Category: 
I’m baaaack…
For good or ill, I have returned to these pages after my big shebang of sorts of a debut at the Otherwhirled.
You may have read my earlier posts - this was first and then this one came second.
The second post generated a lot more comments. The gist of the whole thing, if you don’t wish to go reread it all was that I was trying to shoot down the idea that somehow atheism is evil because it is somehow related to communism. That is right, me defending - in a manner of speaking - atheism. Or at least defending its place at the table.
The fusion of atheism/communism/evil is very pervasive in our culture, which is really sad – and rather un-Christian, I might add.
I should know – I am an out, loud and so-forth actual living, breathing Catholic woman. Yes – if you don’t know me, I actually attend church all the time, am very involved in my faith, you can call me both spiritual and religious and whatever else you might like.
That said, I am very dedicated to finding ways for people of all paths to connect and communicate. Go ahead, mock me- laugh at me. That’s your goddam problem if you do. What can I tell you.
I simply posit that if we do not find ways to connect on the things we can agree on and/or connect on ways to speak despite our differences, we are sunk.
We can sit here all we want and trash the Republicans and the right, but for good or ill kids, they are still part of the country. Pushing them down when we are up, just means more pushing us down when the cycle changes.
I mean if it is ok for Obama to speak about us talking to Iran - a point I agree with, how can we not sit down at the same table in our own land?
I am not into domination of any sort. It is a big table, can we not all sit down at it in some fashion? I mean, for real kids. Wassup wit dat?
I know – crazy dreamer. (Or nutty Christian? Go ahead say it.)
That said, I am now stuck on how to respond to a comment discussion from the last post.
Blogger Infidel is someone who I like very much, despite our very different view of the world from almost every perspective. This kind of unlikely pairing is just one of the many things I love about blogging.
Now I did happen to get a little heated up in the comments and said:
“Yet I am continually amazed at the cool dismissal of all people of faith by some in the atheist camp.”
To which, Infidel replied:
“I don’t dismiss people of faith. I dismiss faith — and I condemn it as evil and dangerous.
And I’ve given here what I consider to be solid, rational reasons for doing so.
With all due respect I ask you to acknowledge the distinction — and address the argument”.
To which I said:
“Infidel - I stand corrected. I may do many things but I will not deny when I have mis-spoken, as I have here and I apologize.
That said, the condemnation of all faith as evil and dangerous, just strikes me as extreme.
Yes, I am aware that there are many so-called religious types who condemn atheists as evil and dangerous, but for good or ill, as a Catholic they think the same of me.
Having said all this- and I am not shirking away, I am about to go out of town for a few days and will not be able to reply more fully.
What I will do is to work on this as a post.
Fair enough? I hope so- it is what I am doing and all that I can do given time constraints at this moment.”
And Infidel – being a very decent guy as far as I can tell came back with:
“Fran — while I stand by the substance of my comment, the tone in which I wrote it was arrogant and rude, and I apologize for that. (Insert - apology not necessary but accepted. You are a gracious guy.)
All I can add is to say that, paraphrasing John Barth, what someone believes is less important than why he believes it. I don’t merely assert that faith is evil and dangerous, I give my reasons for believing that — and it’s the reasons which are the core of my point.”
I am compelled to add to this already too long post, what Commander Other, Atheist in Chief around here added:
“ah. something i have “believed” for a long time, indeed, something in which i myself have “faith”, is that there is no God. for, just as there is no proof there is a God, there is likewise no proof that there isn’t one. what many of us atheists fail to realize is that define it however we may, couch it in whatever terms we like, spin it however we desire, the exercise of, and conformance to, any worldview requires a form of faith. even if it’s just the faith in the veracity of one’s presumably intellectually superior position.
i never lose site of that, and i recommend that my fellow atheists keep it in mind as well. there is no scientific evidence for the lack of spirituality; we simply have faith that spirituality is errant because there is no scientific evidence for its existence. neither “side” of the issue can prove, or disprove, the other.”
All this is to say I am not sure where to go with this. This is what I hate about this kind of conversation… I feel frustrated at how to reply. I don’t see where I can go when I am part of something wholly condemned as evil and dangerous. Deep sigh.
Honestly, I think there are plenty of crazy-ass atheists to compliment the bountiful amount of crazy-ass Christians. And I have a real problem with crazy-ass Christians that deem Atheism as dark, dangerous or evil.
In my estimation, any belief system – or lack of one in this case, which in its own way creates a something that is hard to define, can be a pathway of healing or a pathway of destruction.
Anything can have holes poked in it. If I were to denounce Atheism I would be essentially be saying that I am right and you are wrong. And honestly, this is not even about right or wrong to me.
As for religion being condemned across the board for being dangerous and evil?
Where can I go from there Infidel? Religion is often dangerous and evil. So is being American, being human, being anything… even being an Atheist. Dangerous and evil are not so selective in general.It is what you do with it, not what it does with you.
I would love to see some conversation generated around this – by those who believe and those who do not, if possible.
And I think after this, I may just STFU about this topic for awhile… It is conversation that I long for and not dead ends. Infidel, correct me if I am wrong, but this feels like a dead end to me.
Opinions? Ideas? Comments? This is one long motherfucker of a post. Has anyone made it to the end???
Thanks for the kind words. As an initial response, I would say that there is a distinction between faith and religion, the former being a subset of the latter (that is, faith seems to be an integral part of most religions, but religion has many other aspects besides faith, which are not necessarily bad).
The reason I said that I consider faith dangerous is that it makes a virtue of believing things which are unsupported by evidence (and are indeed contrary to most of the evidence, though they can’t be proven false because of the well-known problem of proving a negative). That is, it makes a virtue of placing certain beliefs beyond argument or refutation.
This is dangerous because once such a privilege is extended to one set of beliefs, we have no basis for denying it to others, including extremely pernicious beliefs like “blacks are inferior” or “Jews are evil”. Those beliefs can be refuted by appeals to evidence — but once we declare that religious beliefs are “above” refutation by evidence, why can’t any other belief make the same claim? If every belief is somehow equally legitimate regardless of the evidence, why not racist or paranoid beliefs? How can we claim to know anything at all?
I don’t see any equivalent to this problem being raised by atheism, which isn’t a belief at all, merely the absence of one.
That, in my view, is the difference.
I didn’t think your posting was too long. I hope you don’t think my comment is too long.
Infidel! So glad to see you. I actually hear and understand all that you are saying. And I do not disagree.
Sadly - and I blame religion for this more than faith, religion is used more frequently than not to prop up wounded egos, support power systems and feed hatred.
That sadly should never be beyond reproach.
I just took a 2 hour scripture course with my pastor and if he said one thing over and over again it was that it all has to be about love. There were some sad faces, people often want it to be about something else.
While you are correct, I am not as convinced that other systems are not capable of doing the same thing. It is my thought.
As for the issue as it relates to atheism, there are certainly atheists who would wish to stamp out religion/faith with equal intensity, no? Now granted - there are far fewer of them so I am not playing “the poor Christian” card at all.
It is human nature that I have the most problem with, but I would be disingenuous and not true to my very real faith if I did not say that in the end, I believe in good.
That sounds slightly pathetic, but it is what I believe with every fiber of my being.
OK, let’s see if anyone else here joins in on the chatter.
Thank you Infidel, you are an upstanding person and willing to dialog. That always gets my heart.
Great post, Fran. I think what it comes down to is that being fanatical (read: not willing to listen to any other opinions) about faith or atheism or anything else is what is dangerous and evil. And I completely agree that we are sunk if we don’t learn to find common ground. Well said.
First, the disclaimer: I am a Catholic.
I would make one simple point.
Religion can serve a noble purpose. But believing doesn’t automatically make you a decent person, or a purposeful person, or a person who would never shoot up schools. It’s the same with any system of ideas, be it Christianity, Scientology, Secular Humanism, Objectivism or Socialism: only a minority of adherents understand the system and use it appropriately. Most true believers use those ideas, not to live better lives, but to cover up what assholes they truly are.
This sometimes worries me. I’m a catechist, okay? I’m trying to teach my faith and faith practices to another generation. It makes me question myself–am I teaching my students to understand the system and use it appropriately? Or are they becoming unquestioning believers who will hide their faults behind their faith?
It’s not what you say that counts, but what you do. That is what I try to pass on to my students, and it is a basic tenet of the Catholic Church–good works.
I try to point out to my students that if you do good works you can attain “heaven.” EVEN IF YOU’RE AN ATHEIST. I warn them against the immature doctrine of Sola Fide with its simplistic believe-and-be-saved mind-set. I warn them against the whole “I’m going to heaven and you’re not because you don’t believe in God” attitude.
In the Constitution on the Church that was written and ratified by the members of Vatican II, it is written:
‘We who claim to be the Church, we who claim to be the Body of Christ, must resemble Christ as much as possible.
We must take the part of the poor whenever we can; we must defend those without power, we must avoid seeking our own glory and act with humility and self-sacrifice for the good of all…
We who are Christian and, indeed, the organized Church itself must take in those who are afflicted, forgotten and suffering.’”
Wait. I think that was more than one simple point. :sigh:
If only our governments and all of society would give preferential treatment to the poor…
If only.
Missy- blogfriend and fellow Catholic. Thanks for coming by and putting yourself out there. I am grateful for your words here.
You say some very thoughtful things and I think you must be a most excellent catechist. Your kids are fortunate indeed.
I am reminded of something that Padre said at Scripture study last night when someone was obsessing about Satan… He reminded us that if the foundation of our faith is that we are after Satan like a crazyperson with a flyswatter, we miss the point entirely.
Evil is not an external force per se and not all people of religion or faith are dangerous - nor are atheists.
Thanks for the compliment.
All of that said, I still think Scientologists should be mocked to within an inch of their lives.
:evil grin:
mocking scientologists….actually, that was the inspiration for this blog’s name. they don’t just spin reality, they whirl it, see? but when i thought about a relative eternity dedicated to mocking scientologists and the unhappy thought that it might someday cause me to meet that stupid, self-infatuated Tom Cruise person, i decided not to focus on the scientologists.
FranIAm, thank you for another great post. of course, it’s great at least in part because you chose to quote me, so I compliment you on your sense of acumen.
all kidding aside, i’m not surprised that none of my fellow atheists have taken me up on the issue i raised regarding faith. certainly, i share Infidel’s distinction between faith and religion. indeed, organized religion can in most ways be viewed as the bane of spirituality and birthplace of duplicity. but no one confronted me on the (fact?) opinion that “faith” is a belief in any system, regardless of its provability.
i’m sure some declined to confront me on that because to do so would be to admit that for some, atheism is indeed a religion, and it really shouldn’t be. extremists abound in all walks of life, and in some ways, that’s perfectly acceptable because it’s predictable. but for most atheists, i believe that what we refer to as an absence of faith is really an absence of dogma and ritual. we still have to have faith in the non-existence of God for our beliefs to make any sense, and there’s no tangible proof for it.
the only difference is that, in general, our desire to educate the masses regarding critical thinking doesn’t quite equate to the religious conversion practice of forcing everyone to your belief system. i have been instrumental in the “conversion” of a couple of people so far. one’s an agnostic now, and the other one describes herself simply as a skeptic. neither of them share my personal worldview.
A few belated thoughts–more like gropings–about faith.
First, anyone who thinks it is even possible to go through life without beliefs that are not-proved and not-provable, taken for granted, believed without evidence, hasn’t thought the issue of thought, language, logic through. By the time we are capable of such discussions as this, we have already established many “prior beliefs” about the world, most of which are not readily accessible to conscious examination. So if faith is about belief–we all have to start somewhere, we all take some things on faith. No one, atheist, agnostic, theist, or other, lives without such beliefs. Nor could we, nor is there virtue in trying to get to the point where we could (IMO).
Second, Infidel talked about faith as more than this–as placing certain beliefs above question, and taking the placing of these beliefs beyond questionning as a virtue. There’s something in there, but I’m not sure exactly what. Consider belief in Santa Clause. Think about the pop culture around this; take “Miracle on 34th Street” as a prime example. Everyone who loves that movie, or ever watched it and got sucked in by it, knows full well that there is no magical Santa who goes flying around the world in a sled delivering toys to all the (good) children. Yet the whole point of the movie is that virtue consists in somehow believing that anyway, and in persuading one’s children to believe that. Why? This has long puzzled me. How many people have a personal story about realizing that there is no such Santa, and that realization being traumatic to one degree or another? So where’s the virtue in “believing what we know ain’t so”? And what’s operating in the human psyche that makes a virtue of such beliefs, at least for some people? Clearly, the virtue must lie in the nature of the belief as a mental action rather than in the content of the belief, since everyone knows it “ain’t so”. But I’m still puzzled.
Third–a lot of people are starting to make more of the “trust” meaning of faith, in contrast to the “belief” meaning. I think there’s something important here, too. Possibly nothing more than the value of letting go of our own effort to control everything, or belief that we can or should control everything, and trust that things can/will be OK anyway. In that sense, everyone, atheist, theist, etc., does need to achieve faith to some degree.
As for me, with regard to religious faith, intellectually I’m an agnostic. Experientially, I’ve had glimmers of a spiritual dimension to things, let me call it, but those come and go. I do have beliefs that I put above question in the sense that regardless of what others may say, I will continue to believe them–beliefs such as “it is wrong to kill people just to gratify one’s own feelings” and “love is a better basis for social relationships than status or power or being right” or “it is wrong to kill someone just because they profess a different belief system from yourself, and furthermore I don’t really believe that’s why anyone does it, I think people only rationalize it that way.” All are, however, open to discussion–just don’t expect me to change my mind as a result. So–do these beliefs constitute “faith” of some kind? Is there a difference between my holding such beliefs as beyond question (in the sense I explained) and what Infidel was talking about? If so, what is it?
with a recent death in the family, i don’t have time to adequately respond to your questions other than to point out that many people, i think by virtue of human nature’s inherent desire to codify and simplify experiences, often equate natural biochemical response mechanisms (the chill down one’s spine, for example) with “spiritual moment”, because such events are otherwise unexplainable given the individual’s personal experience set.
and personally, i do believe that is, in large part, the sum and total of the human “spiritual” condition, and it is naturally the basis of “if it feels good, do it”, which is really the same as saying “if it feel ’spiritual’, it is.”