Dharma Withdrawal

Many of my cohort have adopted conventional religious views, which feels funny--as the reigning rules of propriety dictate religious sentiments are not to be disputed.

Within a society functioning under that strong rule, people have no disincentive not to adopt ill-considered magical perspectives.

A polite way of pushing back against said foolish tradition:  To take people up on their religious views only when it is emphatically they who put religion on the table.

Were I to believe I'd found the keys to eternity, I'd feel a special moral obligation to communicate my discovery to others, always welcoming probing questions.  It would be important for me to let others know they should feel no need to hide their skepticism--it's essential we be correct in our new knowledge:  The costs of being wrong would be vast.

Instead, one encounters religious people who fracture upon the gentlest tapping:  They're incredibly bad at explaining why their decision to embrace their faith was based on sound reasoning.  Quite often you find, after gentle probing, the person simply has never entertained a moment's skepticism regarding his faith.  Their devotion to their religion is true because its true, because you can't prove it's not true.

They come up with very bad reasons--and so they direct resentment at the questioner.  It is rude when you show them their mission in life lacks foundation.  Bad, person.

A devout Catholic acquaintance recently expressed a Jesus-positive thought within a communication space.  Here are my several attempts--with my friend's words removed--at rousing him out of false belief:

We have found a rare point of disagreement, I'm afraid. People are leaving the Catholic Church because its central magical and historical claims cannot be supported with evidence. The Pope is just another global-hegemony-seeking alpha male, selected from within a political process, whose ideas Catholics too often deem 'above criticism.' Perpetual cracker worship has in fact been adequately considered--and found wanting.

**

Thanks C--I'm glad we now know that you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus 'based entirely on faith.' In other words, you don't consider any evidence for the event to be persuasive. (On this point we are in complete agreement.) 'Faith' = believing things with no evidence; you are correct in noting that I do not consider faith to be a virtue. If a person values truth and seeks to avoid falsehood, evidence is her best bet. The evidence for Jesus' Resurrection is precisely the same as that for Zeus' magical claims, i.e. zilch. Belief in Zeus no doubt formed a moral foundation for many individuals and families, at one time--though that in no way buttresses its truth value.

** 

If you're suggesting it would be a good thing for me to throw evidence to the wind and adopt any old religion--then on what basis would I select Christianity instead of Hinduism? If you're not entirely sure that Catholicism is truthful--that you have no persuasive evidence on its behalf--why not just be honest and say so?

** 

Thanks C. Believing in a religion might help some people overcome addiction or economic difficulty--I agree. Similarly, Hindus believe that aligning oneself with the dharma ('the universal truth that sprang from first Brahman' [Wiki]). While I don't at all accept the Hindu claim for the origin of dharma, I entirely accept that striving toward the dharma has improved many millions of lives. Adopting a religion can improve a person's life, whether or not the religion's magical claims have merit. Secondly C, you argue that Jesus' existence cannot be disproved. Let's be clear: I am not arguing that a historical person--Jesus--never walked the earth. I am instead arguing that no evidence undergirds the Catholic belief in the Resurrection of Jesus. The gospels were written long after the purported events described--and were not written by eyewitnesses or by Jesus' contemporaries. When you assert belief in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the burden of proof is squarely upon you: It's your job to provide evidence to back up the claim. By the same token, were I to claim the ability to fly, it would be odd for me to ask you to provide evidence against my claim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, quoth Carl Sagan. Peace!
________

Upon rereading, this evening, I now perceive an error in my final paragraph, above:  I should have been more circumspect than to assert 'striving toward the dharma has improved many millions of lives.'  I don't know enough about Hinduism to say that for certain--and secondly I'm not sure how dharma might be intertwined with other less pleasant aspects of the religious tradition.

To demonstrate my point, imagine if a Hindu person without much knowledge of America were to write on her blog: 

While I don't at all accept the Catholic claim for the infusion of the soul at conception, I entirely accept that the belief in the Christian 'soul' concept has improved many millions of lives. 

 A moment's reflection shows me that we in fact do not know this to be true.  We simply don't know for sure that--had our civilization dispensed with the Christian 'soul' concept--we'd be any worse off.  Were we able to run an A/B test on global history--running our iteration against an alternative in which superstition long ago became rare, we cannot say for certain the general level of life satisfaction would be any lower.

So I've updated my view--and will try to avoid such excess, going forward.

And another blog comment of mine--responding to a particularly inarticulate loon:

By contrast, F, I take a somewhat less fanatically McCarthyite attitude toward the world. I have evaded no question, I stoutly defend your right to participate in civil dialog--and I always emphasize how intensely--as a gentleman--I will endeavor to avoid any babyish silencing and ejection of others. I extend the hand of friendship to all, simultaneously spreading the concept of non-McCarthyism, to a tribe heretofore unfamiliar with it.

Challenging Catholics to Entertain Honor

Religions often encourage believers to take a head-in-sand psychic stance, congratulating fellow adherents for viewing themselves as the universe's sole non-blind community.  Participants seek insulation from outside inquiry.

The blogpost commends Cardinal Arinze for his 'wisdom.'  I entered the fray and asked the gathered faithful the most obvious conceivable critical question:  What particular sentence, within the Cardinal's statement, do you consider most insightful?

The statement is in fact quite bland and party-line and would not appear to constitute any profile in courage.

As a compliant enthusiast within a mental North Korea, your job is to constantly praise the dear leader, always ready to upstage the next guy in groveling to the boss. 

When we toady as a means of bonding with coreligionists, it is irritating when non-believers point cameras at us.

The reason they can't come up with any example of Cardinal Arinze's wisdom, of course:  There is none there.

Never fear:  A rhetorical crutch remains ever available, to the clever Catholic:  Cast aspersions and dogmatically assert a massive 'wisdom gulf' eternally dividing Catholic from atheist.  Declare the topic settled. 

I paraphrase Leila Miller:

No atheist could conceivably appreciate the depth of a Catholic's engulfment in 'love of wisdom.'  Any statement concerning wisdom, from a Catholic to an atheist, would be a waste of time, since atheists are categorically closed to wisdom.

This from a blogger who simultaneously claims there are atheists she likes, trusts and respects. 

Were Leila Miller to ask a non-believer to recommend an exceptional Hitchens video, he'd face an embarrassment of options.  Once he'd settled upon some single choice--and Leila Miller had watched it, having found no admirable sentence therein--Miller might ask the non-believer to produce a wise sentence therefrom, so as to sharpen the contradiction.

It's difficult to imagine an engaged non-believer ducking such a softball.

An old favorite, of the Catholic apologist:  To express a generally positive disposition to ideological engagement--while identifying disqualifying minutiae within every particular potential opening. 

If any person still takes Leila Miller seriously as a diagnoser of bigotry, by all means please let's talk.  She's now backed off any evidence for her sulfurous charge--though she can't bring herself to formally retract.  She tells herself sophisticated bloggers don't apologize, even when wrong.  (A sadly prevalent misunderstanding. /Ed.)

Another rhetorical tactic beloved by religious dogmatists is 'to flood the field.'  If we must talk, let's talk about 100 issues at a time--that will easily prevent any difficult questioning.

Francis' statement is a good example:  To avoid substantive discussion of the topic at hand--whether it makes sense for the Catholic Church to control a state--she puts forward a slew of other issues that might also divide us.

Prior to taking up a new debate topic, let us first agree our initial topic has been satisfactorily examined.

It is entirely fine for Leila to say, 'You know, I don't much care one way or the other, whether the Vatican enjoys state status.  It could be ended tomorrow and I wouldn't give a fig.  The topic bores me, in fact.' Her actual, non-paraphrased quotation:   'It's not anything I'm concerned with or which compels me at all.'

Such a conclusion is satisfactory to me--provided we acknowledge no party has been determined to have any unwholesome interest on this particular matter.

Finding an adherent Catholic who is genuinely willing to defend the faith--and respond to substantive questions--is an extreme rarity, though some evince awareness of the potential reputational damage, from hanging out a shingle saying 'I know all, I hold the keys to the universe--and I don't answer any serious questions.'

In response, some people pretend to be open to dialog, while abjuring any substantive response to any particular meaty question.

The religious person wants to assert the right to nix any or all specific questions encountered.  Having successfully mau-maued his interlocutor, the religious dogmatist covets the right to be appointed sole admissible author, for any and all 'hard questions.'

Kim Jong Il has spawned a spiritual sibling.

Leila's Dishonor

A trajectory often propels bloggers into ever more staid and predictable opinion-mongering; a strong vacuum sucks the blogger toward hyper-conventional partisan constipation.

The antidote, I've long felt, is to regularly seek out folks with whom one disagrees--and impress upon them that I strongly believe that, were we to devote and hour or two to dialog, we'd learn some seriously interesting stuff.

And we have done so here of late:  A reader recommended I visit an adherent Catholic blog at which the writer welcomes interaction with non-believers and liberals.

Leila Miller and I traded some paragraphs after which she announced I was a boring, talentless anti-Catholic bigot.

When bloggers engage in above-board adversarial exchange, accusations of moral turpitude tend to crowd out other issues--and so I have drawn attention to Miller's ill-considered and as-yet unretracted bigot accusation.

To Miller's credit, she acknowledges there are decent atheists whom she respects.  Miller accepts a good person can strongly reject Catholicism.

I asked Miller what sentence of mine--in her estimation--justified accusing me of bigotry?

She provided just this one snippet:

 "...regurgitating such pabulum, the sheep dutifully compliment the cardinal on his supreme wisdom."

In other words, Miller finds it beyond-the-pale that I would mock her fawning commenters.  Miller believes satirical commentary to be synonymous with bigotry--a ludicrous and illogical claim which can be very easily exposed:

Imagine I'm a thorny blogger who receives 5-10 comments on each post.  In one post, I praise an atheist grandee--and afterwards a half-dozen comments echo my praise for the heroic skeptic.

Leila Miller then enters the comments section and mocks the previous commenters' mindless party-line goosestepping.

I--boss of the blog--enter the fray and announce:

Leila, it is entirely permissible for you to oppose my atheism:  There are many religious believers who have earned my respect.  But you are not one of them:  You are an anti-atheist bigot.  Why do I hurl such a poisonous epithet?  Because you, Leila have insulted all atheists.

What would be your response?  Needless to say, I would very much hope most readers would rise in defense of Leila Miller's honor, crying 'She is entirely within her rights [within the above-discussed hypothetical] to mock the commenters, particularly when her observation is spot-on.'

Were you to observe me lazily attacking Leila Miller for bigotry while failing utterly to provide rational justification for such an attack, you would be expected to drastically lower your estimation of my integrity.

Penetrating the Bubble

On another recent Bloggingheads, Bob Wright interviews Michael Brendan Dougherty on matters relating to the papal succession.

The interview demonstrates the irritating bloodlessness, when a materialist agrees to converse with a religious believer under the understanding that religion will remain off-limits.

Within the public/media discourse concerning the papal succession, certain obvious questions cannot be asked, in polite society--to wit, Why should this man hold any public esteem?

When we consider any other unfairly-selected world leader, we seek to apply diplomatic pressure--trying to get the country to face reality:  People in the internet age are simply not going to put up with a political leader who attains power by transparently illegitimate means.

As a moderate liberal nation, shouldn't America's diplomatic corps communicate to any pope--and to the world--that we'd prefer his people be allowed to select their leader via legitimate means?

When we let leading public Catholics off the hook--and agree to flatter their religion's sovereignty-based international political clout--we fail as topical voices.  It should be an item of moral urgency--that we inform our adherent-Catholic fellow citizens:  We believe the United States of America--to be true to our nation's proudest principles--should ask the Vatican to provide a more persuasive public position, so as to justify its continued basis in state sovereignty.

If none is forthcoming, perhaps we should begin to entertain ideas for the safest and most peaceful possible abolition of said sovereignty.

That is to say, Bob Wright and MBD are falling victim to a mental straightjacket we should come to perceive as optional:  When the faithful seek public social status for their religion, our default setting should be no--unless that religion is willing to be somewhat answerable to us.

In other words, the present moment is one when our asking Catholics to justify their religious beliefs is at its cyclical peak of moral urgency:  Rarely has there been a better time to have a frank conversation about the religion's central claims and political pretensions.

Mind you, the Catholics don't enjoy taking questions from non-members.  In fact, the most vocal Catholics are utterly adamant:  The only kind of substantive questioning non-Catholics are capable of directing at Catholics is of the ill-willed kind.

The local Catholic Church is imbued with a strong dislike of atheists.  During the weekly General Intercessions, one never hears the the lector call for upgraded protection for the universal equality of human beings without regard to religious belief.  You never hear a priest tell the flock:

You know, atheists regularly direct smart questions to us, and it is our moral obligation to provide persuasive responses to them--and to foreswear unwarranted personal attacks against atheists, whose integrity is so often cavalierly impugned.

So I consider my interaction with Leila Miller to constitute an implicit response to the Bob Wright / MBD diavlog, jettisoning the pussyfooting.

I non-controversially note:  Non-Americans are entirely justified in taking interest in US elections.  People in Paraguay are entirely within their rights to ask Americans to explain why we conduct our public life the way we do.

If we met at a bloggers' convention and you observed me speaking to a Paraguayan--and you heard me say:

You have no business asking me to justify America's foreign policy or political process, Jorge.  If you object to America's government, then complain to your own political representatives.  They constitute the proper channel for you to direct such questioning.

Were you to overhear me saying such a thing, I hope you would react apoplectically.  Anyone can enter the conversation--your citizenship should not constitute a entry ticket or credential, in discussing US politics.  To the extent America projects the image of one who resents all foreign questioning, we earn our international disapprobation.

Similarly, Leila Miller blogs in support of her adherent Catholic belief system.  She claims a predisposition to be willing to submit to questions from outsiders, though she's extremely quick to shut down all discussion.

It is my belief that a strongly McCarthyite impulse suffuses adherent Catholic psychology.  I believe unbiased, evidence-based social observation is capable of demonstrating this assertion.

Leila Miller holds Cardinal Arinze expresses deep wisdom, within his video, but can't be bothered to produce any particular sentence from within the brief clip, since the skeptic couldn't conceivably appreciate any scintilla of its wisdom due to his non-belief:

If you need me to "show" you wisdom, I cannot do it. We disagree fundamentally on what is wise. I made very clear that the words of the Cardinal Arinze to his people are very wise. From 3:00 on, specifically. First, the words are not meant for you. And, second, one cannot "show" wisdom to he who will not see it. So, we disagree and cannot have that discussion. You can show my your "wisdom" and I would not think it wise either. Let's go with something more objective. 

Miller has finally provided this quotation to demonstrate her contention that I am an anti-Catholic bigot:  "...regurgitating such pabulum, the sheep dutifully compliment the cardinal on his supreme wisdom."

I don't consider the quotation problematic.  Cleansed of its rhetorical pyrotechnics, it merely communicates 'a culture of fawning toward authority and belittling genuine curiosity pervades a substantial portion of Catholicism.'

You can agree with that sentence or argue that it is untrue.  It is a viewpoint widely held, among churchgoing American Catholics--who discuss it often amongst themselves.  Ergo:  The evidence Ms. Miller has provided in no manner buttresses her bigotry accusation.

To the dustbin!

Catholic Bubble

I commented:

Thanks Leila.

I am a long-time enrolled member at my local Catholic Church--where I served as an altar boy have participated in numerous educational and social activities.

While a non-believer, I get along well with many adherent Catholics. I interviewed a legendary local priest for an hour, just a few weeks ago, without a moment's rancor--ending with a very cordial adieu and a handshake.

In your post, you refer to the wisdom of Cardinal Arinze. I listened to the video--and came upon no wisdom. So I ask you to quote Arinze's most wisdom-filled sentence. Once we find any person in this thread willing to post such a sentence, we can proceed to a more substantive and productive discussion. It is not fair to make me cull the video for such a sentence--as I have already tried and come up empty-handed.

Further, I note you accuse me of bigotry. Can you please quote the sentence of mine which you consider most bigoted? I take your accusation seriously--and look forward to discussing it, once you provide whatever evidence you may possess. Until then, I can only express my dismay and indignant disquiet.

I am happy to see that we agree on this important point: An upright person can strongly reject Catholicism without any bigotry or ill intent--and even earn your respect in the process.

Perhaps your accusation of 'bigotry' centers upon my contention that the process for selecting a pope lacks rational foundation.

If that is your viewpoint, I hasten to remind you that many churchgoing Catholics accept the suggestion that 'It would be an improvement were at least one woman allowed to play a role in the selection of the next pope.'

Most American Catholics--I conjecture--do not identify bigotry within that suggestion. (Should you disagree, I would be happy to conduct some field research.)

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie, MN

Fooling God

This Bloggingheads particularly hit my sweet spot.  I comment on it here:

I paraphrase Josh and Ara:

The gods of prehistory are non-ideal entities, often having multiple negative qualities.  The products of deeply Abrahamic societies, we systematically overestimate the degree to which morality is conjoined to religion.  In the hunter-gather tribal societies of our ancestors the gods would be feared, with religious practice centering upon placating the gods and doing what was possible to keep the gods from freaking out.

In the Abrahamic societies described in the Bible, it was morally acceptable to stone people to death for crimes such as adultery and blasphemy.  As Sam Harris has said, were we to discover a hitherto unknown island on which living human beings engaged in such practices, we would feel morally obligated to invade and establish a protectorate--so appalled would we be.

And so:  It has not been morality and religion that have been conjoined, within our Abrahamic epoch--it has been 'morality' and religion.  The specific Biblical moral principles given priority, during most of western history, would not strike most contemporary liberal westerners as being moral at all.

The gods of prehistory have very limited omniscience.  Sometimes the gods can be fooled.

Contemporary Christians also generally believe god can be fooled.  Contemporary Christians claim to believe god is omniscient, yet they constantly engage in a rhetoric and practice focused upon 'displaying one's best side to god'--i.e., worshiping.  If god sees all, why misrepresent one's inner dividedness?

Ara reminds us believers are thinking about lots of other things besides belief in god, when participating within their religious communities.  Though it remains the case:  The idea that god[s] can be spun is by no means limited to the ancient past.

Josh mentions there are non-believers who nonetheless attend religious services, as--to them--it is an emotionally rewarding means of participating in community and/or tradition, even in the absence of any magical belief.

Josh neglects mention of non-believers such as myself--people who still attend the contemporary variant of the church of their ancestors not so as to maintain a placid institutional affinity but instead to continue the argument.

The church and the skeptic are a match made in heaven--as the question-filled encounter those who pretend to be all-knowing. Frisson!

Josh says, It may be that some atheists simply don't think about religion either way.  But only a small portion of atheists have an active belief There is no god.

That doesn't delineate the opinion spectrum correctly.  There are people with all kinds of fuzzy ideas who consider themselves non-believers.  Among the random folks I encounter (within a previously mentioned non-believer social group) some reveal considerable magic-based belief, generally with little if any push-back.

It's difficult to generalize about the mental framework of the highly non-committed majority of American non-believers--and indeed, most such individuals likely reveal quite muddled and incoherent viewpoints, when pushed.

On the opposite end of the spectrum--defining the 'harder core atheist,' we shouldn't look for those who assert There is no god.  It'd be better to define the strong-atheist as she who participates online, or considers the god-descriptions and magical claims of known religions to be improbable-to-impossible, while still making no affirmative profession No god exists.

Josh refers at one point to 'very religious societies such as the United States.'

This exaggerates the depth of contemporary religious belief, in America.  Pasolini engaged in hyperbole--though perhaps expressed a truth--when he said Catholicism constitutes just a thin layer in the subterranean Italian psyche.  Mainstream, orthodox non-heretical Christian belief makes up just a small slice of American religious belief:  Many embrace all kinds of woo-woo stuff.

Giving Thanks

In recent months I've sometimes attended Mass at 5:15 at St. Patrick's, though this morning I went to the 9 o'clock Sunday service.

A week ago I was surprised when Fr. Rudolphi asked 'the head of household' of each family to raise their hand.  The ushers then distributed forms for the Catholic Services Appeal, and Rudolphi then walked us through filling out the forms--which we were told must be completed whether or not one intended to make a contribution.

Tim and Helen Healy of St. Louis Park are the poster couple for this year's Appeal.  He attended St. Patrick's, growing up--and I think we may have served as altar boys together.  His parents were legendary Edinans of yore.

Fr. Rudolphi's elderly father just passed away; a visitor--Fr. Thomas Hunstiger--said this morning's Mass.  Before he began we were again asked to raise a hand if we hadn't yet filled out the required Appeal form.

I observed no one raising a hand and then a youngish married parishioner walked us through filling out the form all over again--even though almost no one was actually doing the deed.

Churchgoers participate in a status hierarchy, promulgating an implicit criteria for awarding esteem to individuals and families.  Apportioning honor is one of the most important communal functions of any social group.

So far as I can tell, all are welcome to attend Catholic Mass.  You don't have to accept Catholicism or even Christianity.  By all means, attend.

Should you embrace Catholicism for your religion?  I suggest the best answer is 'no;' the religion makes many foolish ideological demands--and asks participants to take stands on matters without any evidential basis.  The Church is governed employing a system of gender apartheid.

The Absolute Being, according to Catholicism, is particularly energized on matters sexual--an obsession which is a transparently man-made method of social control.  The hero at your local Catholic Church is the priest--that man whose moral purity is ostensibly demonstrated by his renunciation of sexual pleasure.  An extremely dubious basis for awarding moral prestige, imho.

We are hierarchical primates; social stature gets awarded whether you like it or not.  When we don't award rank based upon rational, transparent, openly deliberated criteria, we award it based upon less defensible bases--sometimes even ridiculous, crazy ones.

Within the church, approbation is doled out to those who model ovine comportment.  The admired individual is he who defers to--or pretends to defer to, at least--his ethical superiors.

If you consider the Church's ideological demands absurd, I suggest polite, silent protest:  Read a book throughout Mass.  (Kneel, stand and sit in unison with the congregation; don't hum or snore.)  Reading is good for you and is often entertaining--and reading in church has an additional benefit:  It is possible a nearby person will observe that you are not making the rote gestures and statements--and that person may say to himself, 'You know, an entirely reasonable person might not believe all of this tripe!'

I read from my Kindle at St. Patrick's; I've done so for a year or so and before that I'd read a book.  This morning I stood to allow a pewmate access to the Communion line--and then resumed kneeling and reading.  A family in the pew behind me then joined the queue--and a young woman looked sternly at me and said--loud enough for others to hear--'You know, unless you're reading the Bible, you really shouldn't be reading that during church.'

Caught off guard, I returned her look and--with neutral affect--said, 'Thank you,' and continued reading.