Monday, September 24, 2007

And the selfish shall inherit...

I've been reading Jabberwocky's dissection/mocking of Chick Tracts in my free time recently, and something that he points out repeatedly and continues to strike me is the fact that Chick's beliefs come across as so horribly selfish.

Take, for example, this tract on how good works do not get one entry into heaven. The missionaries in question may come across as pretty annoyingly smug, but they still spent the majority of their lives improving the lives of thousands in the name of their religion.

However, they are denied entry into heaven because they didn't believe correctly.

Granted, I don't quite understand this idea of proper belief. Fundamentalism seems to have at its core that a strong belief in Jesus and being saved is what you need to go to heaven. I would assume that a pair of Christian missionaries would both believe in God, and welcome him into their hearts. So, what are they doing wrong? Why is their belief insufficient?

Gah, and I also hate that Chick attempts to portray these people as assholes who constantly think about the fact that their works are giving them a free ride to heaven. While there are certainly some smug asses in the world that think about how awesome the afterlife is going to be, I would assume that people who spend fifty years in Africa are doing it out of some genuine goodness in their heart.

Still, why is their belief, which I am sure they have, insufficient? Wouldn't all the work they've done just be extra brownie points?

And, God must be an asshole to send Christian charities workers to Hell.

But, what has spawned this post is perhaps the blatant misuse of scripture that I see in that tract. This idea that works are not enough, and you must have belief (whatever that means), is a perversion of Matthew 7:21-27, which if you actually read and comprehend, means that people who do works that Jesus wanted them to and believe go to heaven, and those that just claim to have done good works will not.

So, why the perversion?

The simple answer appears to be that this branch of Christianity is rather selfish. They already possess a lot of smug people who like to lord the fact that they are saved over others, but beyond that, a big reason to become saved that is cited in Chick tracts is to get a mansion and riches in the afterlife. Well, that and to avoid Hell.

It appears to be an appeal to both the human fear of suffering and our inherent greed. God's great, and when I die, I'm going to get all this stuff! And all I need to do is say this sentence and be a sanctimonious prick full of faith in Jesus.

Because, as far as I can tell, all you have to do is have a specifically worded kind of faith and prayer practice to go to heaven in these tracts. You don't need to give to charities or anything hard or expensive like that, you just need to believe. No wonder this appeals to conservatives (hello cheap shot), as this excuses doing unchristian things such as cutting welfare and social programs. It really isn't part of being Christian to help those in need, as works don't mean anything to this asshole God we worship, because he's going to give us riches when we die just for believing. It's a rationalization of greed and not doing charity even if you have the funds.

I will never argue that Chick's brand of Christianity is a harmful to society bunch of filth, where the rich can keep what they have, and the poor can fuck themselves. I'd be rather curious to see what the fundie rate of giving to charity and volunteer work is if this portion of doctrine is common in fundie churches. It really just boils down to being all about the individual without needing to give anything to anyone but "witnessing." If there is a God, and this is what he wants, he can go fuck himself. At least I'll have great company in Hell.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

PSA

Dear Atheist Community,

Calling religious people names, being condescending, and using derisive terms like "sky daddy" pisses them off. When they are pissed off, they really don't want to listen to your arguments, it just validates their stereotypes about non-Christians. Bravo.

I understand that that is how you may want to talk amongst yourselves, and that sometimes debating a fundie is like debating a brick wall, but, well, I don't find "sky daddy" that funny =/ It doesn't pass my humor test, and just serves to show how much you don't care about religious beliefs because you are, in fact, that edgy and awesome. It ranks as pointlessly situationally offensive.

Granted, the bloggers that use these terms within the community are doing it for the atheist audience, and I have seen some of them debate with respect, but so many people dogpile with "Idiot" in a debate, which is, again, pointlessly offensive.

Apparently, as a strong atheist, I'm supposed to believe that all religion should be eradicated, and we should all live godless lives in harmony. I'm supposed to be confronting belief in God, and not try to "pass" as anything but an atheist.

Well, I think that's a bunch of crap.

If you're going to argue, you need to be respectful in these cases. It's the same as when a fundie calls you names and is irrational: you know it's safe to ignore them. If you want respect as an atheist, it is only fair to give it in return. Besides, in matters of faith, it isn't so simple as a logical argument. In a lot of cases, you either have it or you don't, or you used to have it, but the way your life and education took you means you don't have it anymore. It's not a light switch. I really don't think it's a rational part of humanity.

This is why these arguments (religious v. non-religious) rarely go anywhere beyond mutual respect. It's not an argument to be won, it's an argument to be felt.

Religion truly becomes a problem when it is not compatible with modern life and has a heavy role in government and society (I wouldn't mind living in a true Buddhist nation, not that Buddhist countries are doing too well at the moment, but that's not Buddhism's fault). It very much has this place in America, which is why the nation of my birth is one of the worst industrialized, rich nations on the planet in terms of women's rights and social welfare.

When religion is relegated completely to the private, to the community, I don't really think it's that bad. People need different things to remain whole, and some people like religion. When they use that religion to interfere with society, to bully, to try and stop science and reproductive rights, that is when religion is a harmful force. But then, any ideology can do that. It's not a magical property of just religion.

But, the idea of the world being better if we were all atheists is one I'm not sold on. True, there would be little opposition to evolution and certain types of scientific research, but people who tout the idea that life would be better if it were wholly secular are operating under the false assumption that the world would embrace secular humanism in its godlessness.

This is a pretty unlikely scenario.

There are plenty of secular theories that are just as harmful as religion, or, at least, still engender some of the same social problems, like the subjugation of women (Confucius touted this, and last I checked Confucianism isn't a religion).

"Atheistic" China still has all the markings of Confucian thought, down to the fully internalized way of ordering family members: father, mother, older brother, younger brother, older sister, younger sister, self. Is secular China a home of freedom, happiness, and scientific advancement? Perhaps the answer is "yes" to science, but in other social areas, it is having a hard time. My Mandarin teachers always sarcastically state "men are always first in China." And they manage to be first without God. This is not a socially stable and happy nation.

You could say that it is because Chinese culture is holding on to antiquated notions, just like the religious, but Chinese culture isn't static. It has been changing for years, including years of "gender equality" during the Cultural Revolution. It didn't stick after Mao's death. The 70s and 80s saw a full scale revival of "proper" gender roles, with little resistance. There was a revival of traditional values. I personally think it's natural for people to gravitate back towards older ways of doing things, even if they aren't necessarily the best in their situation.

In the end, people weren't convinced by gender equality, so they went back to what they knew and believed in.

Human beings like to create in-groups and out-groups. As we globalize, this is becoming harder and harder to maintain. Some people now categorize by nation, by language, by profession, by region of birth, by interest, by religion, but we all do it to an extent. People who are like us and are awesome and people who aren't like us (and therefore suck).

The same people who do and believe harmful things as fundies would likely find some sort of bullshit secular theory to keep up their unequal societies. There are also religious groups, such as the Quakers, who strongly believe in the separation of Church and State, and who I think are a wonderful example of how religion can be had without it being harmful to society.

But, seriously, the belief that we would all be better off without religion is rather misguided as some secular ideologies can be harmful. What that statement really means is, "we'd all be better off if we all believed more or less what I do," which sounds a lot like fundies, doesn't it?

It's an oversimplification of the underlying issues of society, a naive solution put out by people that like to poke members of their out-group (the religious) with sticks for amusement. Militant atheists are just as bad as militant anything else.

DISCLAIMER: I still believe in protesting religion in schools and the government, and coming down hard on people who want to erase the line between Church and State, and on people who use religion as an excuse to be horrible to people or to deny them rights. Debate creationists until doomsday to keep them out of schools, please. Just don't attack or think less of people because of religious beliefs. That's being childish, and yet, I hear atheists telling people that's what they should be doing.

The problem with fundamentalism (aside from the obvious)

It's been awhile nonexistent readership, huh?

It's been a busy time, what with the starting grad school and all that. The following is a post that I started writing up awhile ago, but never finished. Figured it was about time that I started doing something again.

Fundamentalism is rather silly, to be honest. To literally interpret something that is an amalgamation of sources that was applicable over two thousand years ago is, well, silly.

The problem that interpreting the Bible literally, as I'm sure many know, is that it was written in a different time and place than what most of us live in today. The snide remark is that Bible-based homeschooling gives a child the skill set necessary for first century Jerusalem, not our twenty-first century society.

It was written for a smaller world, also. When the first tales began to circulate, I'm quite sure that people were more isolated and didn't have a clear idea of how large the world really is. Let us use, for an example, a fertile river valley. The surrounding area is either not as useful, or filled with mountains, but you and your village have it pretty good.

To a group of people such as this, a story about a worldwide flood would encompass their known universe: the river valley. If the river valley floods heavily, it is possible everyone could die. "All the animals in the world" amounts to perhaps a few oxen, some dogs, birds, and whatever wild animals are in the area. It doesn't mean the entire globe was flooded, and that animals came from everywhere from the North Pole to Australia. One wise man who built a boat would live and be able to start anew.

The story of Noah suddenly makes a lot more sense.

The Bible makes sense when you look at it from these viewpoints. Not eating shellfish? Possibly a lifesaver in a pre-fridge era. Circumcision? Keeps the sand out. Lots of God-driven warfare? Well, we all need land! (Okay, maybe that last one stands the test of time unfortunately).

I've been an anthropology nut (and amateur anthropologist, that one class in high school notwithstanding) for just about my whole life. It's all rather common sense, when you look at it. If you put on your "Ancient Jewish Sheepherder" hat, the Bible is actually a pretty good tool.

But, it just doesn't stand up to modern life. There are so many things in our society that lack any sort of precedent in the Bible.

Abortion isn't in it. Period. Likely because it deals with a woman's issue, something women have been dealing with in their own communities since near the dawn of time. People have had access to ways to stop pregnancies or terminate them for quite awhile. In fact, I doubt that people during Biblical times had a real concrete concept on how pregnancies worked outside that they were a consequence of lots of sex. I'm sure there were even higher rates of miscarriage due to nutritional issues as well as environmental ones.

Of course, there is also nothing related to technology, to advanced governments, anything that we've intellectually gained since then, ideas that form the basis of our society. At least half of our daily lives likely have no clear outline in the Bible. To believe that nothing has changed in the way humans deal with one another, in how we form philosophical opinions, to believe that the older, more savage (especially the virgin-raping Old Testament) way of thinking is somehow better is laughable. It's purposely turning one's back on information.

Why hasn't God inspired someone else to write more ideas since the world has changed so? Are we supposed to believe that after years of heavy interaction with His people that He has just washed His hands and is just sitting back? Does He think the old way, where people tended to die younger, and the world seemed to have been a bit more brutal, was better? His true plan?

What kind of loving God wants to go back to a time where more people appear to have suffered needlessly?

Of course, many in this world still suffer, but those of us lucky enough to have picked our parents well enjoy a higher standard of living than our Biblical forebears. Is this something God dislikes? Is this omnipotent being stupid enough to think that the old Bible is good enough to guide us well in this day and age?

Or has He and said people have been ignored? To be truthful, I am just covering my bases here, I truly believe the Bible is yet another mythos created by men to serve their own needs within the community, to order it, and rightly so. Granted, the Bible as it stands is a translator's nightmare, with pieces randomly chosen, with texts being translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English to God Knows What, and with certain translators adding in their own psychological views. I have heard it argued that the line in one of Paul's epistles entreating women to be submissive bears stronger ideological similarities with Classical Greek thinking rather than the Hebraic, and the passage itself doesn't really seem to fit in with the surrounding ones. It seems to point towards a Greek translator taking liberties with the texts.

Who's to say the whole thing hasn't been tampered with?

I've heard the argument that I just haven't read the Bible, and that in an open-minded reading, I will suddenly convert and love it, and it will make perfect sense. But, to be honest, it doesn't work that way. I just have more questions, the most burning of which is why God stopped being so active in the lives of his believers. It's rather out of character.

One group of people who trot out the Biblical lifestyle are Quiverfullers, the most infamous of which are the Duggers of Arkansas. Quiverfullers point to a passage is Psalms (Psalms 127:3-5) that is apparently God telling them to never use any sort of family planning, which naturally often results in huge families.

There is a problem with this exact methodology, however. It's the same problem that keeps the Bible from having clear opinions on abortion and democracy.

The world has changed a lot in the past two thousand plus years. Larger families were aimed for because of higher rates of infant mortality, and the numbers were also likely mitigated further by longer breastfeeding. These days, born infants have a much higher chance of reaching adulthood, and mothers no longer breastfeed their babies for four or so years (except in certain areas of the world). There's no need to breed haphazardly to make sure at least a few of your children make it to adulthood.

Even beyond that, our societies have changed as well. If you are a group of nomadic herders, or even farmers, a larger family was a great resource as the children could help with all the work involved in these professions.

Now, with children being allowed more time to play, and with their only job is school and perhaps a few chores, it makes much more sense to have smaller families. It saves money, forms closer families, and from a cost-benefit perspective, likely works out the same as the "have a bunch and hope some live" model.

Also, how many Biblical heroes have a lot of children? John the Baptist was an only child. There's debate as to whether or not Jesus was an only child. Noah had three sons. These are not huge families. In reality, these extremely large families are only possible because of modern medicine. I cannot imagine the toll on these women's bodies.

I once heard an argument that creationists and fundamentalists that attack evolution, a cornerstone of biological science, should not use any of the benefits of said science, like modern medicine. I think it is rather hypocritical to use something you fight to stagnate and undermine (ID is against the very nature of science, which is to question and find out an answer. "God did it" is not a good enough answer for science), but I'm not going to wish a poorer quality of life upon another person just because of ideological differences.

Truly, if Quiverfullers didn't use doctors, I doubt their children would be so numerous. They're trying to use an old adaptive strategy (having lots of babies) in a world where said strategy is rather maladaptive.

I'm not going to touch resource management problems, as they are very complex (much more complex than I feel most people give them credit for), and I don't think my opinions are necessarily popular. But, even from a practical standpoint, children are expensive. They need clothes, food, and education. How many of these Quiverfull children are going to necessarily going to have the opportunity to go to college?

To be honest, the Duggars are very lucky. The Discovery Channel pretty much finished and furnished their new home, they likely get paid handsomely for their specials, and they are popular enough to have many people donating cash to them in the event of a true family emergency (baby #15 needing heart surgery or something). The Lord will provide, indeed.

Besides, my main complaint with people such as the Duggars is that it seems as though they are accumulating children as a status symbol, as a possession, more than children. See the seemingly endless TV specials, the J names set, the fact that mom likely just has a thing for babies, as she's mostly hands-off afterward, for evidence that this family, while I am sure it is loving, has its own problems. I can't imagine having a very close relationship with my children in such a family.

What kind of futures do these children have?

Is it going to be the same kind of future anyone who is maladaptive has?

Fundamentalism is, in actuality, a stagnant, maladaptive reading of Christianity. Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, as they recognize that faith is more than what is literally on the page, and that to deny the science was just stupid (if only they'd let missionaries distribute condoms in Africa). The Bible is great as a starting point, but you need to be able to appreciate its poetry and metaphor for what it is: a book designed to give explanations of the world and meaning to the lives of premodern, barely educated shepherds.

And we're better than that now.