Spelunking the Universe
Posts tagged faith
Atheism, Politics, Faith, and the Failure of Followers
Aug 1st
Quite a wordy title! But I was trying to snag all the keywords that this (relative to the title) short article is about. In Honor of Colbert I’ll be supporting my points with “the gut” and you can make your own personal judgment of whether or not I’m being accurate
. I like to think I’m fairly good at this sort of thing so we shall see.
Recently I was asked if Atheism means that one knows, unequivocally, there is no God. I do think indeed that there are a large group of people who call themselves Atheists because they believe this and I’d be willing to go farther and say that like the word “Gay” the term “Atheist” no longer encompasses in the majority the group it originally was intended for (originally Gay meant Happy as far as I’m aware; But no nicer group of people could have snagged it so good for them).
Atheism is not necessarily a belief in anything, I do not mean in the context of Nihilism, but it is not a belief structure it is a knowledge structure. It’s name may merely be a misnomer? I’m in no position to create a better one, though I do think that “Intellectual” or “Scientist” are better options. Though the former has been butchered by Fox News and the latter isn’t necessarily anymore accurate for some folks. Which leads me into what will follow this coming paragraph.
Atheism is a lifestyle where a person applies the scientific method throughout their life where necessary. It is not that they know that God does not exist, but given the evidence, there is no reason to believe that God does. This does not mean in the future that evidence may indeed show that there is a God, it merely means that at this time there is no evidence to support the idea. Because of this Atheists do not believe in God, just like they do not believe that (as I’ve heard it said) Invisible Tea Cups orbit Mars and radiate pure dreams. It is possible, but there is no evidence to support it beyond anecdotal.
Alright I lied two paragraphs ago, I have more before we move on. Atheism like most lifestyles has been dominated by an incredibly loud and incredibly misinformed group of people. Unfortunately for reasons unbeknownst to me (maybe God knows
) they seem to be the ones that end up having lots of free money and time that they can invest in shouting through megaphones at churches or badger faithful people about their foolish life choices. These people are not Atheists, they are more closely related to a group known as “Douche Bags”. The problem is that, like popular Tea Partiers, they have become so engrained in the ‘movement’ (I use that word because it is late and my vocabulary is tanking) that they are seen as the movement. This is never the case and luckily many of them make poor life choices and die young. That wasn’t too harsh was it?
Now to help redeem myself in your eyes I will move back to my point about the terminology not being accurate (I know it has been so long since I was talking about it we’ve both forgotten, it’s ok we’ll work through this). In every faith, every political body, and indeed every organization on the planet there are vast majorities of what I like to call “Ignoraleeches.” These are people who are largely ignorant of the faith/political body/organization of which they are apart of, but they saw a line or two in a pamphlet somewhere and thought “That’s a pretty good idea.” Because of this when you ask them about their own life and how they identify themselves they might say something akin to the following “I’m a Christian Democrat.”
That statement sounds harmless, but it is usually wrong. They are not an actual Christian, they are someone who believes that Jesus existed and that there is likely a God. But they more-than-likely did not read the bible, if you name a famous line from the bible they can’t recite it, if you ask them the name of the Prophets they can’t tell you. If you ask them who condemned Jesus they will likely guess (and guess wrong). I’m not saying Christians are stupid, because I’ve only met maybe 1 or 2 in my entire life, the rest are merely Ignoraleeches, they love the idea of a god and of a very nice guy who came down to wash away their sins. They haven’t dwelled farther than that, they may have seen a church once but that was the extent of it.
This is true of every faith, the majority (that is to say over 50% I couldn’t give a more accurate number than that) of people are not actual followers of their beliefs. Because to be a follower you need to take in the whole picture. You can’t just pick and choose what you like and ignore what you don’t, that’s not the same thing, faith is not a build-a-bear. What you become is a Chimera which is not necessarily bad thing (Chimeras are badass). But what it does is create a massive Zerg like mass of flesh that unfortunately does not share the single mindedness the Zerg are famous for. You have the illusion of a bunch of cohesive people when really it’s hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of subtypes that each share only the vaguest similarities.
This gives faiths more power than they deserve, the idea of a text that suggests peaceful and love filled life is a fantastic thing but I’m still waiting on one to be made. Those that I’ve read have had some extremely harsh rhetoric and stories within them that have troubled me deeply. If you are an actual follower of your faith, following the text that is the unquestionable word of the all powerful (whichever all powerful that might be) there is no way you can accept the existence of folks whose faith differs from yours. I cannot speak on Scientology but every other faith I’ve read into and read the book of explicitly says that no other faith can exist and the followers cannot be (conversion through word or death).
I understand faith and I’m not trying to make it sound bad, that’s not my intention. I’m merely pointing out the problem with organizations of any type. You have a massive organism where only a few pieces actually understand the central structure and the rest just pick and choose, it is easy but it is not correct. I can’t choose which sections of math work for me and ignore those that don’t, I can try and it might look like I’ve succeeded but I’ll never understand the domain entirely because of it. I’m merely a member of a certain part of math, not the entire body of mathematics (Calculus is a gangster).
Political parties are a huge perpetrator of this problem, perhaps worse than faith in the sense that they quite directly affect my life in a very negative manner. Nearly nobody in either party in the US is actually a part of that party. They cannot tell you the actual founding principles of their party nor can they tell you about the most influential leaders of their party. This might sound like a bold statement, but give it a shot, you’ll be so successful you’ll swear it is confirmation bias. What this creates is to mega parties that seemingly represent mass portions of the US when in actuality they represent ridiculously small portions. The rest pick and choose what they like and then call themselves a “Democrat” or a “Republican”. I’m also quickly going to acknowledge the position of Independent/Moderate and the fact that most folks (at least if Polls are to be believed) consider themselves a part of these (which I tend to consider the same thing but even they seem to have divides). This is probably accurate because by design this position is one that is defined by the desire to pick and choose, which is generally the only honest option people have.
What we have is a planet full of fleshy snowflakes, each trying to take their own personal experiences and transpose them on the global scale. They assume that their beliefs are accurate and thus must represent the entirety of those in their group. I am immediately aware of the humor in this article in relation to that last sentence (for those that didn’t catch it you could apply my last sentence to me as well right this moment). I’m often reminded of this when people speak of “moderate” *insert group here* versus “extremist” *insert group here*, be it Christians, Muslims, Tea Partiers, Republicans, or the less discussed “Chess Club” (They can kill you with a Rook from 50 yards), we are apparently able to identify that there are two groups of people but we make the mistake of labeling one “good” and one “bad”. For the sake of accuracy you have the first group, the moderates, which are your pick and choosers. They take what they like and ignore what they like on the intellectual buffet they’ve taken a seat at. These people do not represent the essence of the organization they affiliate themselves with, they merely legitimize a (generally) otherwise ridiculous concept by taking only the reasonable pieces of it and ignoring the other 99% that would make a creative writers mind explode (“Oh come on…nobody could ever believe that.”
I’m not picking on faith, that is true about Republicans, Democrats, Religions, Atheists, and basically any group you can think of (I’m sure even your softball team has this issue). It’s a hidden dissonance that desperately needs to be addressed. You are much more unique than you think, any group you think you are a member of is probably inaccurate at best, and the attempt to globalize your personal experiences is a dangerous precedent.
MLK famously said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Now I’m not a fan of milking others but he said it better than I could have and far earlier than I am saying it.
Though he was speaking against racism and a utopia in which we are more concerned with the character’s story than the character’s physical person (which I like) I think this also fits in with my point. Don’t define yourself by race, belief, political party, or anything else that ties you inseparably from a global beast. It is that which is in you that is most important, the content of your character should be the most precious treasure you house from birth till death. It is the compilation of every event in your life big or small and is ultimately unique in its final sum.
Label yourself a non label, so to speak, take a title that merely describes and does not dictate. You don’t belong to a faith, or a party, or a group, you belong to yourself. Finally to quote one more amazing person to finish my point which by now has likely been entirely lost:
"You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions." – Fred Rogers.
(^ The quote could quite easily be a tl;dr to my entire topic.)
I’m sure this’ll get lost in the ethos of the internet never to be seen again, which I feel, as one would expect, to be a shame.
“…how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”
Jun 22nd
I’m sure I’ve quoted this enough times that it looks like I’d sleep with Galileo or at the very least take him to dinner (which I surely would…dinner that is). This phrase is, to me, one of the most powerful statements in the history of civilized man. The full line is "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
While I am known for my rather callous feelings towards religion. This is not the goal of this post and indeed 99% of my posts are not trying to butcher the faithful upon a pedestal. What I’m here to discuss today especially is what religion cannot do and will never be able to do.
There has never and will never be a scientific use for faith. All of the benefits that people get medically from being religious have been seen with equal success in merely positive people. It provides absolutely no aid to any real world field of science. This is no a negative to faith, because it was never meant to do such a thing (or at least I don’t believe it ever outwardly advertised such), however in modern day it is a huge flaw that is overlooked by many who have vendettas against certain scientific beliefs.
Obviously to many this is a post in response to intelligent design, formerly known as creationism, and even before that known by 4-5 names. As was stated in a very good book I’ve been reading (“only a theory”) it would appear that more often than not religion is not trying to explain how something works but instead is trying to merely get credit for the something.
You cannot discover how malaria spreads, why the suns light gives people skin cancer, nor can it even explain why people cannot breath underwater. We didn’t decode the human genome with a single bit of guidance by any book of faith nor did we make it to the moon through the discoveries found in any scripture.
There will never be a time when faith can properly function as a scientific tool and likewise there will never be a time when science can function properly as a tool of faith. Each is by its very roots incompatible with the other. This is not to say you cannot be a faithful scientist, that is a scientists who for whatever reason has religious convictions, but neither will benefit the other. They exist in solitude from one another and that is by no means a bad thing.
The danger is when we make the mistake of assuming that faith can save our biological selves. We do not need another era of trephinations to remind us of what happens when we fight that truth. So as many have, much more eloquently than I, this is a modest request to cease and desist with the incessant attempts to use faith as a tool of science. In the end it helps no one and creates various problematic and violent situations.
Well that’s it for today, I will likely discuss the book linked above once I finish it. It is fantastic though and roughly 50% of the way through it I suggest anyone read it who has the ability to do so.
How much is too much?
May 23rd
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30890934/
Now it isn’t an isolated incident, there are nations that have been battling for hundreds if not thousands of years merely because of a disagreement in literature. I know people say that even without faith we will still have conflict but I tend to think that once people are fighting over which is better, star trek or star wars, we’ll be able to step back and stop it much easier.
In my mind I wonder though, what benefits do religion give you that you couldn’t acquire by simply being a positive human being? Neither is necessary to have the other so this is not a case of parsing how you could do one without the other.
Just how much dependency on a belief is too much is another thing I’d be interested in knowing. When you ignore simple medical care and allow your child to die, when you rush to develop nuclear weaponry simply to attack another group of people who disagree with you on a single aspect of your life. At what point do we step back and just say “Whoa”…likewise just when will I start using question marks again to end my questions?
That’s where I stand though, I’m just not grasping the gain. The benefit of glorifying death over life. For now I just read the newspaper and see event after event that is pretty upsetting. Taking course after course where there is a single theme that holds true.
However amidst it all I’m pretty positive about life, that to me is what counts. In case you were curious
.