Book Review: Godless, by Pete Hautman
As a kid, I always loved Judy Blume books. Are you there, God? It’s Me, Margaret. Freckle Juice. Double Fudge. Superfudge. Blubber. Otherwise Known as Sheila the Great. Tales of a Fourth-Grade Nothing.
Eventually, though, I transitioned into a new world of Blume books. My brother, Jay, had a book by Blume called Then Again, Maybe I Won’t. At the tender age of 10, and my brother at 14, I was told in no uncertain terms by him that the book was too “adult” for me. He promptly hid it somewhere in his room to prevent me from reading it.
Of course, being the nosy little brother I was, I rooted around through his room one day while he was gone until I finally found it, buried in the bottom of his closet. I read it from cover to cover, carefully replacing it exactly where I’d found it a few days later.
I pondered what I’d read for a few days. On one level, it was a kind of weird book, talking about things I hadn’t experienced yet and didn’t really understand. On another level, I was starting to get really interested in girls, and I understood the kid’s fascination with watching his friend’s sister through the window. I understood that eventually I’d have wet dreams, and it made that kind of stuff much easier to deal with when I ran into those situations. Throughout the remainder of my adolesence, it was a book I’d steal regularly from my brother when in need of a novel to read, and as time passed and I understood more of what the book was about, the more I thought “Wow, this Judy Blume lady sure understands what it means to be my age.”
Overall, it was not only fun to read, but also helped me understand life a little better when I ran into similar situations. I didn’t make the same choices the protagonist did, but I could understand where he was coming from.
Blume continued with this tradition, writing several more highly controversial volumes, including “Forever”, a book dealing very frankly with teenage sex and commitment. It was widely banned from public school libraries due to some “graphic” portions. But when I read it, I saw it much more as being about friendship and love. How it starts, how it grows, and how it ends. Not only was it fascinating and entertaining for me as a young adult, but it was pretty critical in giving me some sense of perspective on relationships.
Yeah, I’m a guy. And I read “Forever”. Get over it!
Pete Hautman’s book, “Godless”, winner of the 2004 National Book Award for Young People, struck a similar resonating chord for me. It deals with the struggles of Jason Bock, a tall, fat, nerdy kid with a snail-collecting best friend called Shin.
Jason, upon getting knocked out by the scrawny, enigmatic Henry, has an epiphany about the nature of water towers while coming to underneath the town’s structure. Given his atavistic relationship with both his parents as well as their religion, he invents his own religion: “Chutengodianism”, or the worship of water towers.
I can’t give away too much more without spoiling the plot, sorry 🙂 Suffice to say that as honestly as Blume dealt with adolescent sexual issues in Then Again, Maybe I Won’t, Hautman deals with adolescent religious issues in Godless.
The book deals with the questioning of faith common to young people. And, as I discovered in my late twenties, these questions are common in older people, too. Jason is subjected to weekly meetings at his local church, where his constant questions about faith which are out of the experience of the instructor go unanswered and met with stern disapproval. He discovers that, as he suspected, despite the assurance of the instructor that all that was said within these meetings was confidential, his parents know of his responses and many details of the weekly faith meetings.
I had a similar experience as a teenager. I remember discussing something intensely personal with my ecclesiastical leader (referred to as a “bishop”, in LDS parlance), that within a few scant hours, had resulted in a lecture from my father on the same topic.
There are many coincidences in life.
This was not one of them.
My experience instilled in me a deep distrust of the “word” of authority figures, and I found Jason’s reaction remarkably similar. Pragmatism overcomes ideology, and quickly Jason finds it more convenient to lie to preserve peace and his personal freedom than to be truthful and face censure from disapproving parents and peers.
I also found Jason’s experience of a zealous father overloading him with religious materials to be strikingly familiar. As a young adult, my father regularly handed me books dealing with faith, Satan, the Last Days, and various metaphysical “events” which, frankly, bored me. I guess the main difference between the protagonist and me is that I felt duty-bound to read them cover to cover.
By the book’s end, Jason’s snail-collecting best friend, Shin, has taken his bogus religion too far. Like many of those slightly unstable teenagers we all knew as kids, he’d gotten far too involved to make reliable judgments, leaving Jason to clean up the mess, wondering how he can possibly control the spiralling effects of his brief sojourn into religiousness. But Shin said one thing that has stuck with me, and will probably end up in my little file of important quotes.
“How do you know it’s not true if you don’t believe in it?” asks Shin of Jason. “How can you understand something you don’t believe in?”
“Shin, that doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying you can’t understand leprechauns unless you believe in them.”
“Do you understand leprechauns?”
“I don’t believe in them.”
“There you go.”
It’s a deep thought. How can you understand something you don’t believe in?
As many readers of barnson.org know, I’m an agnostic Mormon these days. Who knows where I’ll actually end up. I’ve found the scientific method, and a large dose of healthy skepticism, to be a pretty reasonable method for figuring out the truth. Last night, while at a friend’s house playing cards, we got into a discussion of evolution. I laughed along with everyone else about scientists sometimes seeming to just “add an extra zero” to timelines to make things fit.
Then I mentioned that radiocarbon dating is actually quite accurate in dating historical artifacts, and that tree-ring analysis has supported radiocarbon conclusions.
The response of my conversants was interesting.
“What?” they replied. “No, the dates are wildly inaccurate, because they don’t take into account major historical events.”
In the back of my mind, a little voice was telling me, let this topic drop. Unfortunately, I ignored it, and pressed on. “How do you mean?” I asked.
“Well, the dates are way off, because they ignore the fact of a worldwide flood.”
“Umm,” I began, my jaw dropping in incredulity that one of my neighbors actually believes in Young Earth Creationism. “And how…” I began.
I was cut off by the timely intervention of my friend, Paul, who understands my position regarding such anti-scientific theories. “And that’s the signal to say let’s talk about something else,” he interjected. Realizing the wisdom of his words, I chose not to press the issue with my friends.
I guess questioning religious and scientific assumptions isn’t just a teen issue.
The book is a slender read; at 198 pages, even with four children climbing all over me and interrupting me this past Saturday, I plowed through it in a scant two hours. Yet, like Blume’s books, within its short binding it deals frankly with adolescent religious behavior and questions, and ends with little fanfare. No cheering crowds, no conquering hero. Just a boy who’s a little bit changed, a little more grown up, bearing a few more scars, and a bit more skeptical about the world than when the book started.
I really liked it. I think you might too.
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: I don’t know if it’s what you want, but it’s what you get. 🙂 — Larry Wall in <10502@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Cool
Sounds like a good book, Matt. Like you, I was a big fan of Then Again, Maybe I Won’t in my pre-teen days, and I could really have used a book like Godless at the time. Growing up where I did (one of the only Jews in an area of all devout Catholics), I was already the odd man out. But around 13 or 14, when I started to look at organized religion and think “this just doesn’t make any logical sense”, I felt even more unusual.
At the time, I thought that I was unique, that teenagers didn’t have crises of faith. So I kept it to myself – it wasn’t until well into college that I was able to label myself an agnostic, and it wasn’t until I 25 that I could even begin to look at religion again.
I’ll definitely check out this book, if just to put thing in perspective 15 years after the fact. Thanks for the recommendation!
— Ben
A Bifrucated response
Blume: “Then again, maybe I won’t” – yes.. EXCELLENT when I was in middle school.
I guess the thing is that unlike Matt, I turned to a faith in my teenage years that was a stark contrast to what my parents believed. Although both my parents consider themselves Christian, my Dad is more of a new-age Catholic who picks and chooses what he believes, and my Mom at the time followed the episcopalian faith, which, as Eddie Izzard called it, is really more of a social club.
When I told them I believed in kind of hard-lined “Bible as a History book” Christianity, my parents either laughed it off or out and out rejected it.
What follows is a tangent about a recurring theme: The idea that Religion has to have “Authority Figures” that you must believe to be infallible.. and who hold some “higher knowledge” that you are not allowed to know.
Faith in God and in particular, my faith in His Son is NOT religion. I’m not a big fan of Religion. Religion is the construct by which man tries to understand God. It is what leads to overbearing Authority figures insisting they’re right because they’re authority figures.
Faith in the Bible requires a leap, certainly.. there are things that are hard to understand, and some things that don’t quite make sense to me. However, there used to be things that didn’t make sense to me now that I have kind of learned to wrap my head around. My hope is that the other things will eventually make sense like that…
The biggest great thing that I want to share with you, Matt (and others), is that outside Mormonism, the concept of “unlocking scriptural truths” is not a secret held by higher-ups, but that indeed the whole of Bible theology and Church tradition is there in books, in lectures, in services, on the web, and available to anyone who asks. I really believe a Christian should look at the Bible with a faithful mind, but also a scientific mind (which is why I really don’t dig the King James at all.. its too showy).
I have always been encouraged to question my faith – and that is one of the things I love about this board. Just, at the end of the day, I really believe that there is a God, He became a man, died, came back, forgave anyone who asked.. and Rock on!
There are no secrets that my Pastor knows that I am not allowed to know. He knows more than me.. he went to more Bible College than me.. but he will answer any question I ask of him… and.. wow is this a tangent now.
Point is this. There are Christian churches that are not about tradition and secrets and authority.. The Bible has lots about Jesus slamming tradition, bringing secrets out into the open, and bringing down men of authority that obscure God.
Okay.. back to movies and sound design.
Churchless
Here is a brief excerpt from the author’s comments on his book at http://www.petehautman.com/godless.html.
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: CF&C stole it, fair and square. — Tim Hahn
Pete Hautman
Pete Hautman is a major literary celebrity in Minneapolis. Since achieving national literary star status with “Godless”, the guy is the word of the town.
Get it? The “word” of the town? I’m so witty, it hurts. Double entendre and what not.
The tower on the cover art of Godless is the very same water tower that sits right down the street my old townhouse. My buds and I got a chuckle when they saw the cover because it’s something we drive past everyday. I believe that since the book, kids have actually made pilgrimages to the water tower and made offerings.
Pete Hautman began taking writing classes at The Loft. Minneapolis has a lot to offer aspiring writers, and he was one of many who took the creative writing classes offered at this downtown writing hub. It’s great to know that anyone with talent, dedication and a strong agent can still go from weekend hack to household name.
Pete lives nearby and writes out of his house, getting paid a lot more per word than before!
Reasonable Doubt
I actually don’t remember what that book was even about – was that the one with the friend who was a habitual shoplifter?
Anyway – during my teen years I actually experimented a great deal with religion. I don’t know how much my parents knew, but I was at one point fairly anti-Christian. A study of medieval history and all the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity can be pretty disturbing.
I ended up being something of a dabbler in all kinds of things from Asian philosophies to western paganism (multiple flavors). I was exposed to Atheism (which I consider a religion), and a few other *isms that I won’t even go into. I spent a bit of time exploring common threads between belief systems, trying to discover why wildly disparate philosophies often had so many resounding commonalities once you drove deep enough. Was it due to a common foundation for many of these beliefs (explainable for western philosophies, but those are so alien from eastern religions it’s harder to make that assumption)? Or was it that each of these systems were discovering, on their own, parts of the elephant (like the poem about the blind men trying to describe an elephantfrom their limited experiences)?
I made the assumption of the latter. I brought science (particularly psychology / sociology) and medicine into the mix as well – I was rather astonished how science would flip-flop on long-held views, and “rediscover” truths that were long-held as nothing but superstition and tradition. Not just religious / philisophical tenets, but things like folk remedies and ancient techniques for doing things. Our ancestors weren’t stupid. They just had less to work with. They made their observations of the universe around them. They tried their best to explain the whys and hows of things – to extrapolate from the specific to the general. Their models worked “well enough” for them for a while. Fire, Earth, Air, and Water worked for a while — then we decide it’s all about molecules and atoms, and that atoms are the smallest particle. Until we learn about subatomic particles, which help explain other behaviors. Classical physics works great even today for a lot of applications, but if you go far enough you’ll need to get into quantum physics to try and explain things. Stephen Hawking – one of the most brilliant scientific minds of our day – revised his views on black holes based on new evidence (and the fact that the new model appeals to Occam’s Razor). New work in string theory explains and simplifies a great deal about the nature and mechanics of the universe if you accept the heretical notion that the speed of light may not, in fact, be a constant.
(YES, I know I am GROSSLY simplifying really complex things here … but hey, that model works for this purpose).
For a while, Matt was on a kick where “meat was his poison.” He had determined that meat (especially red meat, IIRC) was the source of his health problems. That model worked – he felt better. Then later, he and I both were involved in the low-carb diet, with meat being an important source of protein (contrary to popular propaganda, a good low-carb diet is not about eating LOTS of meat). That worked for him too (and me…) in accomplishing certain things. Was Matt’s original theory entirely wrong? Was it completely superseded by this new school of dietary thought? Is low-carb the be-all, end-all?
You’d have to ask Matt what he thinks about the matter in his own life. Me? I think there’s a good chance these were the trunk and tusks of the same elephant – extremely simplified models of a piece of a very complex system of nutrition and how our bodies interact with what we take into it – a system complicated by the fact that everyone’s body is a little different and does things a little differently based on genetics and conditioning, making broad generalities difficult to apply beyond the trivial.
I guess this is my long-winded way of explaining how I arrived to the point of faith. I love science, though I’m more of an applied science (technology) geek. I tend to look at things with the very logical view of the computer programmer. Once I get into something, I don’t like to stick on just the surface. I tend to dig. I like to learn the hows and whys. I like to refine and revise my model.
I consider myself very fortunate to have received numerous confirmations of faith, some of which have taken the form of miracles. Nearly everything could be explained away, if one so chose, by chalking it up to a combination of delusions and astonishing coincidences. Some were subtle – some not in the least. None of these occured until after I truly committed myself. All I can say to satisfy others is that the model works extraordinarily well for me. And it helps explain a great deal where other models fail.
trackback
Jay, Those are interesting thoughts that fall in line somewhat with some topics I brought up on my own site recently. For those that care here’s the link. http://murphymaphia.com/node/788
——– Visit my blog, eh! The Murphy Maphia
Atheism, Diarrhea, Christianity
Yeah, that’s the one.
Unfortunately, there’s a disconnect between most people who self-identify as atheists, and those who do not. To an atheist, generally, atheism is the absence of religion, a suspension of judgment on the existence of the supernatural due to lack of evidence. Many Christians would say, “No, man, that’s an agnostic”, yet a lot of atheists don’t like the baggage associated with that term, either.
The fact is, there’s a lot of crossover. The “hard” definition of agnosticism is that they think it’s impossible to know whether or not the supernatural exists. The “hard” definition of atheism is that they think the supernatural does not exist. The “soft” definition of both of them — where I find myself — is simply without a belief in the supernatural.
That’s the thing I love about science, and why I continue to find it a viable chunk of my personal philosophy after throwing the rest out. A willingness to admit that something formerly accepted as true is actually false is what, from where I sit, seems to differentiate “true” paths from “false” ones. Human understanding doesn’t ever seem to be “the truth”. It’s, at best, an approximation. A good working model.
It’s much more complex than that; a combination of doctor visits, medication, small diet adjustments followed by a leap to vegetarianism to “clear the plate” of all the stuff I’d known had been involved in my gastrointestinal abnormalities, reading a lot of research, and then after 3 years of dietary experimentation, finally figuring out what combination of foods (fatty foods + carby foods) which causes me daily pain.
I have successfully been avoiding the combination for about a year. Occasionally, I slip up, and when I do, my body generally gives me a very clear and painful indicator that I shouldn’t do that again.
So, it’s not entirely the “reversal” it might appear. I eliminated meats, then gradually reintroduced certain ones to see how they affected me. Then I went low-carb, and gradually added foods until I found the combinations which hurt, and I avoid them entirely.
Additionally, I found that a low-carbohydrate diet seemed to help mitigate the pain from my Trigeminal Neuralgia. I don’t think it’s the cure for everybody, but when my diet gets too carby, my facial pain begins to flare up again within a few days. And that is completely incapacitating, normally hitting me in the middle of the night.
I don’t scream or cry loudly from it anymore, and I usually don’t tell my wife when they happen. I just explain that I had trouble sleeping. I don’t want sympathy; I just want to manage the pain with as little medication as possible.
Anyway, that’s kind of the same process I’ve followed with religion. I abandoned Christianity first; the whole Jesus thing didn’t make sense to me after teaching Old Testament for a year. A year later, I abandoned the last trappings of Mormonism. I’ve gradually re-introduced a few concepts here and there into my blank, non-religious slate to see if they work out. If they do, I keep them. If they don’t, I reject them.
I think the one thing I’ve figured, to the point of near certainty, is that nothing is the be-all and end-all; I suspect there’s no such thing, and I’m deeply skeptical of claims that there is.
Ain’t the scientific method grand?
—
Matthew P. Barnson
No Man, thats an agnostic..
I do love sayin’ Man.
There have been those who have chastised Matt for his exploration of spirituality or his exploration of non-supernatural beliefs, or whichever on this site.
Let me stand up and say.. I appreciate his honesty and his willingness to be open about these things in an effort to better understand himself, to better analyze beliefs (as evidenced by awesome converations related to this subject), and I hope there are more discussions like these in the future on Barnsonorg
Two quick comments from an Atheist
First, (although I suspect you already know this Matt), radiocarbon dating really has little to nothing to do with dating fossils – (scientists use other methods such as potassium-argon dating – carbon has too short of a half-life) and hence little relevance to the timescales the Theory of Evolution deals with. To me, it’s a dead giveaway anytime someone criticizes evolution and carbon dating in the same breath that that person doesn’t know enough about the topic to make a reasonable judgment.
Second, I used to fear the term “atheist” because of its common connotations so I retreated into the more wishy-washy “agnostic” appelate quite a bit. Gradually, however, I’ve come to see “atheist” as a more accurate description of my worldview – even with the baggage it carries.
I simply do not believe in God. I’m not unsure, nor do I think that the question is unknowable any more than I am unsure or think matters are unknowable regarding the purported existence of Santa Claus.
I know that sort of phraseology often stings the sensitive feelings of many theists – but to them I submit that they too are atheists in the same way that I am regarding the vast majority of gods. They aren’t “agnostic” regarding Zeus, Ra, Thor, Apollo, Artemis, Isis, etc. The Christian theist would most likely include modern gods worshipped by millions, such as Shiva or Allah, as being more myth than fact. Both theist and atheist, we view all these gods in the same light: as fables for which the evidence comes down against their literal existence.
I just happen to remain consistent in applying that same logic to Jehovah and Jesus – while the Christian makes an exception.
Of course, I could be wrong on any of this – and maybe one of these gods really does exist – but I would expect some reasonable amount of evidence supporting the specific incarnation of the god in question before I grant it my tentative belief.
Hence, I am an Atheist until that evidence is forthcoming.
–I curious to know how you e
–I am curious to know how you explain your ” sixth sence “. Your intuiton. Your soul speaking to you. Do you believe in that? I do I see at as way for divinity to guide our spirit and soul. A kind of remembering and guiding. How about you? Teresa the Flautist and fire dancer
The Soul Hypothesis
It’s a good question, Teresa. There are many ways in which I could reply, but I’ll try to respond to what I take is your central question.
I too have deep emotions and an inner voice. I can be moved by music, a good movie, a thrilling idea, or a profound book. I sometimes feel a sense of intuition guiding or informing my thoughts or actions. I have moments of mystery and awe in my life. And, although I do not believe in the supernatural, I do understand what one means to say they are “spiritual”.
But I see these sorts of things not as evidence of an invisible or immaterial “ghost” living inside my body. Rather, I see them as evidence of the marvelous workings of my very material and tangible brain.
There are several reasons why I am skeptical of a dual nature to our consciousness (meaning that we are composed of both “Body” and “Spirit”). A primary one is that our sense of self appears completely dependent upon our brains. A change to the delicate chemical processes can completely change the way we feel, think, or perceive the world. You can see ample evidence of this in everything from medicines, to disease, to brain injury. It all suggests that our sense of self is deeply linked to the state of our grey matter.
So, my short answer to your question is that I believe that the brain is the source of consciousness and all related sensations – including our spiritual inclinations and intuitions. The “soul hypothesis” is unnecessary.
Body and Spirit
You can say, however, that the individual has a dual nature: Matter and Energy. While there is plenty of human behavior that can be explained away by biology or genetic, many of the synaptic impulses in our brains are (so far) completely unexplainable.
This is why I postulate that the body is, in a way, a vehicle for the soul, or the energy component of our individualism. While it is definitely possible to track the correlation between physical changes in the brain and emotional reactions, it is difficult to say if there is cause and effect involved — whether the brain changes effect the emotions, or vice versa.
For instance, doctors have discovered the “god response” – a chemical reaction in the brain which produces the effect of a supernatural epiphany. Many atheists have used this as “proof” of the non-existence of God, but I don’t see why that necessarily follows. Who is to say (hypothetically) that if God wanted you to experience a supernatural epiphany, he would not do so simply by stimulating the hypothalamus (or whatever the biological reasoning was, I forget)?
I am by nature a skeptic, however, so I’m not about to say that THIS IS THE WAY THE WORLD IS or whatever. These are simply the beliefs that please me. Your mileage may vary.
— Ben
Explaining the brain
I am currently reading On Intelligence: How a new understanding of the brain will lead to the creation of truly intelligent machines by Jeff Hawkins. It seeks to address what intelligence actually is, and how the human brain causes it to happen.
His model is astounding. Not revolutionary, but I suspect the days of us saying “we don’t know how the brain actually works” or “we don’t know what intelligence is” are very numbered.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Explaining The Shoes
Yeah, ummm…Matt?
“We don’t know how the brain actually works.”
Let’s see some scientist explain why my fiancee needs to buy 14 new pairs of shoes every weekend.
ESP-type stuff
Teresa,
A defining characteristic of a rationalist, skeptic, or atheist, is often that they simply acknowledge they don’t have the answers. Many will say “there’s a probability of this” or “that’s not very likely”, but a lot of answers are simply “I don’t know”.
From where I sit, though, the “sixth sense” or “intuition” is merely your brain putting facts together and drawing a conclusion without the involvement of the higher-order brain which is “aware”. Your brain has a whole lot of parts which work together, down to the instinctive, primal level which controls many automatic responses.
When I think about my “sixth sense”, or “intuition”, though, I realize that most of the time it’s wrong. Really! When you look back on your life, how many times were you thinking about that friend and the phone didn’t ring? Yet the one time coincidences happen, we remember that event and think it happens regularly.
For instance, I very clearly remember a time I’d lost my wallet in high school. I knelt and prayed that I’d find it. I then stood up, walked down to the laundry room, knelt down to the pair of shorts I’d worn the day before, and pulled it out. No second thoughts.
Cool, prayer works, huh?
Well, if you don’t count the dozens of times I prayed about other things that didn’t happen. Or the many other times I lost my wallet and remembered this story, prayed, yet didn’t find it for several days.
Lately, I’ve found I can get in the same “receptive” frame of mind just by sitting down and quietly thinking things through, getting out of the “OH MY GOSH I JUST LOST SOMETHING” panic-mode. It works equally well, and does not rely on an appeal to the supernatural.
The phrase used in logic is “counting the hits and ignoring the misses”. We remember the times the slot machine paid out; we forget the thousands of times it didn’t.
But hey, I’m not out to convince anybody. I’m just happy people find models which work for them.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Radiocarbon
Well, the half-life of C-14 is 5,730 years. From what I understand, then, we can nail the date of most objects to within a few years as far back as 11,000 years, and if I understand correctly, it’s possible to date back as much as 45,000 (though with increasing inaccuracy the farther back you go because we don’t have calibration charts beyond 11,000 years).
It makes radiocarbon dating useful for dating Biblical artifacts, but not so useful for dating dinosaurs. Got it 🙂
(Heh, speaking of dating dinosaurs, there was this girl when I was in high school… wait, no, wrong thread.)
I’ve heard that summed up before as “I’m a heretic to just one more god than you are” 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Comments from a Pantheist
Fascinating stuff, Troylus. I have great respect for Atheists for having the guts to take a stand. Additionally, having spent many years as an agnostic, I just want to clear up the definition so as to dispel any myths of the “wishy-washy” quality of agnostics. An agnostic is not someone who can’t make up his mind about Divinity. Rather, an agnostic is someone who not only believes that he doesn’t know if God exists, but who believes that it is impossible to know if God exists. That the nature of the universe is not merely unknown, but unknowable.
Now to my main comments. My own personal theology is somewhere between Pantheism and Polytheism. As a pantheist, I believe that God (the Divine energy, the Force, whatever) exists in all matter and energy of the universe. In short, I believe that what we think of as “God” is actually the sum total of everything that makes up the universe. God is a synergy (a word Matt taught me back when it was a wave sound on the old Ensoniq keyboard), greater than the sum of his parts. The great behavioral psychologist C.F. Jung describes this as “the collective unconscious” – the theory that all human experience and thought is joined in some way on the quantum level.
The biggest theological difference between a Judeo-Christian Monotheist and a Pantheist is the difference between transcendent and immanent divinity. The Christian believes in transcendent divinity, that God is “out there”, external. The pantheist believe in immanent divinity, that God is “in here”, and that all of us have a portion of God within our own spirits, that God is all around us. [There are always exceptions – there’s a burgeoning movement in liberal Christianity to adopt a sort of immanent divinity, but transendence is still practiced by the majority.]
As a polytheist, I believe that all gods are equally valid. Jehovah, Zeus, Ra, Thor, Apollo, Artemis, Isis, etc. Even Jesus to an extent. I believe that all gods are mythology created by humans, upon recognizing an aspect of that semi-conscious universal energy force we refer to as God. But by creating the gods, the gods came into existence. The ancient Egyptians looked to the heavens and recognized a part of that god energy that served a purpose for them. They gave that aspect a name and a face and a mythology and called her Isis. So now Isis is a part of that god energy, and every prayer given to her strengthens her.
All religion is mythology, and all religion has the same purpose — to make a personal connection of some sort with some sort of divinity, and thereby find meaning in your life. As a pantheist/polytheist, I like to use the analogy of the ocean. Imagine that the ocean is the universe. The ocean is simultaneously one ocean as well as millions of individual water droplets. We humans, animals, trees, rocks, etc. are the individual water droplets, separate yet part of the whole. The individual gods and goddesses are like waves in the ocean – larger forms made up of parts of the ocean, formed from individual drops of water. And God (or the Force, or whatever) is the entire ocean, the sum total of everything.
That said, I’m a big fan of science as well. I chose my theology because it made rational sense to me. I was perfectly comfortable as an agnostic for years, but I chose to return to theism simply because I like the idea of being a literal part of a larger whole. I could be wrong, who knows, but it gives me comfort to be part of a religious community and take an active participation in something meaningful. I figure that there’s enough that we don’t know about the natural universe to explain this sort of theology – quantum mechanics has already shown some unusual links between things which don’t seem to be otherwise connected. It reminds me of a quote in a book, although I don’t remember what book it was. A scientist is asked in a press conference: “Do you believe that science has all the answers?” To which the scientist replies, “Yes, we just don’t have all the science.” That’s how I personally rationalize the relationship between scientific rationality and spirituality.
But I didn’t expect this response to be so long, so I’ll stop rambling and sign off. 🙂
— Ben
The Footprints of God
Ben/All,
There’s an author out there named Greg Iles. He wrote some really good WWII novels earlier, and has continued with really wonderful, complex thriller novels.
He has a book out called “The Footprints Of God” that deals with your pantheism belief mixed with supercomputers and MRI machines.
I’d recommend it as a great read.
As for religion and science, my religion fills in the gap to explain where science started from. Who created the Big Bang? Science can’t answer it all, there has to be something bigger than science.
There lies my God. My $.02 Weed
EDIT by matthew: Linked.
Deism
Your question presumes the existence of an Un-Caused Cause (the “First Cause”). If God created the Big Bang, who created God?
If God was not created, but has always existed, could one also not say then that the universe was not created, but instead has always existed?
One belief assumes the eternal nature of a supernatural being, the other assumes the eternal nature of matter and energy. It’s really six of one, half-dozen of the other, angels dancing on the head of a pin. But it’s fun to talk about 🙂
Anyway, that’s the heart of Deism. Many of the US Founding Fathers were not Christian (though influenced by the largely Christian environment around them), but instead embraced the idea of the First Cause, without any of the dogmatic baggage associated with traditional scriptures.
These days, if I don’t miss my guess, your philosophy is often referred to as the “god of the gaps”. A fine thing. Except that this god’s kingdom is forever shrinking as the unknown becomes known 🙂 Some people aren’t comfortable with that…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Eternity
I mean, when is eternity going to end?
The Human Arrogance
In reference to the entire universe, we humans make a big assumption every day. We assume we can see/feel/experience/describe everything in the universe with our five senses.
What if the universe has 10 dimensions? 26? And we experience 4 or 5 of them…What if life exists that has nothing to do with carbon? With energy or matter as WE know it?
We assume the universe has to fit into the laws we’ve managed to assemble to describe what we’ve experienced, but we may only see 50%, 25%, 10%, 1%, or even less of what’s really out there. Maybe that’s why we only use 10% of our brains, because we only sense 10% of the universe.
What if the mice and the dolphins ARE superior species?
A big problem I have with religion is that God specially chose us as his children to be saved. Why are we any more special than the Hindus or the Buddhists? Why are we any more special than the deer or the cockroaches? Religion sometimes reeks to me of junior high social peer interaction…”Our group is the coolest, you’ll never get anywhere unless you join us. That group over there, they’re losers and geeks.”
My $.02 Weed
God of the gaps
I disagree with the assertion that as we know more, there is less that we don’t know.
It is my experience, instead, that the more we learn, the more we realize that we still don’t know. Much like Socrates. Every new answer creates twice as many new questions.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me that so much is still unknown. I like a feeling of mystery to the universe, and I think I would feel let down if someday it was announced that we’d finally figured out absolutely everything in the universe. I don’t think that’s going to happen, however. We will constantly discover new areas of exploration and mystery, and therefore there will always be plenty of gaps for God to inhabit.
— Ben
Hadn’t thought of it that way
I had never thought of it that way, thanks!
—
Matthew P. Barnson
As the Lyric goes
“Life is such a sweet insanity The more you learn, the less you know”
The sad thing is that this is the theme song to “Who’s The Boss?”
For those of you keeping count it went from Religion to Who’s The Boss within 23 posts.
Scary
I somehow suspect “Who’s the Boss” references will soon become similar to “pie” references…
I like pie.
(within 26 posts!)
—
Matthew P. Barnson
In the Thicke of it…
A wise man once said… “You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.”
——– Visit my blog, eh! The Murphy Maphia
Goddess
Something religious in me awakens when Alyssa Milano is involved.
My $.02 Weed
Amen
I had the hottest poster of Alyssa on my ceiling in my room when I was about 15. It was -ahem- inspiring on more than one occassion.
——– Visit my blog, eh! The Murphy Maphia
Mother Darksome and Divine
Ok there are lots of theroies going on here. So I am gonna throw in mine.
If you look closley at all religion’s, ( Science, christianities, hindu, buddhist,atheist, ect. ) they all have the same basic core belief’s. Do unto other’s as you will have done unto you, Do what thou wilt so long as ye harm none, the basic good stuff. We all know that.
Now if you look closer at these and even at an atheist belief you have another similarity. The infinite biggness and infinite smallness theroy. Whether your talking on the cellular level or universal. Universally this could be the big bang theroy. Out of the vastness of nothing life began which is on a smaller level. Compared to us as human’s though it is much larger.
In my religion we describe that vast emptiness and darkness as being the begining therefore our mother. It is the womb from which all things began. Even the darkness and nothing is something. In this darkness there was a breath or wind which became our Father. This could be compared to the intermixes of the things that began the big bang. The process in which it took to create the explosion. Or for me to create the child of light. That spark. The child of promise. The Planets the stars. The place where we as humans and animals and plants had a promise of life.
Now that child could be compared also to being Jesus. He was the child of promise. He showed that divine discontet that we all possess. The want and urge to explain our being and to go back to the source.
Do you see how things are working now on a smaller level?
Now look at us as humans as a whole. We are all a part of the original being. Our father’s and our mothers. Now this makes us the child correct. THerefore the child of promise. So within our own selves we now carry on as the holy trinity. Mother, Father, and Child. Look at our dna we are all of these things. Whithin our own being we have been given certain tools. These are our senses. Taste, smell, touch, hearing, sight, and for me intuition. These things make our nervous system to react. To find a balance. This could be something as small as moving us not to touch something when it is hot, or allow us to find that stillness that is divinity. They guide us in everything that we do.
The child within us is just that a child. It reacts the same way. Both with clarity in life as well as impulsive. Our parents are what gives us stillness. Security.
Matt, you mention that you were able to find the same answer’s for prayer by just sitting and calming oneself. You still however got the same answer. Therefore the same power has moved through you.
For me that is divine.
You also mentioned how we only remember the things that worked or we got an answer to. Has it occured to anyone that sometimes the answer is NO. Our parents had to tell us no and so do our higher beings. We as a society when speaking of higher beings need to remember that we all are a part of that higher being. They work with us inside and out. They are not unobtainable because we are our own higher power.
We are divine, just because of the way we work.
— Teresa the Flautist and fire dancer
EDIT by matthew: Formatted
Clarifications
Science is not a religion. Richard Dawkins, a famous skeptic, explains it well at http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html: …whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, “Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn’t it?”
Well, science is not religion and it doesn’t just come down to faith … Science is based upon verifiable evidence.
…One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can’t examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you.
Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn’t alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end.
…I want to return now to the charge that science is just a faith. The more extreme version of that charge (and one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalist) is an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people. Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We’re content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don’t kill them.
But I would want to deny even the lesser charge of purely verbal zealotry. There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There’s all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.
(Back to Matthew again)
Science is a method, a tool. It’s no more a religion than a hammer, multiplication table, or a baking recipe. It’s the method we use for creating medicines. It’s the way we engineer computers. It’s how we solve crimes. Science is just the documentation about how the universe works.
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: BOFH Excuse #408: Computers under water due to SYN flooding.
“…I want to return now to t
“…I want to return now to the charge that science is just a faith. The more extreme version of that charge (and one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalist) is an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people. Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We’re content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don’t kill them.”
Added to my quotes file…
——– Visit my blog, eh! The Murphy Maphia
Richard Dawkins, and why all faith is for idiots, morons.”
Not you Paul..
THis guy.. “Zealotry and Bigotry.. as that found in Religious people?’ No, this guy isn’t Bigoted at all.. what a free and opend mind he has.
“We’re content to argue.. we don’t kill them”? WTF??!! Implying that “Religious peole” do.
Follow the lines of the sentence – Umm.. Lets look at more nonsense from this guy who decries his commitment to hard cold facts and science. Lets see what other proveable things this Einstein has… Matt, you’re the citing Fallacies guy.. “But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can’t examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you”
Or basically.. I believe in Evolution because it is “fact” (see “fact of evolution”), and those who believe in God do so solely by faith.. and isn’t it convenient.. An argument that falls apart like a house of cards when I propose the idea that I and many believe based on fact, logic, and conclusion, and have devoted study to it. This is a slam against religion poorly hidden by a sham that “Science is being unfairly called faith”.
“when they do so (falsify evidence), they do it with shame and not with pride” – again implying that people of faith do so with pride.
“important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition”
Turdburger. Because, of course, I have never thought about, studied, examined evidence for what I believe. No, I had an “internal revelation”, or maybe I just believe because of tradition. I would challenge this guy to stand behind hit hypocritical oath and prove evolution or E=MCsquared or most scientific ideas without citing someone in history (Hawking, newton, Einstein, or his college professor) who told him the ideas first.
Look, I’ve studied science. I’ve studied quite a bit of biological science. I’ve also studied my faith. At a Bible college.. with classes and assignments and textbooks and stuff that was hard to get an “A” in.
To imply that religion is this thing that is only tradition and internal revelation.. and that religious people are zealots and that we kill people in its name (cuz hey, nobody named Hitler ever did it in the name of Eugenics), is insulting, and should be insulting to anyone of any faith.
Defending Dawkins
I’ve met Richard Dawkins and had dinner with him. During dinner, I asked him about Post-Modern criticisms of science, about Memetics, and about his close relationship with the late Douglas Adams (of “Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” fame). He’s a rather soft-spoken and genial fellow in person.
I also happen to agree with much of what he has to say about religion.
His depiction of religious faith is really not much more than a restatement of Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Dawkins is objecting to beliefs (of any kind) that are rooted more in “hope” than they are in evidence. His beef with religion is that it makes a virtue out of believing something for which there is no evidence – just like Hebrews 11:1 describes it. He thinks this can be dangerous.
Why?
Because such religious faith is often predicated upon authoritarianism. In the absence of evidence, believers often place all their trust in leaders or scripture. This is where the real trouble begins. Not so much with the beliefs themselves, but rather in the shirking of personal responsibility for one’s moral compass. Instead of someone deciding for him or herself upon a course of action, religion often enshrines strict obedience to leaders as the ultimate virtue. “When the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.”
So, it is not the beliefs themselves that pose the danger, but rather than they often ennable or encourage dangerous authoritarianism. This is the real killer and the real problem. It doesn’t matter if the authoritarianism is founded upon religious beliefs (such as militant radical Islam) or atheism (such as Soviet Russia or Communist China – which might be defined as religions of the State).
I agree that Dawkins in his zeal to discredit religion often tars it with too broad a brush. It might be useful, however, to know that what he is objecting to isn’t so much the beliefs themselves as it is the process by which those beliefs were acquired and how rooted they are in authoritarianism versus rooted in evidence.
(Incidentally, Hitler was a Christian and considered himself to be doing God’s work in exterminating the Jews. Stalin is generally a better example for athiest ideology run amuck.)
A thought provoking response..
You make good points.. to get the “Hitler” part out of the way.. Hitler’s idea was still to create a “Master Race” through Eugenics.. by getting rid of “unwanted” races and breeding the “perfect” human being. Whatever else he thought he was doing.. it was a sick pursuit of science.. (not to mention the Concentration camp medical experiments)
Now, if I have judged too harshly, forgive me.. but this guy’s zeal to “discredit religion” is offensive enough on its own… but to insinuate that it cannot be examined by a scientific mind is preposterous.
As for the beliefs, the segemnt posted by Matt was specific to religious beliefs, and I can only answer that – as I have not had the pleasure to dine with the man.
Science is rooted in hope as much as evidence. The purpose of science is predicated on the hope that what is being studied can be understood. Hope is the springboard for both science and “religion”.
Where I stert to have a problem is with the word “often”. You state: “..OFTEN predicated upon authoritarianism. In the absence of evidence, believers OFTEN place ALL their trust in leaders or scripture. This is where the real trouble begins. Not so much with the beliefs themselves, but rather in the shirking of personal responsibility for one’s moral compass. Instead of someone deciding for him or herself upon a course of action, religion OFTEN enshrines strict obedience to leaders as the ultimate virtue.”
Now, I place my trust in scripture, certainly.. but I look at it with an analytical mind. I look for evidence historically and in the world around me that what I believe is true, and make a point to jog my mind with discussions like these in order to consider the possibility that it is not. (CAPS FOR EMPHASIS) BELIEF IN GOD DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN’T USE YOUR EYES AND EARS AND MIND!
As for authoritatianism, faith doesn’t need to be like that. See my previous comments about Faith vs. Religion.. especially concerning the leaders I’ve had in my spiritual life. As a matter of fact, I so often see this lashing out against belief in god based on animosity toward a perceived system of authority (Church leaders tha control your lives) that I have seen with very few Christian or Christian-like faiths, excluding one or two.
It is useful to know he is seeking to lash out against authoritarianism.. by if so, why not just do that. How can someone make blanket statements about how different people of different backgrounds accept different faiths. How can he know “the process by which those beliefs were acquired”? He makes the leap that in order to follow a faith, one must blindly follow authoritarian leaders and ignore evidence.
His premise, to discredit religion, is not scientific.. it seems a bit more like a crusade. It cannot be done.. he could possible discredit “A” religion, but not all under a single premise.. they are too different. If it has no scientific value, then why speak in a way that is offensive and disdainful and condescending, and full of hyperbole and half-truths.. if he is so genial, then why would he make public words that insinuate the things he has insinuated about people who follow God based faiths, without so much as a disclaimer that this is a risk, or a small segment of believers, or that the vast majority of people who believe in god follow their intellectual mind as well as their emotional mind, and are not zealots, and do not bow to authority?
No, I don’t think this man you met is nice man. Perhaps he is a charming man. Perhaps, under it all, he is trying to be a good man…
But he has disrespected me by making generalizations about a group to which I belong, then making no effort to signify that he is talking about a segment (and really a minority) of the population of that group.He has been unbelievably disrespectful, and his goal is as ironic as it is sad. He seeks to “evangelize” his “belief” that religion should be discredited.
Clarifying
I suspect that the reason that Dawkins is so offensive to religion is because he appears to mentally have drawn a line that a religion is any system of beliefs that relies primarily not upon evidence, but upon something else – such as tradition, emotion, or culture.
I don’t think that he sees much graduation beyond this. I’m certain that he recognizes that not all who are religious are terrorists. But I’d bet that he also thinks that religion is the primary ennabler of terrorist actions. In fact, I’m pretty sure he does based upon his very harsh indictments against Islam following the 9/11 attacks. (He wrote a famous and highly inflammatory essay where he compared the pilots of the planes that hit the world trade center to guided missiles with Islam at the controls.)
In Dawkins view, the difference between a religious terrorist and a peaceful religious practitioner is probably more one of degree of faith – and not a difference of kind. In his view, the religious terrorist is simply a peaceful practitioner who has decided to become more zealous.
I don’t necessarily agree with Dawkins assessment – but I can certainly see the logic. His argument is that the terrorist, the zealot, and the peaceful practitioner are more alike than they are different as far as the roots of their belief. They all draw upon faith rather than upon evidence in formulating their worldviews.
I know that you, Timpane, are steamed by Dawkins lumping of the terrorist and the peafeful practitioner together because they are widely different in action. That is a very valid point. But I also think that he wasn’t intending to lump all religious people together in action – but rather he was drawing a parallel that the same dogmas of faith that can encourage a peaceful person to pray are the same dogmas that can encourage others to kill.
In science, the proper way to resolve a deeply held dispute should be to turn to the evidence.
But in religion, with its ennobling of evidence-free faith (Hebrews 11:1 again), disputes seem to have little other hope for resolution than bloodshed.
History is replete with examples. As are the newspapers of today.
yup
–In Dawkins view, the difference between a religious terrorist and a peaceful religious practitioner is probably more one of degree of faith – and not a difference of kind. In his view, the religious terrorist is simply a peaceful practitioner who has decided to become more zealous.–
Exactly. My largest disagreement with Dawkins is that it is an unbroken line between someone like me or Justin, and someone like Osama bin Laden. It’s insulting.
See my answer farther down to Matt regarding comparing extremists.
— Ben
Evidence free faith..
Umm..
what about evidence based faith. What about evidence based faith – even if you can reject the evidence..
Umm, what about the Christian idea of “turning the other cheek” –
Really, your don’t think that Christianity says there is no other resolution to conflicts than bloodshed? Christ was pretty adamant about not judging people and also forgiveness. Loving your neighbor as yourself was compared to loving God as the most important thing to do.
So, the way to resolve a deeply held dispute is to forgive or walk away. you have set up an either-or that doesn’t exist.
I submit that there is historical and logical as well as anecdotal and personal evidence for my faith, and that my faith expressly forbids judging others and committing bloodshed, extolling the virtues of forgiveness and love.
let’s be clear
I believe the implication is that zealously bigoted religious people do. There’s a long history of this behavior among religious zealots. The 9/11 attacks are a recent example of this. The Crusades are another great example. The violence in Israel for decades is yet another. History is chock full of people killing each other in the name of their God and justify their actions as righteous.
I’m not saying that people aren’t killed for non-religious purposes. And I’m not saying that people haven’t been killed for non-religious idealogical differences. The point here, I believe, is that religions actively teach their member-zealots that in the end they are justified for murder in the name of God. I could cite any number of instances in Christian or Mormon scripture but I know that you already know them. The Quaran, the Tora, The Bible, The Book of Mormon, and on and on are all full of stories of good and righteous men who, in the end, kill God’s enemies and receive their virgins in heaven or some other form of God-given reward for their good and faithful sacrifice. Those examples far outweigh, in the mind of the zealot, the single citing of “Thou Shalt not Kill”. There is no equivalent in science to the concept of Jihad. Yet, in many religious cultures (the African and Middle-Eastern nations that invoke Islamic Law come to mind) death is the accepted punishment for heresy. In other words, if you don’t subscribe actively to their religious thought, you will be put to death. Again, I don’t see an equivalent in scientific circles.
——– Visit my blog, eh! The Murphy Maphia
Semantics..
Sometimes semantics are important..
He does not make the distinction you do between some and all. He seems to be clearly lumping it all together. Science has a history riddled with killing Science developed the Atomic Bomb. The Anthrax attacks in Washington DC are a recent example of this. Science has long been used, by scientists to develop mre efficient ways of killing more people.
You’re right, science has no Jihad. Science can deliberately kill, but is decidedly dispassionate about it. In the zealot it is moral distortion, in the dangerous scientist, moral ambiguity.
And, to be clear.. I believe science is good. I believe far more people hare helped by science than are hurt. I work in a hospital, I see science all day long, and it saves people.
But in religions.. for every Osama, there are a thousand guys who found religion in Jail an dcame out in control of their lives.
For every Suicide bomber there are a hundred missionaries giving medicine, building houses in third world countries.
For every Waco, there are tens of thousands of Churches giving back to their communities.
For every domineering Priest, or Elder, Or Bishop, there is a Pastor or Rabbi who supports his congregation in times of need, and helps improve their lives without controlling.
The point is this, Religions can be misused as science can, but in general, the world is a better place for them. Christianity in general, especially in the last hundred years, has really gone back to the teachings of Christ, as people have relied less and less on authority figures, and more on the teachings in the Bible. Without Christian organizations, Millions would not be fed, clothed, medicated, housed, or alive. And this doesn’t even begin to account for the millions of people who have the more intangible experiences of improved marriages, improved work situations, and in general stronger lives because they follow Christ, where previous attempts have failed.
I know better than to try to use the argument that that proves the existence of God on this board.. but I think it makes a very very strong case that organized religion can be a good thing, and is, as is science, a tool that can be used for Good or Ill.
A Big Difference
Paul and others are stating that there is a long history of religious zealots killing in the name of their religion.
Scientists are not out there killing other people en masse to advance their science.
History..
Nor are scientists helping people en masse.
Science is, as a byproduct of itself killing many and helping many, and at the end of the day, in both camps, people are killed by both, and people are helped by both.
Disagree
I couldn’t disagree with you more.
Why?
Based on what?
Benefits of science…
Let’s make a list of major, obvious, objective benefits granted to all of humanity by science versus similar benefits that can clearly be attributed to religion and see who runs out first.
Science cured polio.
Your turn.
Okay..
You may disagree, but God sacrificed himself for the whole of humanity throughout the span of human history. Oh, and that whole creating the world thing.
You will probably say that that can’t be proven.
Prove I’m wrong, and we can continue this.
If you mean “Religions” – then I can cite examples.. the Guttenburg Bible is how the world learned to read. Monks historically kept the records of history, without which, science would be in the dark ages.
Umm.. art, literature, music, writing, Theatre (invented as a means of celebrating the festival of dionysis) – More theatre (the whole of western theatre was kept alive by the passion plays in the dark ages)
Western civilization wouldn’t really exist either..
And today.. well, gee.. Red cross, salvation army, billions of dollars in charity, changed lives from alcoholism and crime to responsible citizens, Martin Luther King, malcolm X, Ghandi, Buddha –
Lets not try to equivocate, becaue I do, truly believe that God actually exists and that the proof is out there, and since you will undoubtedly try to set the rule that I need to prove the importance of religion without assuming the existence of God, it is kind of impossible to prove its importance.
Mind you, I only really care personally what you say about my faith, because, like you and everyone, I believe that what I believe is true. So, sure, I reject the philosophy that spawned 9-11, I reject the Crusades (which at the higher levels was really more about territory and power than religion) – and I’m an ex-Catholic –
Finally.. I again resubmit.. there IS evidence, you may reject it, but it has informed my faith, and that Christ’s message was forgiveness, not bloodshed.
Burden of proof
Matthew (as William F. Buckley): Ah, almost. There’re a few provisos, a couple of quid pro quos. Aladdin: Like? Matthew Ah, rule number one: I can’t kill anybody. So don’t ask. Rule two: I can’t make anyone fall in love with anyone else. You little punim there. Rule three: We don’t bring barnson.org discussions that have outlived their usefulness back from the dead. It’s not a pretty picture. I don’t like doing it!
Closing thread 🙂 Feel free, as always, to open a related blog and link to this one. I like a threaded-layout, and this one went so deep that people’s opinions are appearing in teeny-tiny little columns…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Zealotry
–Paul and others are stating that there is a long history of religious zealots killing in the name of their religion.
True, but that’s still no reason for Dawkins to assume that religious = murderous zealot. And that’s what I got out of the passage Matt quoted.
No ones denying that there isn’t a history of murderous religious zealotry. But I know a lot of religious people, and off the top of my head I can’t think of any who have killed other people for their religious beliefs.
I’m no great fan of the history of organized religion, but neither do I think it’s fair to assume that there’s a correlary between religion and mindless violence.
— Ben
context?
I don’t know, I didn’t get that at all from Dawkins’ comment which seems to have stimulated the discussion:
Sure sounds as if he’s comparing zealous, bigoted scientists to zealous, bigoted religionists.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
More on the Zealots
My issue with Dawkins’ comments are more in tone than context. His tone implies (and maybe I’m just being sensitive) that the majority of religious people are zealous bigots, and that all of those zealous bigots would kill people who disagreed with them.
While I agree that religion is the cause (or the justification) of virtually all forms of terrorism, terrorists make up a very very small percentage of religious people, and, I would argue, even a very very small percentage of religious zealous bigots. I mean, I grew up in a community of hateful bigoted rednecks, but none of them ever flew a plane into my house.
The point I’m trying to make is that you simply can’t compare the merits of two systems based on the extremists in those systems, and discount one of those systems based on those extremists. We might as well compare Islamic terrorists with “mad scientists”. Who wins a rationality contest between Osama bin Laden and Dr. Joseph Mengele?
— Ben
Semantics
Whether science is a belief system or a tool, it doesn’t negate Teresa’s argument that science and religion are two different ways to approach the same goal: Understanding what is really going on in the universe.
But putting that aside, let me address your post. Dawkins is the guy who wrote “The Blind Watchmaker”, right? Interesting guy, for sure, but I think he’s jumping to the wrong conclusions. I agree that science is not a religion. In my personal definition, spirituality is belief in and communion with forces unexplainable by current human science, and religion is spirituality plus set ritual practices. You could possibly argue that science and spirituality are both “belief systems”, but it’s obvious (to me at least) that there are such huge differences between science and spirituality that it’s difficult to even discuss them in the same paragraph.
That said, Dawkins’ mistake is in confusing religion with the actions of its followers. To suggest that killing those who disagree with us is a common attribute of religious people simply proves that Dawkins has no interest in an objective discussion of religion and science, but is rather simply trying to be insulting and is suggesting that atheistic scientists are “superior” or “smarter” than religious people.
It would be stupid for me to try to suggest that in some cases he’s right. There are plenty of religious people I can’t stand, for reasons of ignorance and bigotry. But they are individual people (or, in some cases, individual groups). If science has taught us anything, it is that we cannot jump to conclusions based on a few non-representative cases. And Dawkins appears to have forgotten that.
It may be that those of us who are both rational AND religious are a minority. But that does not mean that we are insignificant or that we deserve to be lumped in with people who bomb abortion clinics or condemn people to hell for little reason.
— Ben
Eloquence..
Ben, you stated it better than I could have.
My spiritual belief is in Christianity as outlined by the Bible.
My religion is Protestant Christianity as defined by Martin Luther and then revised by the leaders of my non-denominational church.
Praying, studying the Bible, doing my best to follow Christ’s example (and failing usually), and pursuing what I believe to be a 2-way relationship with him, is my faith.
Going to my Church, taking communion, tithing, singing songs, listening to sermons, Christmas and Easter.. my religion.
I try to be into my faith, but I see my religion as a tool by which I come to better understand my faith, and as a good way to hold myself accountable – as well as goign somehwere once a week where I can focus on my faith for two hours, and then carry that through the week. Like a spiritual refill in my coffee cup of faith.