A former Christian describes his former Christianity

Mike Baker submitted a few comments to DI over the past few months. Then, after I published yet another installment of my favorite quotes (read: I took a night off from actually writing), Mike offered me his substantial collection of provocative quotes (we’ve published them here and here, and there’s more to come). We started an email correspondence a few weeks ago. When Mike told me that he was formerly a Christian, but no longer, I asked him a few follow-up questions. It turns out that there is an unexpected twist to Mike’s story. He is no longer a Christian, but he believes in God. Yet he believes that organized religions are generally harmful to society. Yet he also admits that good things are sometimes accomplished by religious organizations. After a few rounds of back and forth, I asked Mike whether he would be willing to allow me to share his thoughts with the DI community, and he agreed. I think that you’ll enjoy reading Mike’s genuine thoughts and his engaging writing style. Without further adieu, here is that email conversation: Mike: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on religion in that five-part essay you wrote. As a person who has always called himself a Christian (albeit a loosely wrapped one), I've recently walked away from my "faith". In large part by the inactions and apparent acquiescence of "Christians" to G.W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Feeling somewhat "lost", I began reading Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris and C. Hitchens just to name a few. I was totally engrossed and amazed too at what is not discussed in church. I now see religion (almost all of the brands) as a brake on human advancement at best and quite possibly the catalyst for civilizations’ destruction at worst. I guess you could say I am in the Sam Harris camp there. I do agree, however, with your summation that bridges need to be built. Here's a little on me. My mother grew up in Nazi Germany and brought me up to fully appreciate the meaning of our Constitution and what true freedom and democratic principles represent. Much to my mothers chagrin (something I didn't fully understand at the time) I joined the Marine Corps after high school and served for eight yrs. Believing that we were the "good guys", bringing peace and freedom where ever we went I served proudly. Time and a better understanding of history have taught me that that is not always the case. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingA former Christian describes his former Christianity

Deeply and ineffably religious, on the couch

One of the biggest mistakes one can make when trying to figure out people, in my opinion, is to assume that conscious thoughts in the form of words do most of the work of cognition. I believe this has it upside down, and that 90% of the engine our cognitive engine is not available to consciousness--it is subconscious and not available for introspection. It is a huge foundational mistake to ignore Freud's recognition that a large and powerful portion of the mind is not conscious. This is an especially important thing to note for those who cling to the notion that they can explain human behavior on the basis that it is generally rational. This mistake is compounded by the fact that humans are exquisitely good at confabulating, both consciously and unconsciously. We drum up ex-temporary reasons for our decisions post facto. We don't really know why we do the things we do but we brashly claim that we do know why we do the things we do.

Continue ReadingDeeply and ineffably religious, on the couch

Is religion honest?

Most religious adherents would be aghast if one suggested that they, or their religion, were fundamentally and consistently dishonest. However I believe that is indeed the case. I read a comment on a recent blog post by Ed Brayton (honesty vs intellectually honest). Ed's post argued about the distinction between honesty and intellectual honesty, and noted that intellectual honesty must recognize not only the arguments in support of a position, but also any evidence or arguments against that position. One of the commenters (Sastra) then made the following case that faith was fundamentally intellectually dishonest:

[...] An intellectually dishonest person blurs the distinction [between being intellectually honest, and being emotionally honest], and seems to confuse fact claims with meaning or value claims. To a person who places emphasis on emotional honesty, strength of conviction is evidence. An attack on an idea, then, is an attack on the person who holds it. The idea is true because it's emotionally fulfilling: intentions and sincerity matter the most. Therefore, you don't question, search, or respect dissent. A person who is trying to change your mind, is trying to change you. For example, I consider religious faith [...] to be intellectually dishonest. It is, however, sincerely emotionally honest. [...] "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of what is not seen." There's a huge emotional component to it, so that one chooses to keep faith in X, the way one might remain loyal to a friend. You defend him with ingenuity and love, finding reasons to explain or excuse evidence against him. He cannot fail: you, however, can fail him, by allowing yourself to be lead into doubt. Being able to spin any result into support then is a sign of good will, loyalty, reliability, and the ability to stand fast. The focus isn't on establishing what's true, but on establishing that you can be "true." This emotional honesty may or may not be rewarded: the real point, I think, is to value it for its own sake, as a fulfillment of a perceived duty.
This is exactly the case with religion, and religious adherents. Their faith in their god is entirely emotional, and no amount of material evidence will alter their belief. They may be entirely honest in their belief, and may be entirely honest in their objection to evidence (cf Karl, Rabel, Walter, et al) but in doing so are being intellectually dishonest, because they refuse to recognize valid and entirely relevant evidence - they conflate with great consistency and verve fact claims with value claims, and deny any difference between them stating it's all 'interpretation'. No, it isn't all interpretation. It's dishonesty.

Continue ReadingIs religion honest?

Roman Catholics Must Reconcile With Victims of Abuse

I am a lifelong practicing Roman Catholic. I am now a member of parish in Kirkwood, Missouri. I have not been a victim of abuse. I have seen the efforts of my Church to deal with victims of abuse by priests and I don’t see the matter being handled in the way in which I was brought up in my faith. The examples of selflessness, compassion and dedication to the Gospels which I have experienced throughout my life in the Church are inconsistent with what continues to be a serious threat to the continued existence of the Roman Catholic Church as a faithful expression of the Gospels of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic Church efforts to reconcile with its victims of sexual abuse are failing. The failure has been because of a lack of willingness upon the part of Church leaders to simply ask, humbly and contritely, for forgiveness from those which they have harmed. It is incomprehensible to any adherent to a faith which professes to be a true expression of the Gospels of Jesus Christ that someone who has harmed another would not seek to reconcile themselves to that fellow Church member and God by asking forgiveness. The leadership in the Roman Catholic Church needs a refresher course on the Sacrament of Reconciliation (formerly Penance). [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingRoman Catholics Must Reconcile With Victims of Abuse

Heinlein and the Problem of the Present

Having read the new biography of Robert A. Heinlein, I indulged myself in dipping back into some of the novels. Heinlein worked out a Future History in which he set many of his stories. Obviously, any writer who attempts predictions is usually in for a bit of embarrassment---it's difficult at best to know what might happen next week let alone next century. But Heinlein had more than the usual "horse sense" when it came to sociology and the way in which history unfolds and he often nailed the essence of a coming period if not the specifics. (He tagged the Sixties the Crazy Years all the way back in the Forties.) One of his chillier stories is a short novel called If This Goes On--- in which he depicts the Second American Revolution. This time it occurs in response to a homegrown despotism---a theocracy, established by the First Prophet, a combination of Huey Long and Billy Sunday named Nehemiah Scudder. (You can find it published with two other stories in the book Revolt In 2100.) I reads this in seventh grade, while attending a Lutheran school, and it had a lasting impact on me. In the early Fifties certain publishers started packaging the better SF novels in hard cover for the first time and this was one of Heinlein's. He wrote an afterword to it and I just reread that. In view of our current social circumstances and in light of so much that gets discussed here at Dangerous Intersection I would like to quote two paragraphs in particular. Mind you, Heinlein wrote this in 1952.

Nevertheless this business of legislating religious beliefs into law has never been more than sporadically successful in this country---Sunday closing laws here and there, birth control legislation in spots, the Prohibition experiment, temporary enclaves of theocracy such as Voliva's Zion, Smith's Nauvoo, a few others. The country is split up into such a variety of faiths and sects that a degree of uneasy tolerance now exists from expedient compromise; the minorities constitute a majority of opposition against each other. Could it be otherwise? Could any one sect obtain a working majority at the polls and take over the country? Perhaps not---but a combination of a dynamic evangelist, television, enough money, and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make Billy Sunday's efforts look like a corner store compared to Sears Roebuck. Throw in a depression for good measure, promise a material heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Negroism, and a good large dose of anti-"furriners" in general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result might be something quite frightening---particularly when one recalls that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as pluralities in enough states can constitute a working majority in Washington.
I was very much struck by that. Looking around, it made me even sadder, since obviously there have always been people with foresight enough to see what might happen and how and yet they are often ignored. In Heinlein's case, because he was just one of those "Buck Rogers guys" with all the cookie ideas about space and aliens and such like. But obviously even then the shortcomings of our "voting system" raised a possible red flag for some. Anyway, I thought I'd share that little near-forgotten gem.

Continue ReadingHeinlein and the Problem of the Present