic and Pollyanna-like as I can. =P
"If people got a better understanding of themselves and the world they would achieve better and wouldn't try to force others to do unreasonable things."
This is a bit of an odd statement... I haven't actually encountered a Christian who has tried to force me into anything to do with their religion. Unless you count Carol's family saying grace at the table but I personally wouldn't count that as unreasonable, it being their house and all.
A better understanding of the world in what way? And in what way would this improve their achievement? Sorry, gonna have to ask you to be specific here.
Thanks for listening to the thoughts... Hope you can clarify those points for me a bit.
Lucie
Quick comment because it's getting lateish and I want some sleep:
You can never "take off your glasses". In fact, Mark, I think you're wearing some of your own.
We all are. It is inevitable. As a human being you are influenced to some degree by your upbringing, your past encounters, your beliefs, other people you meet, whether you're having a good day or not - you can never be "neutral". You can never take off your glasses. Everything has context, everything has bias, everything has perspective. It is impossible to live without this.
Everything has to be interpreted. You say "food is for feeding hungry people". A good principle, I agree with it. B
ut how do we interpret it? I might decide to donate money to Oxfam. You might decide to give hamburgers to Big Issue Sellers. Someone else might decide to spend their life's savings to go and work for Tearfund in Africa on schemes that help produce wealth by loaning animals or giving starter seed kits.
We would each have interpreted the principle according to our own bias, beliefs, influences, circumstances. And this isn't a bad thing, and it isn't wrong. Because without the interpretation of the principle - without putting action to the sentiment that "food is for feeding hungry people" - it's meaningless. What good is it believing that it's good to feed the hungry if you do nothing?
And if I may be so bold, though you believe that you are "telling it as it is", what I think you're really doing is telling it how it looks through your tinted glasses. This isn't an accusation - I'll freely admit that I'm telling it how it looks from through mine. But I don't think any human could ever be objective or free from bias.
In response to Lucie's comment:
"Not all religious people believe that the way to settle disputes of theology is war."
That may be true of most individuals but they can do some pretty stupid things when they're in a frenzied group. Anyway, lots of religious texts instruct believers to kill non-believers. Perhaps those "believers" who don't kill as they're told aren't really following their religions properly but picking and choosing their beliefs -- a practice that I believe Chris, Carol and many others frown upon, even though they have to do it because their texts self-contradict. Not that I mind people picking and choosing their beliefs, provided they do it logically and reasonably -- it's hypocrisy that I hate. If I could banish all hypocrisy from myself then I would.
"First of all, I don't see either of the Christians in this diary trying to kill either of the non-Christians, nor have they shown any inclination towards such an action."
I did say, "when two religious groups clash." Our beliefs may clash but I'm not a religious group. If they did try to kill me but I survived then I wouldn't start a war, I'd go to the police. Others may start a war as a result of attempted murder but not me.
"Most religions actually suggest that such an action would be wrong, particularly Jesus in Christianity."
...And then on another page they contradict themselves. And then there was confusion...
"They might not agree, but you can believe you are right without needing to kill the people who are wrong."
Interestingly, RE and RS teachers teach a twisted, extreme version of that, which is that, "You can believe you are right without having to criticise others." Unfortunately, this implies that we shouldn't criticise each other and leaves the world awash with sloppy thinking and nonsense because everybody's too polite to say, "Erm, actually, I think you might just be wrong about that because..."
"True, some people use religion as an excuse to fuel their aggression, as an excuse to violence, but some people are just determined to be violent."
That's probably true, but wouldn't the belief that you were doing The Right Thing fuel you to be even more violent?
"Look at football - many people use that as an excuse to fight too, but it doesn't mean that it's necessarily evil."
Bad example: Anything that's about kicking balls has gotta be evil! I've never been keen on football but that's not stopped PE "teachers" from repeatedly forcing me to get drenched in mud "playing" it with people who hate my guts. As a result, the number of times I've had to get my glasses fixed or replaced is obscene.
"This is a bit of an odd statement... I haven't actually encountered a Christian who has tried to force me into anything to do with their religion."
It does sound a bit strange and lofty in retrospect but it still seems true to me. I do get the distinct impression that many religious people would personally like to force me if only they dared. At least, that is why I think I keep hearing stupid comments like, "But I thought someone as intelligent as you would simply know that there must be a god" -- an interesting combination of flattery, assumption and condescension.
"Unless you count Carol's family saying grace at the table but I personally wouldn't count that as unreasonable, it being their house and all."
Are you saying that it's fine to do something as long as others are doing it too? In that case I suppose it would be perfectly reasonable for me to go on holiday to America and then decide to kill some Iraqis... Not. (Remember what I wrote about frenzied groups?)
"A better understanding of the world in what way? And in what way would this improve their achievement? Sorry, gonna have to ask you to be specific here."
I meant that as a general statement but I'll try to be a little more specific: If everyone would understand that they know less than they believe they do, they'd have more reason to criticise their beliefs and learn more -- about philosophy, science, technology, etc -- and thus be better equipped to improve the world by producing better inventions, laws, etc, and waste less time trying to force others to believe codswallop.
""Unless you count Carol's family saying grace at the table but I personally wouldn't count that as unreasonable, it being their house and all."
Are you saying that it's fine to do something as long as others are doing it too? In that case I suppose it would be perfectly reasonable for me to go on holiday to America and then decide to kill some Iraqis... Not. (Remember what I wrote about frenzied groups?)"
I think you've completely missed Lucie's point, which (as I understand it) was that my family have the right to say a prayer of thanksgiving in our own house while she was present.
Okay, response to response on my response time.
"Anyway, lots of religious texts instruct believers to kill non-believers. Perhaps those "believers" who don't kill as they're told aren't really following their religions properly but picking and choosing their beliefs -- a practice that I believe Chris, Carol and many others frown upon, even though they have to do it because their texts self-contradict."
I don't claim to have intimate knowledge of the Bible, or any other religious text, but I think your first statement here might need a quote or two to back it up...? I know the Old Testament is pretty grim in places but does it actually say, "Yes, kill the people who disagree with you!".
As for the contradiction thing, well, this is probably not my area to defend, but no one else is so I'll give it a bash. With a hammer. Or an anvil.
There are a lot of things that are said in the 'early days' of the Bible that do kinda differ from the later teachings, which were all more along the, "Love everyone" lines. My personal understanding of this is that the circumstances under which they were said were very different - what was right for 'God's People' when they were just starting to build civilisation might have been rather different to what was best for them when society had been established, and culture changing, and so it would make sense that the rules were different. Also, it's entirely possible that ideas such as helping your neighbour and not judging people were assumed to be true way, way back when, and it was only when we had Empires and dictators and stuff that everyone needed reminding, "Hey, we're all human you know".
I don't know. This is entirely theoretical for me, and I am pretty much (as I do frequently) taking the opposite stance for the sake of taking the opposite stance. I don't believe the Bible is the absolute truth at the heart of the universe. Certainly I don't feel it's the path for me, as for starters I'm way too cynical to ever genuinely believe in something for which I have no proof, or at least not in the way the Christianity demands.
"If they did try to kill me but I survived then I wouldn't start a war, I'd go to the police. Others may start a war as a result of attempted murder but not me."
I think this is a bit... presumptuous. I doubt if a Muslim (or any other religious group) went up to Carol and tried to kill her she'd say, "right, that's it, I'm declaring war".
In fact, I think most people when they are faced with attempted murder would in fact go to the police.
As for people trying to force you, well, I've met a few people who I think take a great smugness in their surety that they are right. Sort of a "you either admit I'm right or you will go to hell" kind of attitude, and it amuses me mildly, but again, this is the minority of Christians I know. In fact I can think of ... one. And a whole bunch of Christians who respect that my beliefs are different, and yes they would kinda prefer it if I converted (after all, they do believe I'm going to hell if I don't, and they'd be pretty mean if they didn't care about that), but they wouldn't force me. Nor would they patronise me.
Maybe you've just had really bad luck in the Christians you've encountered.
Oh, and Carol was right - I didn't mean that comment about the grace thing to say something's okay as long as others are doing it - and I find it hard to see how you could interpret it that way. I meant merely that in their own house it is perfectly reasonable that they would adhere to their own religious beliefs. And my being there made little difference. If they'd come to my house and made a big deal of saying grace then that would have been slightly pushy, because then it would have been my house, see?
Not that I'm saying you can do ANYTHING you want in your house, like mass murderer or mutilating chickens, but reasonable things that cause no harm to others. Like saying grace. Or bleating repeatedly. Baaaaa...
Lucie
"when two religious groups clash and both cling to their irrational beliefs with equal ferocity, the only possible eventual outcome is war."
I don't think that has to be true at all.
I was reading more of Velvet Elvis on the train this morning (managed to finish it, actually). I found the last chapter quite inspiring. It's about hope. And changing the world. Being kinder, more generous, more loving, more environmentally conscious, more compassionate, a better neighbour. And a very important point that this book really emphasises is that as a Christian, *everyone* is your neighbour. Which includes the people who you disagree with. And the people who think your religion is rubbish and tell you so at every opportunity. And even the people who not only think your religion is rubbish but also think you should be blown up because of it. It's not "love your neighbour as long as they agree with you", or even "love your neighbour as long as they're not actively hostile towards you". It's just "love your neighbour".
And I have to say that I don't think we Christians are always very good at that. We're very bad at it at times. We should be ashamed of that. But sometimes we are very good at it. And we should keep trying, because that's what we're supposed to do, that's what God's told us to do (according to our beliefs).
"Oftentimes the Christian community has sent the message that we love people and build relationships in order to convert them to the Christian faith. So there is an agenda. And when there is an agenda, it isn't really love, is it? It's something else. We have to rediscover love, period. Love that loves because it is what Jesus teaches us to do. We have to surrender our agendas. Because some people aren't going to become Christians like us no matter how hard we push. They just aren't. And at some point we have to commit them to God, trusting that God loves them more than we ever could." (from Velvet Elvis, by Rob Bell).
I'm not terribly good at the selflessly serving others thing. I'm far too concerned about what I get out of life / commitments / meetings / friendships / etc. I shouldn't be as selfish as I am. But I'm going to work on it and if it works out then maybe the world will be a slightly better place for having me in it. And that's important.
But I have an interesting question to pose in response to Carol's last comment:
At what point are you supposed to decide to love yourself more than the person who's blowing you up? If someone is trying to kill you for your beliefs, and you have to either kill them or die, are you supposed to love them more, and so let yourself die? Or is killing them in order to survive more Christian?
Mah. (xshacts)
I haven't a clue. Some people certainly do die for their beliefs - an early example in the Bible being Stephen, who I think counts as the first Christian to be martyred (don't quote me on that).
Basically, he was preaching and there were miracles and all sorts of things, and the religious leaders of the day didn't like it because they disagreed with him. They tried to argue but found that his arguments were better. So in the end they hatched a plot to kill him by paying some people to lie and say that Stephen was guilty of blasphemy against God and Moses. Stephen explained what he believed to them ... and was stoned for it. Read the story here if interested.
So to conclude ... he just stood there and took it. And from the way it's portrayed I would infer that that was the right thing for him to do. But that doesn't mean that it's always the right thing to do (one example does not a theorem make!). To be honest, I just hope I never end up in that situation, or that if I do, it'll be clear at the time which is the right thing to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home