This blog entry (and the ones before and after it) caused a far bigger stir than I intended. Some people seem to have been offended by it. Given that, what follows is an edit of the original, removing or moderating the bits which (I think) people found most objectionable, and which I probably did not express as judiciously as I might have done. I also offer my apologies, and should add that this edit is unprompted by any authority other than my own remorse. Some of the people I hurt were my friends.
The plenitude of comments received on my earlier post about atheism have been most instructive. I certainly learned a lot.
First, I got some rather fine addenda to the Guide to World Religions, including David Doughan’s imaginative
RASTAFARIAN: Let’s smoke this shit
But the last word, and the End Of The Pier Show’s prestigious Unicycling Girrafe award, goes to Rus Bowden’s definitive
ATHEISM: No shit.
Prejudices Confirmed
I’m afraid that many of the prejudices I’ve had about the more militant atheists have been confirmed. One is that they tend to be unwilling to listen to anyone else’s point of view, repeating the same old things and pointedly refusing to engage in debate. The same might be said of creationists, however, or indeed any other extremist. I tried to read the analysis of John Gray’s article by PZ Myers – but to my eyes, it is not as Bora Zivkovic suggests, a “calm and thorough job”: I’d like to read what PZ has to say, but I can’t get past the insults and general cat-calling. It seems that militant atheists believe that anyone who is religious is an idiot by definition. Their strategy seems to be to pillory the more egregiously silly aspects of religion (of which there are legion), and don’t quite know how to respond to comment from religious people that betrays intelligence and rationality of argument.
Joy to the World
My post seems to have gotten up a lot of peoples’ noses – the people being moderate atheists, who get on with life without feeling the need to proselytize. “So feel free to be strident and offensive and tar an entire, diverse group of people with the same damning brush, but don’t be surprised if those you’ve got completely wrong feel the urge to respectfully and politely point out that you’re wrong about them,” says Jennifer Rohn. However, to lump a “diverse group of people with the same damning brush” is precisely what the militant atheists do, and their response to the justified irritation of religious people is to condemn them as huffy and puffy. It would be a fine thing if atheists in general reminded the more militant of their comrades of the discord they are causing.
Atheism: A Luxury That Not All Can Afford?
In the comment thread I pointed out that people in desperate straits do tend to find God more readily than those who aren’t. I don’t think that most respondents really have much idea of what this means or implies. In most of the world, in which people have scarcely enough access to clean water, food, medicine or education, people take religion deadly seriously. Farhat Habib astutely pointed out that “there are still places where coming out as an atheist could be a death sentence.”
This seems grotesque, of course, in the privileged west, and especially on the Nature Network, where the participants will of course be much more intellectually privileged even than their compatriots. In a climate of religious tolerance, we are inclined to see religion more as a fashion accessory than as a necessary adjunct to life.
This tolerance has allowed the likes of Richard Dawkins to adopt a militantly atheist stance without sanction – can militant atheism survive in countries in which the luxury of tolerance is beyond peoples’ means, in places where atheism carries, as Farhat pointed out, a death sentence?
The second consequence of making so light of religion is that militant atheists simply cannot understand the extent to which religious people identify with their beliefs, and so take criticism very personally indeed. Bronwen Dekker notes that people should be very wary of saying things like “While I don’t respect your religion, I respect you.” However, it seems that religion means a lot to everyone – including atheists.
Religious belief, like language, seems to be a distinctively human attribute, at least in the sense that I do not think that any human society has ever been found or described that is primitively atheist. Atheists, being human, are as naturally religious as anyone else, and as John Gray noted in his article, tend to define their atheism in terms of the religion of the society in which they find themselves. Philip Pullman, for example, is an atheist in the Anglican tradition, and were I an atheist, I’d be a Jewish atheist. This shows that despite atheists do define themselves in terms of their belief, and explains why they get as irritated as anyone else when their beliefs are criticized, or when moderate atheists are lumped together with militant ones.
I have two more points to make. The first is that militancy is likely to be counter-productive, and more gains will be made if the adherents of militant atheism adopt a more reasoned, respectful and mature approach that takes human nature into account.
The second relates to the point I made earlier – that atheism is, in many parts of the world, a luxury that people simply cannot afford. If militant atheists wish to spread their … er … gospel, they might adopt the old-fashioned missionary approach; by devoting their not inconsiderable energies to alleviating the poverty and injustice that characterizes the conditions endured by most of the world’s inhabitants, for whom religion is currently the only solace.
Henry Gee wrote: “It seems that militant atheists firmly believe that anyone who is religious is an idiot by definition. Their strategy is to pillory the more egregiously silly aspects of religion (of which there are legion), and don’t quite know how to respond to comment from religious people that betrays intelligence and rationality of argument—except by screaming loudly at it, in the hope that it will go away.”
Yes; I have been troubled by this as well, this assumption (particularly among people who value science) that if one is religious, one is no longer to be considered rational, but to be patronized instead. Religious people are written about and spoken to as mental defectives, who must be led to the Church of True Reason. (I am inferring from your comments on the ‘Manifestation of Excrement’ post, that you’ve experienced some of this too.) About a week or so ago, an exchange on a blog made me laugh when someone who had written coherently and gracefully about having an experience of the divine was advised to review the scientific literature on mental hallucinations, the effects of shock, or epilepsy . . . because of course, no one can possibly have a religious experience that isn’t, in the end, some kind of delusion.
I believe the respondent left off schizophrenia since the original post was quite well written—thus giving the religious experiencer the benefit of the doubt in not being completely insane, but instead the victim of what my mother calls a ‘brain fart.’
Brain fart – very evocative. From your story, Anna, I am led to ask the following question – if it can be shown that the experience of the divine so reported might have been due to some imbalance of brain chemicals, to what extent does that make the experience less genuine, from the point of view of the person experiencing it?
A topical comment. In his book The Fountains of Paradise (I think it was), the Late Arthur C Clarke (who died a few days ago) had an alien remarking that religion was an epiphenomenon of the mammalian reproductive system. This comment has always made me laugh, as well as pause for thought. If it were the case that religion is such an epiphenomenon, to what extent does it make it less ‘true’, from the point of view of the person having the experience?
I do not know the answer to these questions.
“This tolerance has allowed the likes of Richard Dawkins to adopt a militantly atheist stance without sanction – I wonder how atheist he might be in countries in which the luxury of tolerance is beyond peoples’ means, in places where atheism carries, as Farhat pointed out, a death sentence? In such circumstances, to what extent would he and other militant atheists urge others of a potentially similar inclination to ‘come out’? I wonder.”
Henry, I’m trying to work out what you’re trying to say here. Is it that atheists are cowards who aren’t able to stand up for their beliefs?
Henry, I do take those two points to heart, especially the second one. I realise how lucky I am to live in a time and place with such freedom of expression, and I believe we should try to secure that freedom for everyone else (Amnesty International member since 1995, I can show you my membership details if you like).
Having said that, do you really still think it’s true that “Atheism, like Mormonism or Scientology (or, indeed, Progressive Judaism) is a relatively modern phenomenon, and I do wonder if it has the legs to survive the next few decades, let alone the next few millennia.”
Do you think it might be possible that there were worshippers in the temples of Zeuss and Odin who were secretly thinking “this doesn’t make any sense, but I’d better not say anything?” Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article on the history of atheism (sorry, I have to run off to work and don’t have time to find anything better).
I would say that atheism always has and always will co-exist with theism, of any kind.
And:
“It seems that militant atheists firmly believe that anyone who is religious is an idiot by definition.”
And apparently, by definition, I’m uneasy and numb and strike empty poses. I’m really having a really hard time recognising myself in these descriptions I think if you met me, you would too. :)
Just in case I might get into trouble or insult people without meaning to, I think, first, I have to make a distinction between common-or-garden atheists (who just keep quiet and get on with life) and militant atheists (who are more proactive in their espousal of atheism as an alternative to religion). What I am saying is that I wonder, if militant atheists of a proselytizing inclination found themselves in one of those countries where the open adoption of atheism might be seen as dangerous, they might decide that discretion was preferable to outspoken statement. The point is that it is tolerance of western society that allows such people to be so outspoken—and a good thing too. However, that being the case, one might suggest that tolerance of other religions is a reasonable quid-pro-quo.
@ Bob – the previous comment was intended as an answer to your previous comment, and Cath’s comment came in as I was writing it. Apologies for the confusion.
@Cath – you raise a lot of very interesting points, as ever. First, on the history of atheism. I stand corrected. However, I am really thinking of atheism as a kind of Enlightenment phenomenon, post-Spinoza. Your contention that atheism always exists alongside theism is fascinating and something I should go away and think about. It had not occurred to me before.
And apparently, by definition, I’m uneasy and numb and strike empty poses. I’m really having a really hard time recognising myself in these descriptions I think if you met me, you would too. :)
Oh dear. My choice of words does seem to have caused some anguish (expressed by some people privately), and I am sorry for that, adding three points.
First, I should be more careful in telling the difference between two kinds of atheist (see my response above, to Bob).
Second, that I deliberately tarred everyone with the same brush to show people who might not have considered it, just how it feels to be on the sharp end—as a mildly religious person who gets lumped in with creationists and assorted fundamentalists, by people who have not taken the trouble to find out anything about religion, and who indeed make a point of flaunting that ignorance.
Third: I stand by my views on atheism. People say that they are happy with their atheism, and that’s that, and while I respect and understand their sincereity and conviction, I don’t really believe it, for all the reasons I advanced in the blog, about the fuss that everyone (including atheists) make about religion; by the fact that religious belief is humanity’s natural state; and by the fact that the atheism of any one person is colored by the religious milieu in which they find themselves (which feeds in to your point about the persistence of atheism, alongside theism).
I’d like to make another point, if I may. I have been criticized offline for ignoring points that people made about their being happy about the finality of death. I should say that I said nothing about death in my post, so I am not sure whence the stimulus for such comments comes. However, I shall state here that I am also happy with the finality of death. Jewish practice, especially Progressive Jewish practice, has very little to say on the afterlife, saying that even if it exists, it’s something concerning which we can say nothing – it is a country of no report. In the meantime, we should strive for good in the one life we’re given. And I am quite happy with that. My Christian friends would have more to say on this, and good for them, but it’s not a subject I care to discuss further.
Henry, have you read the long dark tea-time of the soul by Douglas Adams? I read a lot of his work at an impressionable age, and I think this book is my favourite. It poses the question, what happens to gods (in this case Odin and Thor) when humans cease to believe in them? It opened my eyes to the vast number of gods that were worshipped and feared in their day, but which are now dismissed as myths and legends. It’s also very, very funny.
Henry Gee wrote: “Brain fart – very evocative. From your story, Anna, I am led to ask the following question – if it can be shown that the experience of the divine so reported might have been due to some imbalance of brain chemicals, to what extent does that make the experience less genuine, from the point of view of the person experiencing it?”
If it CAN be shown that it is ‘nothing but’ the result of a brain going awry, then I think we have the same problem that we have when it can be shown that a) people really like to smoke crack and adopt communities and practices which help them pursue crack smoking, and that b) they make important life decisions based on what they perceived when they were high. If it is shown that you’re not in your right mind when you’re having a religious experience, then what you’re experiencing is a mental malfunction.
But I think that’s putting the cart before the horse, because I’m not sure yet how it can be shown. I would want to know what our criteria are for determining the following:
1) How do we determine what’s normative and what generates useful knowledge when it comes to brain states? (In some cultures a trance state is not looked upon as a state that separates one from reality. In our culture, it is.)
2) How do we determine whether or not the brain in a mystical state is perceiving something that exists beyond itself?
Henry Gee: “A topical comment. In his book The Fountains of Paradise (I think it was), the Late Arthur C Clarke (who died a few days ago) had an alien remarking that religion was an epiphenomenon of the mammalian reproductive system. This comment has always made me laugh, as well as pause for thought. If it were the case that religion is such an epiphenomenon, to what extent does it make it less ‘true’, from the point of view of the person having the experience? I do not know the answer to these questions.”
LOL! And sometimes an activation of mammalian reproductive systems, if your religion allows for, say, ritual prostitution. I think technology was Arthur C Clarke’s religion . . .
I think this whole issue of whether something is only true in one’s head or true ‘out there’ gets to the idea of knowledge as orientation, which is an idea I am still mulling over. Marjorie Grene talks about us always trying to locate ourselves in our environment, so in that sense something that is ‘true knowledge’ is going to be something that helps us navigate better, to do more with the environment around us.
Just because something makes us feel better doesn’t tell us whether it’s true; but plenty of studies seem to indicate that people who practice religion tend to be healthier psychologically and physically, such as the study you referenced in your earlier post.
But I think we can carry this through with spiritual/religious experiences themselves. I heard an interview with the researcher Bruce Greyson at the University of Virginia, who tracks people who have had near-death experiences and the like. He talked about the importance of looking at changes in traits, rather than just states, and he said that people who have these kinds of experiences tend to reprioritize their values in what we might call classically ‘spiritual’ ways. They are more empathetic, less afraid of death, more generous toward others, and less materialistic. (Actually in the interview he talked about a gangster who had an NDE, and much to the disgust of his girlfriend was no longer interested in what she considered important stuff, like money and houses.)
So even if religious/spiritual experiences are ‘nothing but’ epiphenomena, it appears that they nonetheless result in true effects: measurably changed traits after experiencing these states.
The question that intrigues me is, could we say that becoming more altruistic and less materialistic help us to navigate better, orients us better to our environment, or helps us change our environment in better ways? In some ways, it seems it would make people LESS adapted to their environment (but in some cases, like Martin Luther King Jr., more likely to act to change it).
And if such experiences do help people navigate better, does that mean they are ‘true?’
Henry – thanks for your clarification. I’m unhappy with militant atheists, and get a bit upset when I’m lumped in with them.
I would imagine that in countries where they’re persecuted, atheists just stay quiet and keep a low profile. Martyrdom loses some of its attraction if there’s no afterlife.
In most walks of life, as well as religion/atheism, the vast majority either keep a low profile and don’t say anything, and/or are too busy/preoccupied with other things to get involved.
I think I see a problem.
In the US, except for the scientific community, atheism is a ‘luxury’ that can not be afforded. In Europe the situation is quite different.
So on the one side we have Henry whining about persecution, and on the other side we have (US-based or -influenced) atheists whining about, um, persecution. Because on the internet, and especially the WWW, no one knows where you’re from, or what your background is.
On one hand, US-influenced/based atheists, freed from the shackles of oppressive American christianity (and guys: seriously, I am ashamed and sorry for that. The Kingdom of God was never supposed to be political) find, in the WWW, a stomping ground where they can express their views freely. Yay. On the other hand, we have a culture with a history of being oppressed for their faith (especially in the biological sciences…) wondering what the hell their gripe is.
And neither side understand — and I’d go as far as saying that the noisiest people on either side don’t care — what the other is saying.
Noisy atheists set fire to straw faith and Henry (in this case) carpet bombs entire cities of thoughtful people.
Really Henry — I understand where you’re coming from (perhaps in the way, after the Treaty of Versailles, I could understand where a certain Austrian house-painter was coming from), but what you did was really quite inexcusable. I expected better. But revenge is a very natural, a very human instinct.
(Do I have to be explicit that ‘understand’ is different from ‘agree with’?
I can understand the need for revenge, retribution: But I certainly don’t agree with it.)
Here’s an example of what Richard is talking about – the problems faced by this atheist family in the US started when the daughter (aged 16) refused to take part in group prayers conducted by her school’s basketball team.
It’s fun around here when the Europeans and East Coasters go home and leave us late time-zoners to
take over the comments!!
By the way, I forgot to say this earlier, but let’s have a big round of applause for David Doughan and Rus Bowden. Nice work!
Hi Cath, thanks! This was such an honor, that I an speechless. No shit!
@Anna K who wrote:
But I think we can carry this through with spiritual/religious experiences themselves. I heard an interview with the researcher Bruce Greyson at the University of Virginia, who tracks people who have had near-death experiences and the like. He talked about the importance of looking at changes in traits, rather than just states, and he said that people who have these kinds of experiences tend to reprioritize their values in what we might call classically ‘spiritual’ ways. They are more empathetic, less afraid of death, more generous toward others, and less materialistic. (Actually in the interview he talked about a gangster who had an NDE, and much to the disgust of his girlfriend was no longer interested in what she considered important stuff, like money and houses.)
I have flatlined, and was dead for some time.
Before going on, though I should say that I have had repeated mystical experiences, some very powerful, the most powerful the most distinct. These experiences necessarily cause a shift in priorities.
Now, about dying. When I was 19, I was in a terrible car accident that should have killed me, but I landed outside the car just right and survived. I took the next day off from work, just to take in the ramifications of such an incident. Many of us have had such experiences.
The death is different and one step beyond. But death as such is nothing mystical. However, it causes one to have such a different perpective that many a master thief would not care about money so much any more.
When they brought me back, or brought me “to” (as we say), the room was full of people trying to keep me alive now that they got me there. My experience was one of re-entry, or a sudden returning birth, which makes me five-years-old come December.
I could tell by the way all the nurses and specialists were concerned and busy, that my staying alive was not a done deal. And I was relaxed. I was fine with the fact that this might have been it. In fact, I was the only one in the room fine with it, everyone else attending to this now-serious business of life.
Step back a moment and realize that death is going to happen. We all know it. We spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about it, pondering what we can never tell, that there is or is not an afterlife—and if there is, what it must be like. So we are about to die and what? We are supposed to be surprised? What’s more surprising is that we get a raise or graduate college. Death in a cinch. There’s nothing to it.
Okay, so come back to life with me. Now what? Would you be impressed by power or money? That game was over. It’s all borrowed time now. You see people who have never come back from death, and realize that they are sincere in the games of life. That’s okay too, so you help where you can, and put things into perspective whenever it seems important and there is a way. But what’s most important is that people know it’s okay, and that furthermore, if money is their thing, so be it, if atheism, so be it, if backgammon, great.
Even though one can have a realigning of priorities through the mystic, similar, or at least as powerful realignments, can be done by an atheist who has died and returned.
On the subject matter of powerful mystical experiences, I agree with the point-of-view point of view. Most of us every day live at a rather low level of consciousness, even when we are excited about something. A mystic experience can become astoundingly more real than any other experience ever in one’s life, just as waking is more real than dreaming. For example, the Saul to Paul experience, wherein there is a descension of spirit such as there becomes an unforgetable awakening to sight, to see what imbues our mundane experiences. No wonder Paul realigned his priorities.
Well, this has been fun. My lack of participation this round is not due to a lack of interest.
@Henry: “atheists do define themselves in terms of their belief.”
I fully agree that all of us humans are naturally religious. I would think that is a manifestation of what drives us to be scientists, too – we strive to understand. Everything we can imagine or perceive.
I always have a nice time explaining to my French colleagues the reason for my having a Ph. D. is because we scientists are indeed philosophers.
We are sometimes writers and even, editors. Girrafe? Twice? Henry, fie.
I have no individual desire to convert anyone to atheism. Let us all have our mystical (by which I mean, beyond the person) experiences in a personal manner; it’s unavoidable. I do think, though, that your advice for proselytization has already been taken – just not generally by the same people. I don’t know if atheism would survive the ages or not – but I agree heartily with Cathy, that it is likely to for the simple reason that any hegemony always has its associated dissidents. (Dawkins would remain atheist in a repressive society; he’d just not be allowed to be so vocal, or would be dead.)
Yin and yang, or good and evil, or the flip side of a coin… you probably get my point.
@Cath: you would definitely enjoy American Gods, if you haven’t read it already. It’s available for free for a limited time here – I don’t remember how limited, but it will give you an idea if it’s to your taste.
Back to what I’m trained to do. Have a good weekend, everyone.
I’ve held back from commenting on the original thread as it seemed to be one of the few cases where saying something on NN results in something close to flaming – something that must at least show how important the topic is to many people, but I find it rather uncomfortable.
What I find odd about this discussion is the total polarity of it. Where have all the agnostics gone? It seems to me, when dealing with something that both sides (if in rational mode, rather than ranting) accept is impossible to prove, that agnosticism is a very logical viewpoint. I’m not trying to sell it – I’m not an agnostic myself – but I’m just surprised there seems to be so little of it about!
BTW Heather – Henry’s ‘Girrafe’ is intentional: it’s part of the Gee family myth structure.
Brian, I’m probably pretty close to the agnostic camp and I think maybe agnostics don’t jump into the fray that much because they think, “who cares?” I mean, what’s the point of arguing about something that is (so far as we know) untestable? I think it’s kind of intriguing watching religious people and militant atheists froth at each other. What is it they hope to achieve? Neither side can prove anything. Better to just let people believe whatever they’re drawn toward, for whatever their reasons are. As long as their beliefs don’t involve my precious bodily fluids, I have no opinion about it. I don’t know if I’m an agnostic or not, but if there is some sort of greater universal truth out there that I’m not able to comprehend or experience right now, then whatever I think right now doesn’t really matter.
Is that an agnostic? ;) Because I recently took an online quiz that accused me of being a “secular humanist” whatever that is. My parents, who on the same quiz were labeled a “new ager” and a “neo-pagan,” were horrified.
@Betsy: Were they horrified at your being a secular humanist? Where did they go wrong?
@Brian: Thanks for setting me straight. I’ve never been very up to par on in-jokes.
What we were achieving: spending time away from other tasks. And I’m inexorably drawn back here because of a dearth of other distractable people in my office. This must be a sign of serious creativity.
Yeah, but in a good-humored way, since they also don’t claim to have the answers.
Even though one can have a realigning of priorities through the mystic, similar, or at least as powerful realignments, can be done by an atheist who has died and returned.
If it comes off like I am trying to correlate religious belief with these kinds of experiences, that wasn’t my intent. Greyson and other researchers have found no correlation between experiences like these and religious beliefs. Many atheists have rich spiritual lives (Thomas Clark at naturalism.org writes about that); and plenty of religious people are afraid of spirituality, in part because spiritual experiences can appear to conflict with religious doctrine. I think it was Jung who said that religion was a primary defense against the experience of God.
@Anna
You point to why I speak of the mystic instead of the religious person. And this leads to the point that a religious person can be a non-believer and thus an atheist. So we must now be careful that when we speak of religious people, we mean the atheists or the believers. But yes, I assumed an atheist who is not a mystic. And yet did not see your NDE point as you indicating spiritual atheists.
The overlap cannot be avoided without modifiers, it seems, because as you point out, an atheist can be spiritual and thus be categorized as a mystic to some degree. In fact, having powerful mystical experiences can be life changing and all, but still be attributed, as Scrooge says when he meets Marley’s ghost, “You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.”
@TWIMC
I just revisited William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience in order to look for how he got to define “religious experience” (a term Anna K. used) as what I would prefer as “mystic experience”—but he didn’t exactly. The link above is posted, because in his lecture summaries, I notice he addresses much of what we have been discussing, in excellent fashion I might add, thus the courtesy.
But I want to interject that definition I found, for those who may happen to be looking at similar grounds as I am. This comes from the second lecture (upper cases not mine, but in James’ original):
Religion, therefore, as I now ask you arbitrarily to take it, shall mean for us THE FEELINGS, ACTS, AND EXPERIENCES OF INDIVIDUAL MEN IN THEIR SOLITUDE, SO FAR AS THEY APPREHEND THEMSELVES TO STAND IN RELATION TO WHATEVER THEY MAY CONSIDER THE DIVINE. Since the relation may be either moral, physical, or ritual, it is evident that out of religion in the sense in which we take it, theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations may secondarily grow. In these lectures, however, as I have already said, the immediate personal experiences will amply fill our time, and we shall hardly consider theology or ecclesiasticism at all.
The operative word here is “divine”. Thus a religious experience is one of encounter, near-encounter, or some such relationship with the divine. And now I will cut hairs. This experience can differ from a mystical experience, as James and I have used it, in that a mystic’s experience is an encounter with the mystic realm, the realm that some god or gods may be assumed to be in, but not necessarily so. The Saul-to-Paul experience is both religious and mystical. But that common NDE, with the tunnel and white light, for instance, may include an encounter with the divine as such, but may only be an entry into the mystic realm. Thus the poem Blue Luge that I linked to in the previous thread.
I still don’t like “religious experience” because you have to preface the way James does, with the mention that denoting “theologies, philosophies, and ecclesiastical organizations” is not intended. And “divine experience” simply won’t do.
Since I have been invoked a couple of times above, I would like to say that presence of abrasive atheists like Hitchens or Dawkins makes life better for people in the more oppressed parts of the world. It gives them support that there are places where they could be accepted even if they don’t agree with the militant ones. As Larry Flynt said “If the first amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you . . . ‘cause I’m the worst.”
I do realize that religious communities do certain things much better than non-religious communities but religious folk rarely think that non-religious communities are better in many respects as well.
@Cath – what happens to gods when no-one worships them any more? What they do is hang around in the general loam and compost of culture, resurfacing in various guises, from Xena Warrior Princess to garden gnomes. This process of cultural diminution – in which great and powerful myths and legends degrade, over time, until they become nursery rhymes – was a process that intrigued religiously inclined mythomanes such as Tolkien (who was a devout Catholic) and his friend C. S. Lewis (Ulster Protestant). Indeed, one might argue that it is a central theme in The Lord of the Rings – which I do in my book The Science of Middle-earth.
I should add that even to religious people, the ‘reality’ of gods is not necessarily a done deal. There’s an old Jewish joke in which two men are arguing about whether God exists or not. They are really getting in to the argument when one looks at his watch, gasps, and says “irrespective of the existence of God, it’s time for prayers”. Even as a religious person, I am quite happy to accept that the gods we worship are made in our own image, rather than the other way round. But I am still religious for all that, because I have this conviction, which I am unable to express, that the world doesn’t make sense without it. That’s my view, anyway. What anyone else thinks is up to them.
@ Anna K – you summed it up extremely well in your comments
How do we determine what’s normative and what generates useful knowledge when it comes to brain states? (In some cultures a trance state is not looked upon as a state that separates one from reality. In our culture, it is.)
2) How do we determine whether or not the brain in a mystical state is perceiving something that exists beyond itself?
Quite so. Even Richard Dawkins (in Unweaving the Rainbow) was at pains to say that one could hardly deny evocative states such as love or beauty simply because one might be able to analyse their constituents. I’d argue that religious belief falls into that category.
@Richard: I am not motivated in the least by revenge, but by a need I have to express my views – which are mine; which I have a right to express; and whose substance is amply rehearsed in the blog above and in the one preceding. Your point is however well taken, though the invocation of the Austrian Painter does weaken your argument for the reasons outlined here.
@Rus: thank you so much for sharing your experiences, and being so candid about them.
@Heather – the deliberate mis-spelling ‘girrafe’ is explained here
@Brian and Betsy – agnosticism really is the only logical viewpoint. However, I’d have thought that an agnostic would be more interested in religious belief, not less, simply because, as a curious person, they’d be interested in exploring topics that they confess they do not understand.
@Farhat – you may be right, but as I have argued throughout, I think one should be wary of replacing one form of extremism with another.
... thus demonstrating that you fail to understand Godwin’s law. If I were comparing you to Hitler, then yes, you’d have a point.
Henry, don’t get me wrong—I’m extremely interested in religion as an aspect of human behavior. I find it truly fascinating. IMO it’s all fairly pointless except as a method for crowd control, but it really is fascinating.
@Betsy
When we think of organized religion, it has its points. The help many churches, synagogues, mosques, and what have you—bring to the community in the way of charity is vital in many parts of the US anyway. This help takes many forms, and operates from both the collection plates and volunteers.
But, on the crowd control point, food is most useful in crowd control as well. Food also causes heart disease and all sorts of other problems that lead to the suffering and death of our brothers and sisters on this planet we all share. Food and religion.
Yours,
Rus
@ Betsy – religion as crowd control. That made me smile.
@ Rus – Food and religion. It’s been said that most Jewish festivals can be reduc ed to the following mantra:
They tried to kill us.
We survived.
Let’s eat!