America, the most religious country among all the developed nations, does have a puzzling willingness to tolerate injustices which, particularly given the country's great wealth, should be considered intolerable. If God exists, he's doing a lousy job, so much so that one wonders if life might improve if we stopped believing in him and started doing some of the heavy lifting ourselves. Might Americans, for example, suddenly see that it is insane not to have a health care system that works, or that there is something wrong about a country wherein some people are billionaires while others can barely afford to eat? In short, might reality snap into focus?
...
Of course, people can and do have it both ways. When prayers are answered, God is credited and thanked. When God fails, the devotee questions his own faith not God's existence. Heads God wins, tails you lose. Exempt from this equation -- by definition, in my view -- is an accurate analysis of existence. To quote Voltaire, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
...
Because I have written on the subject of religion, I often talk to people about faith. I rarely meet anyone who thinks as I do. Even at the skeptical end, I usually find, if I probe a little, that people believe "there has to be something," some force, some supernatural meaning. Finally, and always, comes the fear of oblivion. There must be some kind of afterlife. "This can't just be it," is the final plaintive but insistent appeal.
Why not? What evidence exists for any of these ideas? Why this God as opposed to that one? If one is invented, why not all? But reason is no match for fear and never will be.
Read more.
...
Of course, people can and do have it both ways. When prayers are answered, God is credited and thanked. When God fails, the devotee questions his own faith not God's existence. Heads God wins, tails you lose. Exempt from this equation -- by definition, in my view -- is an accurate analysis of existence. To quote Voltaire, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
...
Because I have written on the subject of religion, I often talk to people about faith. I rarely meet anyone who thinks as I do. Even at the skeptical end, I usually find, if I probe a little, that people believe "there has to be something," some force, some supernatural meaning. Finally, and always, comes the fear of oblivion. There must be some kind of afterlife. "This can't just be it," is the final plaintive but insistent appeal.
Why not? What evidence exists for any of these ideas? Why this God as opposed to that one? If one is invented, why not all? But reason is no match for fear and never will be.
Read more.
2 comments:
This is a great article, as it illustrates some of the great foolishness that exists out there. The first paragraph you quoted is extremely telling.
Let's look at this in two parts:
First, "America, the most religious country among all the developed nations, does have a puzzling willingness to tolerate injustices which, particularly given the country's great wealth, should be considered intolerable. If God exists, he's doing a lousy job, so much so that one wonders if life might improve if we stopped believing in him and started doing some of the heavy lifting ourselves".
Let's follow this logic... if God exists, then because man tolerates things we ought to consider intolerable, "he" is doing a lousy job (whoever "he" is). Our author obviously considers it God's job to make intolerance to injustice mandatory in the hearts of men, and compulsory in man's actions. For our author, if God exists, he should suspend free will when it leads to tolerating injustice. Of course, the natural extension to this would be that God should not allow the injustice to exist to begin with, so lets nix free will in those circumstances as well. So, for our author, were God doing his job well, we would only be allowed free will when our actions do not result in injustice (a term that would require definition, especially in the absence of free will).
How much of a slacker, then, would the Hebrew God appear to be? After all, among his first actions (with regards to man) was to identify the "forbidden fruit", which upon being eaten led to the expulsion of man from Eden, which led to Cain killing Abel, etc. (in whatever literal/allegorical sense deemed appropriate). For our author, if the Hebrew God exists, he's been messing up since the word go.
With regards to "doing some of the heavy lifting ourselves", I find it curious that the prerequisite for this is abandoning belief in God. "So long as the celestial agency exists, I will sit on my ass and not lift a finger to better my society". This is the kind of thinking that leads to, "I've said five prayers, I got five prayers worth of goodies coming to me", or, rather, "I've said five prayers, we need to put these in a big pool along with everyone else's prayers and distribute the resulting goodies equally amongst the people, except for the rich, because they should be required to pray more but not get any benefits because they've already been blessed". Under this theology, should we ever feel we need more "celestial goodies", we simply need to require more prayer. No doubt as a prerequisite for buying cigarettes ("can you believe that now I have to say 45 prayers before I could buy a pack of Camels?") Or does smoking go out with the whole "free-will-nixed-with-injustice" thing? Hard to tell.
Let's look at the second part: "Might Americans, for example, suddenly see that it is insane not to have a health care system that works, or that there is something wrong about a country wherein some people are billionaires while others can barely afford to eat? In short, might reality snap into focus?".
Ah yes, religion is to blame for the health care crisis in America. The author should be good enough to admit, though, that this may be due to a misinterpretation of a reading found in the Old Testament book of Health-Insurance-Requiredisis (called Screw-Youdicus in some versions). The problem is that placing absolute power in the hands of the insurance companies is a possible interpretation of the Hebrew text, whereas the Greek version makes it quite clear that this is an unacceptable practice. Given that this is a Protestant country, and therefore the Greek Septuagint is considered invalid by those in charge in the "religious right", the Hebrew wins out. Maybe this is the result of the fourth century conspiracy by the Emperor Constantine Insurance Company??? Dun-dun-dun!!!
Finally, I love the fact that once atheism is embraced, our eyes are opened to the plight of the starving poor. Oops, scratch that, our eyes are opened to the plight of the starving poor in contrast to the filthy rich. Because it's not the plight of the poor that atheism (apparently) has a problem with, it is the contrast between the "haves" and the "have-nots"; the goal isn't helping the poor, it's the flattening of social and economic strata.
If we believe our author, when you lose your belief in a god, you automatically believe in redistribution of wealth. Apparently, one's religious perspective defines one's political perspective, and once you go atheist, you get welcomed into an exclusive "we all think atheist thoughts" club.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the earlier willingness to give up free will? I wonder if this is the courage the author mentioned at the end of his piece?
This is why I post these things, buddy. ;-)
Post a Comment