Welcome to the premiere of FNIFF, a weekly series in which a pathetically bored blogger raises some inherently divisive and insoluble wedge issue for maximum carnage (or, at the very least, a few dismissive comments, tag vandalism, and a couple HRs). Good times are had by all who relish the heated argument or out-and-out flamewar. Given that I may well not be available for future installments, remember that any such commitment was made, or even care about said commitment, future contributors are quite welcome. Some recommended topics:
- "Why can’t America join the rest of the civilized world and ban gun handguns" vs. "You really have no electoral sense whatsoever, do you?"
- The pragmatic moderate vs. the idealistic leftist [carnage boost for arguing the moderate side – make sure to quote DKos FAQ]
- "Old-wave(s)" vs. "New-wave" feminism – no "we are one" cop-outs!
- What’s wrong with [blank] generation?
- What’s wrong with [blank] region? [PROTIP – go Midwest here, "The South sucks!" is getting played out]
- Anything meta
- The Nanny State
- And, surely, many others!
I/P’s too easy, so if you go there, have a fresh take!
No need to be divisive or manipulative in the diary itself – a genuine, from-the-heart take is best. The comments section will take care of itself.
Atheism
While American atheists continue to comprise only a small minority of the citizenry and are perhaps second only to the GLBT community in the level of casual invective hurled against them (though I would argue that atheists have a greater leverage than ascriptive groups in defining themselves along multiple dimensions of identity in the minds of their out-group peers) – they have increased in number during past decade. At the same time, a small but vocal group of public intellectuals (though love-him-warts-and-all Maher may stretch this category a bit) has come to defend Godlessness with a stridency and exposure not typically seen in our history. The screeds they have given us are impassioned, usually logically sound, and, typically, assholish. And very, very difficult to defend against along logical grounds. I don’t have space to review atheism vs. all religions (or even, honestly, to give the atheism vs. Xtianity a fair shake) so I’ll stick to the case against/for Christianity. The claims against Christianity can, at the cost of gross simplification, be boiled down as follows:
- There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support the supernatural claims in either the Torah or New Testament
- There is ample empirical evidence that numerous and key claims in the Bible are simply untrue, at least as literal fact
- It is possible to go back and review the mutations of dogma since Christ’s life, bolstering the position that the entire creed is, essentially, a movement grounded in social life rather than permanent truth
- There are strong grounds on which to question whether or not Jesus himself ever claimed to be divine.
- An objective glance at the fact leads one inexorably to the conclusion that different societies in different times have attempted to come to grips with profound existential dilemmas in their own ways – there is no basis to privilege one over the other. Insofar as atheistic materialism or humanism is another alternative, there is in fact no basis to privilege any of them at all.
But defenses are made...
Defense one: Practicality
Logically, the shallowest defense, but, apart from sheer socialization, maybe the best explanation of Christianity’s resilience. Notion is that Christianity teaches good values. Reason some sections of Leviticus are privileged above others. Ironically, it is the line of argument against which Dawkins, et al. are rhetorically weakest, as they are all demonstrably assholes. A weak defense when volleyed from a Dominionist or some other self-evident asshole of the Christian bent, but quite effective when wielded by your true, compassionate, self-actualized types. Who wants to be the angry, raving atheist? Conform... conform!!
Also, the reason Christianity is included as part of your standard 12-step program. You need help from something more powerful than what drove you to this.
Problem: cognitive dissonance – however practically helpful Christianity may be (and, for some, it is sheer poison; for others, truly useless), one needs to actually believe it. And truly pathetic, even more than this blogger, is the fellow who partitions off some sections of his or her own thought from self-evaluation.
Defense two: Faith
Your relentless objectivism is a sign of weak faith. That I prevail in the face of all inconsistent evidence is a sign of fidelity.
Dovetails heavily with Defense One. Can take two forms. In the first, more extreme instance, inconsistent evidence is provided as an actual challenge by the Lord, Our Savior. This is all tied up in belief in hell, and all the questions this raises about the motives of God in the first place. It’s actually kind of amazing that old-skool Calvinism doesn’t have more sway among the more logical Christians of this type given that we are dealing with a Creator who has complete discretion over both the nature and nurture of all, and thus complete discretion over faith-level (and, I should add, level of sinfulness/purity overall). Typical defense against this latter point is some form of "Free Will!" argument, which is itself blasphemous against most forms of Christianity as it circumscribes God’s alleged omnipotence.
Form two is more personal and non-self-reflective. It is essentially one-and-the-same with Defense One.
Defense Three: Science is wrong.
I actually sympathize with this one. The level of faith in scientists, particularly among liberals, approaches religious levels in many cases, and is often highly unwarranted. Whenever you see the word "model" in any scientific publication (or, more typically, its two-steps-removed regurgitation in the media) either run for the door or do some actual research and figure out just what has been shown in this study. Phenomena that cannot be controlled in the lab is usually studied either through statistics or through models (basically, rigorous thought experiments, certain crucial mechanisms of which are hopefully empirically verified). Statistics is insanely unreliable when the phenomena at hand is subject to a variety of potential causation, not all of which may be known to the researcher, and models are as weak as their weakest links (or, often, their unproven priors). But I digress. As far as religion goes, there are a few bugbears that come under constant attack. Evolution is really fucking hard to deny by anyone who’s truly looked at the evidence. The age of the earth and of the species upon it is not known to pure certainty, but that they are far older than the Bible would claim is undeniable. The nature of the universe, as even most scientists would admit – whether it is one of many, its true origins, why matter was all balled up in a single dimensionless point to begin with (and, to my satisfaction, whether it was at all) are all highly debatable.
The problem is that, every time religion gets truly owned by science, it backs up and stakes out new ground on what is debatable. Give the fundies credit where credit is due – once you acknowledge the possibility of life on other planets, for instance, you are well on your way away from by-the-book to Christianity and towards, at most, Unitarianism (a position with which I sympathize greatly).
Defense four: mythos vs. logos
This is a subtle one, raised by the great Karen Armstrong, though with (IMHO) nowhere the degree of penetration necessary for the full endeavor. The notion is that societies back in the day could care less about all this logical bullshit (logos) – indeed, didn’t even have the social tools to think in those terms – and that all these debates over historical veracity are quite beside the point. All religious texts were, in essence, timeless parables whose fundamental truths are non-changing. Things got all fucked up with the Enlightenment (actually, even before that), and its whole logos-inspired objective self-questioning. Don’t ask me about all this "do-this-do-that" bullshit that seems quite on-its-face straightforward; she’s talking more about religion as practiced and felt. Jesus didn’t die (past tense) – he is always dying, and always revealing his philosophy beforehand! It’s all simultaneous; in fact, chronology never enters into it.
Problem – what is timeless what isn’t? Moreover – if parable, why not another one, or none at all? Maybe it all speaks to a deeper truth, but then what, and why not utter materialism?
Defense five: Mysticism
For those who believe they have experienced something unexplained by science and, in fact, utterly unexplainable but are certain that this occurred, the silence of the objectivists is just as bothersome as the silence of the religious on material arguments is to the atheists. They know it happened, so give them an answer or fuck off.
Discuss!