Gavin Sullivan

Dharma Withdrawal

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:31:53 PST

Many of my cohort have adopted conventional religious views, which feels funny--as the reigning rules of propriety dictate religious sentiments are not to be disputed.

Within a society functioning under that strong rule, people have no disincentive not to adopt ill-considered magical perspectives.

A polite way of pushing back against said foolish tradition: To take people up on their religious views only when it is emphatically they who put religion on the table.

Were I to believe I'd found the keys to eternity, I'd feel a special moral obligation to communicate my discovery to others, always welcoming probing questions. It would be important for me to let others know they should feel no need to hide their skepticism--it's essential we be correct in our new knowledge: The costs of being wrong would be vast.

Instead, one encounters religious people who fracture upon the gentlest tapping: They're incredibly bad at explaining why their decision to embrace their faith was based on sound reasoning. Quite often you find, after gentle probing, the person simply has never entertained a moment's skepticism regarding his faith. Their devotion to their religion is true because its true, because you can't prove it's not true.

They come up with very bad reasons--and so they direct resentment at the questioner. It is rude when you show them their mission in life lacks foundation. Bad, person.

A devout Catholic acquaintance recently expressed a Jesus-positive thought within a communication space. Here are my several attempts--with my friend's words removed--at rousing him out of false belief:

We have found a rare point of disagreement, I'm afraid. People are leaving the Catholic Church because its central magical and historical claims cannot be supported with evidence. The Pope is just another global-hegemony-seeking alpha male, selected from within a political process, whose ideas Catholics too often deem 'above criticism.' Perpetual cracker worship has in fact been adequately considered--and found wanting.

Thanks C--I'm glad we now know that you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus 'based entirely on faith.' In other words, you don't consider any evidence for the event to be persuasive. (On this point we are in complete agreement.) 'Faith' = believing things with no evidence; you are correct in noting that I do not consider faith to be a virtue. If a person values truth and seeks to avoid falsehood, evidence is her best bet. The evidence for Jesus' Resurrection is precisely the same as that for Zeus' magical claims, i.e. zilch. Belief in Zeus no doubt formed a moral foundation for many individuals and families, at one time--though that in no way buttresses its truth value.

If you're suggesting it would be a good thing for me to throw evidence to the wind and adopt any old religion--then on what basis would I select Christianity instead of Hinduism? If you're not entirely sure that Catholicism is truthful--that you have no persuasive evidence on its behalf--why not just be honest and say so?

Thanks C. Believing in a religion might help some people overcome addiction or economic difficulty--I agree. Similarly, Hindus believe that aligning oneself with the dharma ('the universal truth that sprang from first Brahman' [Wiki]). While I don't at all accept the Hindu claim for the origin of dharma, I entirely accept that striving toward the dharma has improved many millions of lives. Adopting a religion can improve a person's life, whether or not the religion's magical claims have merit. Secondly C, you argue that Jesus' existence cannot be disproved. Let's be clear: I am not arguing that a historical person--Jesus--never walked the earth. I am instead arguing that no evidence undergirds the Catholic belief in the Resurrection of Jesus. The gospels were written long after the purported events described--and were not written by eyewitnesses or by Jesus' contemporaries. When you assert belief in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the burden of proof is squarely upon you: It's your job to provide evidence to back up the claim. By the same token, were I to claim the ability to fly, it would be odd for me to ask you to provide evidence against my claim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, quoth Carl Sagan. Peace!
________

Upon rereading, this evening, I now perceive an error in my final paragraph, above: I should have been more circumspect than to assert 'striving toward the dharma has improved many millions of lives.' I don't know enough about Hinduism to say that for certain--and secondly I'm not sure how dharma might be intertwined with other less pleasant aspects of the religious tradition.

To demonstrate my point, imagine if a Hindu person without much knowledge of America were to write on her blog:

While I don't at all accept the Catholic claim for the infusion of the soul at conception, I entirely accept that the belief in the Christian 'soul' concept has improved many millions of lives.

A moment's reflection shows me that we in fact do not know this to be true. We simply don't know for sure that--had our civilization dispensed with the Christian 'soul' concept--we'd be any worse off. Were we able to run an A/B test on global history--running our iteration against an alternative in which superstition long ago became rare, we cannot say for certain the general level of life satisfaction would be any lower.

So I've updated my view--and will try to avoid such excess, going forward.

And another blog comment of mine--responding to a particularly inarticulate loon:

By contrast, F, I take a somewhat less fanatically McCarthyite attitude toward the world. I have evaded no question, I stoutly defend your right to participate in civil dialog--and I always emphasize how intensely--as a gentleman--I will endeavor to avoid any babyish silencing and ejection of others. I extend the hand of friendship to all, simultaneously spreading the concept of non-McCarthyism, to a tribe heretofore unfamiliar with it.

Challenging Catholics to Entertain Honor

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:27:35 PST

Religions often encourage believers to take a head-in-sand psychic stance, congratulating fellow adherents for viewing themselves as the universe's sole non-blind community. Participants seek insulation from outside inquiry.

The blogpost commends Cardinal Arinze for his 'wisdom.' I entered the fray and asked the gathered faithful the most obvious conceivable critical question: What particular sentence, within the Cardinal's statement, do you consider most insightful?

The statement is in fact quite bland and party-line and would not appear to constitute any profile in courage.

As a compliant enthusiast within a mental North Korea, your job is to constantly praise the dear leader, always ready to upstage the next guy in groveling to the boss.

When we toady as a means of bonding with coreligionists, it is irritating when non-believers point cameras at us.

The reason they can't come up with any example of Cardinal Arinze's wisdom, of course: There is none there.

Never fear: A rhetorical crutch remains ever available, to the clever Catholic: Cast aspersions and dogmatically assert a massive 'wisdom gulf' eternally dividing Catholic from atheist. Declare the topic settled.

I paraphrase Leila Miller:

No atheist could conceivably appreciate the depth of a Catholic's engulfment in 'love of wisdom.' Any statement concerning wisdom, from a Catholic to an atheist, would be a waste of time, since atheists are categorically closed to wisdom.

This from a blogger who simultaneously claims there are atheists she likes, trusts and respects.

Were Leila Miller to ask a non-believer to recommend an exceptional Hitchens video, he'd face an embarrassment of options. Once he'd settled upon some single choice--and Leila Miller had watched it, having found no admirable sentence therein--Miller might ask the non-believer to produce a wise sentence therefrom, so as to sharpen the contradiction.

It's difficult to imagine an engaged non-believer ducking such a softball.

An old favorite, of the Catholic apologist: To express a generally positive disposition to ideological engagement--while identifying disqualifying minutiae within every particular potential opening.

If any person still takes Leila Miller seriously as a diagnoser of bigotry, by all means please let's talk. She's now backed off any evidence for her sulfurous charge--though she can't bring herself to formally retract. She tells herself sophisticated bloggers don't apologize, even when wrong. (A sadly prevalent misunderstanding. /Ed.)

Another rhetorical tactic beloved by religious dogmatists is 'to flood the field.' If we must talk, let's talk about 100 issues at a time--that will easily prevent any difficult questioning.

Francis' statement is a good example: To avoid substantive discussion of the topic at hand--whether it makes sense for the Catholic Church to control a state--she puts forward a slew of other issues that might also divide us.

Prior to taking up a new debate topic, let us first agree our initial topic has been satisfactorily examined.

It is entirely fine for Leila to say, 'You know, I don't much care one way or the other, whether the Vatican enjoys state status. It could be ended tomorrow and I wouldn't give a fig. The topic bores me, in fact.' Her actual, non-paraphrased quotation: 'It's not anything I'm concerned with or which compels me at all.'

Such a conclusion is satisfactory to me--provided we acknowledge no party has been determined to have any unwholesome interest on this particular matter.

Finding an adherent Catholic who is genuinely willing to defend the faith--and respond to substantive questions--is an extreme rarity, though some evince awareness of the potential reputational damage, from hanging out a shingle saying 'I know all, I hold the keys to the universe--and I don't answer any serious questions.'

In response, some people pretend to be open to dialog, while abjuring any substantive response to any particular meaty question.

The religious person wants to assert the right to nix any or all specific questions encountered. Having successfully mau-maued his interlocutor, the religious dogmatist covets the right to be appointed sole admissible author, for any and all 'hard questions.'

Kim Jong Il has spawned a spiritual sibling.

Leila's Dishonor

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:09:18 PST

A trajectory often propels bloggers into ever more staid and predictable opinion-mongering; a strong vacuum sucks the blogger toward hyper-conventional partisan constipation.

The antidote, I've long felt, is to regularly seek out folks with whom one disagrees--and impress upon them that I strongly believe that, were we to devote and hour or two to dialog, we'd learn some seriously interesting stuff.

And we have done so here of late: A reader recommended I visit an adherent Catholic blog at which the writer welcomes interaction with non-believers and liberals.

Leila Miller and I traded some paragraphs after which she announced I was a boring, talentless anti-Catholic bigot.

When bloggers engage in above-board adversarial exchange, accusations of moral turpitude tend to crowd out other issues--and so I have drawn attention to Miller's ill-considered and as-yet unretracted bigot accusation.

To Miller's credit, she acknowledges there are decent atheists whom she respects. Miller accepts a good person can strongly reject Catholicism.

I asked Miller what sentence of mine--in her estimation--justified accusing me of bigotry?

She provided just this one snippet:

"...regurgitating such pabulum, the sheep dutifully compliment the cardinal on his supreme wisdom."

In other words, Miller finds it beyond-the-pale that I would mock her fawning commenters. Miller believes satirical commentary to be synonymous with bigotry--a ludicrous and illogical claim which can be very easily exposed:

Imagine I'm a thorny blogger who receives 5-10 comments on each post. In one post, I praise an atheist grandee--and afterwards a half-dozen comments echo my praise for the heroic skeptic.

Leila Miller then enters the comments section and mocks the previous commenters' mindless party-line goosestepping.

I--boss of the blog--enter the fray and announce:

Leila, it is entirely permissible for you to oppose my atheism: There are many religious believers who have earned my respect. But you are not one of them: You are an anti-atheist bigot. Why do I hurl such a poisonous epithet? Because you, Leila have insulted all atheists.

What would be your response? Needless to say, I would very much hope most readers would rise in defense of Leila Miller's honor, crying 'She is entirely within her rights [within the above-discussed hypothetical] to mock the commenters, particularly when her observation is spot-on.'

Were you to observe me lazily attacking Leila Miller for bigotry while failing utterly to provide rational justification for such an attack, you would be expected to drastically lower your estimation of my integrity.

Penetrating the Bubble

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:41:42 PST

On another recent Bloggingheads, Bob Wright interviews Michael Brendan Dougherty on matters relating to the papal succession.

The interview demonstrates the irritating bloodlessness, when a materialist agrees to converse with a religious believer under the understanding that religion will remain off-limits.

Within the public/media discourse concerning the papal succession, certain obvious questions cannot be asked, in polite society--to wit, Why should this man hold any public esteem?

When we consider any other unfairly-selected world leader, we seek to apply diplomatic pressure--trying to get the country to face reality: People in the internet age are simply not going to put up with a political leader who attains power by transparently illegitimate means.

As a moderate liberal nation, shouldn't America's diplomatic corps communicate to any pope--and to the world--that we'd prefer his people be allowed to select their leader via legitimate means?

When we let leading public Catholics off the hook--and agree to flatter their religion's sovereignty-based international political clout--we fail as topical voices. It should be an item of moral urgency--that we inform our adherent-Catholic fellow citizens: We believe the United States of America--to be true to our nation's proudest principles--should ask the Vatican to provide a more persuasive public position, so as to justify its continued basis in state sovereignty.

If none is forthcoming, perhaps we should begin to entertain ideas for the safest and most peaceful possible abolition of said sovereignty.

That is to say, Bob Wright and MBD are falling victim to a mental straightjacket we should come to perceive as optional: When the faithful seek public social status for their religion, our default setting should be no--unless that religion is willing to be somewhat answerable to us.

In other words, the present moment is one when our asking Catholics to justify their religious beliefs is at its cyclical peak of moral urgency: Rarely has there been a better time to have a frank conversation about the religion's central claims and political pretensions.

Mind you, the Catholics don't enjoy taking questions from non-members. In fact, the most vocal Catholics are utterly adamant: The only kind of substantive questioning non-Catholics are capable of directing at Catholics is of the ill-willed kind.

The local Catholic Church is imbued with a strong dislike of atheists. During the weekly General Intercessions, one never hears the the lector call for upgraded protection for the universal equality of human beings without regard to religious belief. You never hear a priest tell the flock:

You know, atheists regularly direct smart questions to us, and it is our moral obligation to provide persuasive responses to them--and to foreswear unwarranted personal attacks against atheists, whose integrity is so often cavalierly impugned.

So I consider my interaction with Leila Miller to constitute an implicit response to the Bob Wright / MBD diavlog, jettisoning the pussyfooting.

I non-controversially note: Non-Americans are entirely justified in taking interest in US elections. People in Paraguay are entirely within their rights to ask Americans to explain why we conduct our public life the way we do.

If we met at a bloggers' convention and you observed me speaking to a Paraguayan--and you heard me say:

You have no business asking me to justify America's foreign policy or political process, Jorge. If you object to America's government, then complain to your own political representatives. They constitute the proper channel for you to direct such questioning.

Were you to overhear me saying such a thing, I hope you would react apoplectically. Anyone can enter the conversation--your citizenship should not constitute a entry ticket or credential, in discussing US politics. To the extent America projects the image of one who resents all foreign questioning, we earn our international disapprobation.

Similarly, Leila Miller blogs in support of her adherent Catholic belief system. She claims a predisposition to be willing to submit to questions from outsiders, though she's extremely quick to shut down all discussion.

It is my belief that a strongly McCarthyite impulse suffuses adherent Catholic psychology. I believe unbiased, evidence-based social observation is capable of demonstrating this assertion.

Leila Miller holds Cardinal Arinze expresses deep wisdom, within his video, but can't be bothered to produce any particular sentence from within the brief clip, since the skeptic couldn't conceivably appreciate any scintilla of its wisdom due to his non-belief:

If you need me to "show" you wisdom, I cannot do it. We disagree fundamentally on what is wise. I made very clear that the words of the Cardinal Arinze to his people are very wise. From 3:00 on, specifically. First, the words are not meant for you. And, second, one cannot "show" wisdom to he who will not see it. So, we disagree and cannot have that discussion. You can show my your "wisdom" and I would not think it wise either. Let's go with something more objective.

Miller has finally provided this quotation to demonstrate her contention that I am an anti-Catholic bigot: "...regurgitating such pabulum, the sheep dutifully compliment the cardinal on his supreme wisdom."

I don't consider the quotation problematic. Cleansed of its rhetorical pyrotechnics, it merely communicates 'a culture of fawning toward authority and belittling genuine curiosity pervades a substantial portion of Catholicism.'

You can agree with that sentence or argue that it is untrue. It is a viewpoint widely held, among churchgoing American Catholics--who discuss it often amongst themselves. Ergo: The evidence Ms. Miller has provided in no manner buttresses her bigotry accusation.

To the dustbin!

Catholic Bubble

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:19:26 PST

I commented:

Thanks Leila.

I am a long-time enrolled member at my local Catholic Church--where I served as an altar boy have participated in numerous educational and social activities.

While a non-believer, I get along well with many adherent Catholics. I interviewed a legendary local priest for an hour, just a few weeks ago, without a moment's rancor--ending with a very cordial adieu and a handshake.

In your post, you refer to the wisdom of Cardinal Arinze. I listened to the video--and came upon no wisdom. So I ask you to quote Arinze's most wisdom-filled sentence. Once we find any person in this thread willing to post such a sentence, we can proceed to a more substantive and productive discussion. It is not fair to make me cull the video for such a sentence--as I have already tried and come up empty-handed.

Further, I note you accuse me of bigotry. Can you please quote the sentence of mine which you consider most bigoted? I take your accusation seriously--and look forward to discussing it, once you provide whatever evidence you may possess. Until then, I can only express my dismay and indignant disquiet.

I am happy to see that we agree on this important point: An upright person can strongly reject Catholicism without any bigotry or ill intent--and even earn your respect in the process.

Perhaps your accusation of 'bigotry' centers upon my contention that the process for selecting a pope lacks rational foundation.

If that is your viewpoint, I hasten to remind you that many churchgoing Catholics accept the suggestion that 'It would be an improvement were at least one woman allowed to play a role in the selection of the next pope.'

Most American Catholics--I conjecture--do not identify bigotry within that suggestion. (Should you disagree, I would be happy to conduct some field research.)

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie, MN

Fooling God

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:06:44 PST

This Bloggingheads particularly hit my sweet spot. I comment on it here:

I paraphrase Josh and Ara:

The gods of prehistory are non-ideal entities, often having multiple negative qualities. The products of deeply Abrahamic societies, we systematically overestimate the degree to which morality is conjoined to religion. In the hunter-gather tribal societies of our ancestors the gods would be feared, with religious practice centering upon placating the gods and doing what was possible to keep the gods from freaking out.

In the Abrahamic societies described in the Bible, it was morally acceptable to stone people to death for crimes such as adultery and blasphemy. As Sam Harris has said, were we to discover a hitherto unknown island on which living human beings engaged in such practices, we would feel morally obligated to invade and establish a protectorate--so appalled would we be.

And so: It has not been morality and religion that have been conjoined, within our Abrahamic epoch--it has been 'morality' and religion. The specific Biblical moral principles given priority, during most of western history, would not strike most contemporary liberal westerners as being moral at all.

The gods of prehistory have very limited omniscience. Sometimes the gods can be fooled.

Contemporary Christians also generally believe god can be fooled. Contemporary Christians claim to believe god is omniscient, yet they constantly engage in a rhetoric and practice focused upon 'displaying one's best side to god'--i.e., worshiping. If god sees all, why misrepresent one's inner dividedness?

Ara reminds us believers are thinking about lots of other things besides belief in god, when participating within their religious communities. Though it remains the case: The idea that god[s] can be spun is by no means limited to the ancient past.

Josh mentions there are non-believers who nonetheless attend religious services, as--to them--it is an emotionally rewarding means of participating in community and/or tradition, even in the absence of any magical belief.

Josh neglects mention of non-believers such as myself--people who still attend the contemporary variant of the church of their ancestors not so as to maintain a placid institutional affinity but instead to continue the argument.

The church and the skeptic are a match made in heaven--as the question-filled encounter those who pretend to be all-knowing. Frisson!

Josh says, It may be that some atheists simply don't think about religion either way. But only a small portion of atheists have an active belief There is no god.

That doesn't delineate the opinion spectrum correctly. There are people with all kinds of fuzzy ideas who consider themselves non-believers. Among the random folks I encounter (within a previously mentioned non-believer social group) some reveal considerable magic-based belief, generally with little if any push-back.

It's difficult to generalize about the mental framework of the highly non-committed majority of American non-believers--and indeed, most such individuals likely reveal quite muddled and incoherent viewpoints, when pushed.

On the opposite end of the spectrum--defining the 'harder core atheist,' we shouldn't look for those who assert There is no god. It'd be better to define the strong-atheist as she who participates online, or considers the god-descriptions and magical claims of known religions to be improbable-to-impossible, while still making no affirmative profession No god exists.

Josh refers at one point to 'very religious societies such as the United States.'

This exaggerates the depth of contemporary religious belief, in America. Pasolini engaged in hyperbole--though perhaps expressed a truth--when he said Catholicism constitutes just a thin layer in the subterranean Italian psyche. Mainstream, orthodox non-heretical Christian belief makes up just a small slice of American religious belief: Many embrace all kinds of woo-woo stuff.

Giving Thanks

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:14:26 PST

In recent months I've sometimes attended Mass at 5:15 at St. Patrick's, though this morning I went to the 9 o'clock Sunday service.

A week ago I was surprised when Fr. Rudolphi asked 'the head of household' of each family to raise their hand. The ushers then distributed forms for the Catholic Services Appeal, and Rudolphi then walked us through filling out the forms--which we were told must be completed whether or not one intended to make a contribution.

Tim and Helen Healy of St. Louis Park are the poster couple for this year's Appeal. He attended St. Patrick's, growing up--and I think we may have served as altar boys together. His parents were legendary Edinans of yore.

Fr. Rudolphi's elderly father just passed away; a visitor--Fr. Thomas Hunstiger--said this morning's Mass. Before he began we were again asked to raise a hand if we hadn't yet filled out the required Appeal form.

I observed no one raising a hand and then a youngish married parishioner walked us through filling out the form all over again--even though almost no one was actually doing the deed.

Churchgoers participate in a status hierarchy, promulgating an implicit criteria for awarding esteem to individuals and families. Apportioning honor is one of the most important communal functions of any social group.

So far as I can tell, all are welcome to attend Catholic Mass. You don't have to accept Catholicism or even Christianity. By all means, attend.

Should you embrace Catholicism for your religion? I suggest the best answer is 'no;' the religion makes many foolish ideological demands--and asks participants to take stands on matters without any evidential basis. The Church is governed employing a system of gender apartheid.

The Absolute Being, according to Catholicism, is particularly energized on matters sexual--an obsession which is a transparently man-made method of social control. The hero at your local Catholic Church is the priest--that man whose moral purity is ostensibly demonstrated by his renunciation of sexual pleasure. An extremely dubious basis for awarding moral prestige, imho.

We are hierarchical primates; social stature gets awarded whether you like it or not. When we don't award rank based upon rational, transparent, openly deliberated criteria, we award it based upon less defensible bases--sometimes even ridiculous, crazy ones.

Within the church, approbation is doled out to those who model ovine comportment. The admired individual is he who defers to--or pretends to defer to, at least--his ethical superiors.

If you consider the Church's ideological demands absurd, I suggest polite, silent protest: Read a book throughout Mass. (Kneel, stand and sit in unison with the congregation; don't hum or snore.) Reading is good for you and is often entertaining--and reading in church has an additional benefit: It is possible a nearby person will observe that you are not making the rote gestures and statements--and that person may say to himself, 'You know, an entirely reasonable person might not believe all of this tripe!'

I read from my Kindle at St. Patrick's; I've done so for a year or so and before that I'd read a book. This morning I stood to allow a pewmate access to the Communion line--and then resumed kneeling and reading. A family in the pew behind me then joined the queue--and a young woman looked sternly at me and said--loud enough for others to hear--'You know, unless you're reading the Bible, you really shouldn't be reading that during church.'

Caught off guard, I returned her look and--with neutral affect--said, 'Thank you,' and continued reading.

Potpourri

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:05:37 PST

I commented today:

Being a cardinal entails a great number of statements such as this: The church has always been correct, the message of Jesus is forever unchanging, all is always well, the Pope is wise indeed! In exchange for regurgitating such pabulum, the sheep dutifully compliment the cardinal on his supreme wisdom. Master, nothing pleases me more than groveling on my knees before thee!

..and was responded to by the blogger:

Gavin, lol, let me guess… you are not a fan of the Catholic Church? Instead of hit-and-run insults (man, are those ever easy! and oh, so boring), try to offer something for dialogue. Blessings!

Her response includes the standard McCarthyite threat: The critic's integrity must be assaulted without reprieve, starting yesterday. Deliberately disregard the commenter's central question, natch. So I reply:

The burden is on you, Leila: You are arguing Cardinal Arinze is a font of wisdom. I merely call attention to the insipidity of his words, in the clip you've posted. If you disagree, please quote the Arinze-sentence you consider most wisdom-filled.

Were we to assemble 117 eminent moral experts to select Jesus' earthly representative-for-life, would it make sense to you that not a single woman be included or considered?

The papal-selection process is a bizarre form of sausage production--one in which the fawning, flattering, subservient sheep are asked to view as being guided by the author of the universe. A special gift for gullibility would appear to be prerequisite.

So: You haven't quite closed the sale yet with me--fair enough.

Savage Alternative

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:39:41 PST

After a recent agnostic/atheist self-betterment meetup, three stragglers struck up a conversation which has reverberated in one participant's mind.

Some research has produced a quite high percentage of non-religious Americans--but (I think) the numbers of out-and-out atheists remain small. Even within self-identified non-believers one doesn't encounter much 'strong atheism,' the type that feels the need to discuss it in the open, with scant apology. Most non-believers aren't at all aggressive in pushing back against prevailing superstition and religion. They make a certain peace with their environment.

The group consists of regulars and occasional attendees, and every meeting has a few new people. Folks show up and never appear again, there's an ebb and flow, with a spectrum from old-time regular to first-time newbie. It's not as if everyone knows each other.

An occasional attendee very actively embraces 'Native American spirituality;' he knows the group isn't 'for' people like him, though he feels a certain bond given that almost all here question the culture's dominant religion.

The group welcomes people of any spiritual or religious position, though it explicitly welcomes non-believers and makes clear questioning twelver dogma is allowed.

I press him a bit on his spiritual views--and learn he really believes some stuff that I consider wrong-headed.

He believes inorganic objects possess varying degrees of soul, though he says the soul in the room's cheap carpet had been degraded during the manufacturing process. Discerning the specific soul content of individual objects is an ability he claims to possess. Some people might contain multiple souls, he says--though he brushes aside my question 'Could one person contain 100 billion souls?'

We discuss the content and meaning of 'schizophrenic.' Yes, some cultures interpret 'a schizophrenic person' as a gifted seer or shaman.

Very few societies have independently identified and embraced the scientific method, I reply--so it shouldn't surprise us that magical belief pervades traditional cultural systems. Traditional societies likely had similarly mystical explanations for multiple sclerosis, i.e.

The schizophrenia sufferer might be suffering torment for bad decision-making in a previous life, he says. Or the schizophrenic is guilty of some psychiatric error, mis-organizing thought functioning in a manner for which the sufferer himself bears responsibility. The atheist tends to consider such thinking misguided and offensive, of course.

He says he considers his spirituality far and away his most important component, though he gets his ideas from whatever source he can find--from 'anywhere in the universe' they might come from. (I believe almost every one of his ideas has its origin on one very tiny orb within that universe.)

The universe probably does care deeply about the individual and about him, he says.

This again strikes the atheist as pernicious: We have no evidence to suggest any consciousness lurking behind the universe--and observation does not suggest extraterrestrial concern for individual earthbound mammals.

The guy is polite, caring, articulate and willing to submit to questioning. Indeed, he claims ego-neutrality as regards my grilling.

When religious believers allow questioning, jump at the chance; it's fun and generally rare. Magical beliefs get weirder and sillier with each follow-up question.

The question very soon arises: If people believe bullshit, is that a bad thing?

Sparring in a Cassock

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:35:05 PST

The other day I finished reading Rediscover Catholicism, which is being instituted into local Catholic parishes as required reading.

Today I walked into Edina's largest Catholic parish, found the lanyard-issuing entryway lady--and asked if I might make an appointment to speak with the longtime lead priest. 'I've just finished reading Rediscover Catholicism, and I'd like to discuss the book with him,' I explain.

Signs and banners--inside and out--promote Rediscover Catholicism events.

As we talk, adorable uniformed schoolkids zigzag this way and that, in intoxicating waves. She advises I call and leave a message, 'and he might get back to you'--but then offers the priest's extension. 'Might I ring him from here, on your desk phone?' She complies, the mid-sixties black-cassocked pastor answers the phone--and I ask if he might be willing to allow me 15 minutes to discuss Rediscover Catholicism.

He surprises me: 'Sure, come on in, now.' I wind through an art-filled, churchy hall or two and am then led by the father's expectant personal secretary, who peeks onward, into the inner sanctum, verifying I am approved company. He reassures her, yes--and I am allowed in.

The office is (amusingly) slightly messy, I sit down and we chat for almost an hour, with complete politeness throughout, and reasonably frank. The French Revolution, the existence of God, gay rights, evolution--the usual suspects.

It's exciting, sharing the private consciousness of a person onto whom so many project fantasies of supreme integrity--a person purportedly dedicated to a radical sexual ideal.

I exercise the atheist's prerogative: When presented with an opportunity to politely poke a person who claims to have dedicated his life to mystic vision, I use it.

So: Do you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus based on evidence--or based on faith?

I've put this question to many religious people, but no cleric has been more frank in acknowledging that belief in the Resurrection is overwhelmingly a matter of faith. I have to give him props for being somewhat sophisticated: This man freely acknowledges no one is going to embrace the Resurrection of Jesus based on the evidence. Respect.

He plays the nice guy and offers an insidery observation or two. He embraces what he perceives to be a moderately liberal social outlook. When the archdiocese spent $600k trying to get Minnesotans to enshrine the ban on gay marriage into the state constitution (which, let's be honest, we haven't read), this priest would have sought a more centrist position--offering gay couples civil unions that would provide all the legal benefits and duties of heterosexual marriage but without the word 'marriage.'

His more urgent marriage concern is the high failure rate of contemporary man-woman marriages, he states.

I sometimes feel we apportion overmuch moral prestige to the married; a concern of mine during Minnesota's ongoing gay marriage debate is that--within popular culture--we too seldom ponder the positive aspects of remaining non-married. I pass along to the friar, calmly, that I don't consider his gay rights stance all that progressive.

The priest believes the strongest evidence for the existence of God is the existence of the universe. I tell him I view that as quite non-persuasive. He acknowledges many adherent Catholics--himself included--believe in the Big Bang and evolution. But when he learns I embrace thoroughgoing evolution, he offers pushback: The earth's flora and fauna couldn't completely be the result of chance.

Evolution, I rebut, isn't just chance. Our ankles are thick and our wrists are small--and that is not by chance, I remind him. If we were cavemen and you found an iPhone, he proffers, you'd have to consider that the work of God. The life-infused human body--the ecclesiastic advances--is far more complex than an iPhone.

So, as friendly as the priest is, there's a woeful insufficiency in the evolution-awareness of believing Catholics. Many of them say they accept evolution--though they think it was magically tweaked by God.

To accept evolution is to acknowledge no magical intervention is needed to explain the plants and animals around us, and us.

I don't persuade him, though he reflects the pleasure I feel in his company. He's a guy who can't help slightly respecting people who love boxing with clerics, in my above-board kind of way. A handclasp--and I am off.

Tomb Emptiness

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:38:47 PST

I complain often about others' unwillingness to dialog on issues of emphatically mutual interest. People erect false justificatory edifices, as they are embarrassed: they don't feel confident in their ability to withstand head-to-head combat, even when rules-governed. So they cook up some ad hominem.

People feel far greater anxiety about open-field repartee than they let on; conflict avoidance much pervades bloggers, too.

We deem saying nothing more honorable than stupid talk, so there's a strong incentive to remain mum. People who rock the boat inflame anxiety--and are disliked by the herd.

If you challenge a cleric, you can get them to make ridiculous statements. Where there is frisson there is fun. A widely-shared lunacy--embraced both by Catholics and Protestants--is their offering of 'the empty tomb' as strong evidence for Jesus' Resurrection.

Ministers and priests are highly shielded from open questioning, invariably viewing it impertinent, pointing an intimidating you're-weird! look at the skeptic.

My cat died. We buried it in this crypt. Look into the crypt, will you? See: It's empty.

Have I provided you with convincing evidence that my cat has been resurrected?

So even if an empty tomb actually were produced, it would constitute no evidence on behalf of a claimed resurrection.

That said, we have no evidence any empty tomb presented itself, after Jesus' non-death. We have some ancient writings, often in conflict, written by unknown non-eyewitnesses decades after the events they appear to describe, which make many magical claims.

To conclude that any naturalistically inexplicable disappearance occurred would implicitly express belief that saying things makes them so--though it's by no means clear what even is being claimed, in the good book.

Neutrality

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:44:02 PST

Imagining a fictional atheist/agnostic AA group, the daydreamer might conjure stimulating speech acts:

A first-time visitor, in a post-meeting debriefing, voices criticism:

Faith can in fact move mountains in people's lives. And even if the person doesn't even really believe--faith can still work. I've seen it happen.

'Pretending' for what audience, pray? You can't actually get yourself to believe magic stuff which you simultaneously know to be false, can you?

By the same token, churchgoers I see engage in much pretending. They claim to affirm serious religious beliefs, for example, though they are ever unwilling to defend their beliefs, under any public glare. Defining all questioning to constitute persecution, they effectively proscribe discussion and are thus sanctimonious.

Imagine someone claiming to have devoted her life to monetarism, or moral realism--yet permanently refusing to engage push-back, claiming high moral grounds. It's that silly.

'AA is a cult,' a stalwart allows, apropos conventional AA's banality and tawdry 'I flatter your psychobabble, you flatter mine' transaction, I think.

The mind-numbingly repetitive step sequence, the humility north star. To the dustbin!

A first-timer (here) believes in an ostensibly secular vision of AA as a program for religion-like spiritual uplift. Performing the steps, honestly and sincerely, can result in becoming a better person. The type of agnostic willing, despite it all, to embrace the promises--a non-believer quite friendly to prevailing pseudo-religious tripe, i.e.

Our fellow citizens engage in a great deal of personal testimony crediting themselves with recent effortful moral accomplishment, even zen masters generously produce the trope. Such statements should be received with skepticism; the more you respect the person, the colder shall be your stare.

Idea interchange can't be taken seriously when occurring within a setting that presumptively outlaws challenge; a community that dishonors mutual criticism tends to barrenness.

I recite a terse gavinism: You ought to read the big book at least once, cover to cover. You can gain some useful information from it. ('You will learn how schmaltzy and stifling is the organization's ideological content and tone,' I of course mean.) They appear to think I'm requesting they take the volume straight; could they conceivably know me so little?

Fr. Rudolphi:

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:30:17 PST

Twin Cities Catholic church-goers were recently provided with gift-wrapped paperbacks of Rediscover Catholicism--which I've just started. Parishioners have been prodded to read RC--St. Patrick's is even sponsoring 'book groups' for parishioners to discuss the volume.

Rediscover Catholicism, by Australian 'motivational speaker' Matthew Kelly, purports to be a serious Catholic's grappling with the sharp decline in the prestige of his Church, the palpable theological softening and retrenchment among clerics and laity and the ever sparser attendance, particularly of the young.

Kelly provides his troubling response: He believes the only plausible 'morally serious' reflection, upon liberal Western society, is revulsion. He compares the number of abortions performed in America to the number of Jews Hitler exterminated, finding us many times worse.

The challenge to Catholicism--per Kelly--is a sick, corrosive culture and the dishonest, insidious secularism constantly seeking to beat belief ever further from the public square.

Archbishop Nienstedt approves--we infer--the viewpoint that folks have left the Church for two primary reasons: laziness and ignorance. With the diocese's imprimatur, 'the Church' is essentially speaking to us, in Rediscover Catholicism, in contemporary-sounding language informing us that non-believers are dumb or really bad people.

In some respects Kelly mirrors my own viewpoint: I think considerable prejudice gets visited upon non-believers--while excessive social prestige gets apportioned to church-going Catholics. Were someone on their side to express interest in dialog, a fruitful conversation might ensue. It's a pity their purity cannot withstand interaction with one of us.

Kelly does not believe critics of Catholicism have put forward any trenchant questions over which his audience must grapple. Non-believers are tricky and clever pests that deserve semi-concealed sneers from kneelers.

If Matthew Kelly speaks for you, Fr. Rudolphi, then I would like to issue a few sentences in response:

I strongly oppose religious prejudice and hope to persuade you of my sincerity on this point. If you observe my voicing any over-the-line generalized attack on the integrity of religious believers, by all means let me know. By the same token, if you believe all secularist criticism of Catholicism to constitute ignorance and/or prejudice, please let me know so that I can quote to you from my several unanswered emails to you, over the past two years.

Fr. Rudolphi, it is not in fact illegitimate questions that you disdain--it's the fair ones that most consistently raise your dismissive ire.

During a recent funeral, you assured the grieving kin that they will be reunited as a family in heaven.

What is your source, biblical or otherwise, for the information that families get reconstituted in eternity? Is it in fact approved doctrine--that priests such as you know who will gain admittance into heaven, and how the heavenly will elect to sort themselves?

Corresponding With Father

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:56:20 PST

The other day I emailed a Catholic priest who is the son of an acquaintance:

Hello Fr. X,

I happened to attend a Mass you said at St. X's a year or two ago, and am just now getting around to asking you a question. I too grew up in Z, though I think I'm a dozen years older than you.

Do you believe in Jesus' Resurrection based on evidence--or entirely based upon faith?

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie, MN

You can read his reply here. While he quotes lengthily from Catholic authorities, here is the substantial portion he himself wrote:

You ask perhaps the most central question regarding the claims of Christianity.

I believe Jesus rose from the dead based on faith that (1) does not contradict reason and (2) presupposes reasonable argument.

I reply:

I enjoy questioning religious people--and having them explain why they believe what they believe.

And so yes--I succinctly put to you 'perhaps the most central question regarding the claims of Christianity.' I'm glad we agree upon the parameters and the weightiness of our topic.

I'm also pleased we're engaging, with civility and politeness, across the belief/non-belief divide. I've long felt people who have religious disagreements should reach out across that chasm--and trade meaty questions with the smartest people from the other side. I think it is possible we might learn important stuff as a result of such intercourse.

So--to review again--I asked you on what foundation do you base your belief in the Resurrection of Jesus? Faith or evidence?

You believe--you reply--in the Resurrection based on faith that 'does not contradict reason.'

What do we know about the Resurrection, when we disregard magic and adopt a neutral outlook--and go wherever the historical evidence takes us?

When we engage in a purely reason based investigation, we must score the likelihood of any actual Resurrection very close to zero, no? I mean, we have no evidence whatsoever, do we?

If you think there is one single strong piece of evidence buttressing the Resurrection, can you please bring it to my attention?

Warmest regards,

Gavin

Assume the Position

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:22:10 PST

A leader of one far-away atheist/agnostic AA Group begins each meeting reciting a statement of values and practices, including the claim--I paraphrase--'while the group welcomes non-believers, it does not endorse atheism or oppose religious belief--it welcomes people without regard to their belief or non-belief.'

Sometimes religious believers show up; sometimes people arrive expecting a vanilla AA meeting--though our observer has never seen anyone react rudely or with great shock upon becoming aware of the group's unusual slant.

Interacting with the dozen or so regulars for some months, not one takes a strong atheistic cultural stand. Not an attendee shows any awareness or interest in the webstars of atheism. The members often show tolerance and understanding toward members who are 'grappling emotionally' in their effort to comply with AA's multiple mental and behavioral demands.

Such interior struggle is unnecessary, as it represents a cowardly submission to the moralistic blackmailing by the supporters of superstition. If you've read Ch. 4 of the Big Book--or the twelve steps--you know AA's central texts equate 'higher power' with monotheistic God. The book suggests the reader entertain abject submission to a fictional entity, forever.

When bullyragged within such social situations, the atheist has a proudly oppositional reply: 'We don't think groundless superstition shows much real promise, as a moral bedrock upon which to build a rewarding life.'

Our man thinks--as he listens to the leader, reading the weekly disclaimer--it is not quite true: we cannot sincerely promise to be neutral with regard to the adoption of evidence-free magical and historical claims. We cannot feign impassivity when asked if we consider it wise to base one's life on bullshit. We're not really looking for something to put into the bullshit slot in our lives.

Religious gente propound the viewpoint 'believing my religion makes you a better person.' The atheist cannot help but answer, 'A decent society should not pressure folks to feel better about themselves for cultivating superstition.'

One encounters many, within conventional AA meetings, who claim to have progressed from religious apathy or non-belief to devotional fervor, in sobriety. The organization implicitly steers members precisely in this bearing--a foolishly biased set of public values engenders a preponderance of falsehood-spreading members.

The meme itself, of course, has no conscience.

Humanizing the Religious

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:29:14 PST

Today I came across a passage in Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church discussing Sr. Christine Schenk, one of the founders of FutureChurch--'an organization [quoth Wiki] that advocates for women's ordination and an end to mandatory priestly celibacy within the Roman Catholic Church.'

Born in 1946, by the late '60s the impassioned ultralib Catholic Schenk has a crisis of faith.

As author Jason Berry puts it, 'In the social tumult of the 1960s, Chris Schenk's notion of a loving God "clashed with America's role in the Vietnam war, rampant racism and urban riots."'

The sentence exemplifies that pervasive, sentimental cultural phenomenon: 'You get to select whatever flavor God you like.'

Here of late we have observed the identical assumption within Alcoholics Anonymous--explicitly instructing members to define 'a loving god' however they like.

This odd folk belief enjoys great currency within prevailing popular culture. We all get to author whatever magical life we like--and it's a Very Important Thing we take a hands-off policy toward the disneyworlds of others.

If you define god according to idiosyncratic whim, on what basis should others consider it plausible? If you feel no need to defend the truthfulness of your magical claims, skeptics will have difficulty discerning your seriousness.

Plagued by cosmological doubt while attending nursing school at Georgetown, a Jesuit chaplain snaps Schenk back into her energetic Catholic belief--by asking her 'What would it mean if you found that God did exist?'

Dubious 'unavoidable conclusion' in-coming: 'She knew immediately: she would dedicate her life to that Being, try to bring love to a sinful world.' [p209]

If one day you decide God exists, you'll still need to come up with reasons for why to worship God. Believing that God exists is not self-proving: People will expect you to provide persuasive reasons in support of such belief.

On what evidential basis might one define a supreme being's will? Why would learning of God's existence or non-existence impact one's desire to reduce the suffering of the bottom billion?

Berry thinks he's humanizing Schenk when he asks us to accept a polite-bullshit 'intellectual justification' for the nun's embrace of devout, full-time Catholicism. He'd be more humanizing were he to admit 'Young Schenk became an impassioned, professional Catholic for the usual tangle of cultural reasons. Evidence played no role at all.'

The Mass-attending Atheist

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:44:00 PST

When I feel like it, I attend Mass at St. Patrick's, even though I am not a believer. Sometimes people ask why. Sometimes Catholics ask why I attend Mass: They harbor a supposition it's a bad thing that an atheist should regularly attend their church.

They haven't entirely decided, though they suspect an atheist who attends Mass is a bad person. A good atheist would know better than to do that.

I beg to differ: I can think of many good reasons for atheists to go to church. It's a good thing to listen to the magical and moral beliefs of your neighbors. Attending a local church will provide one with genuinely interesting sociological information about his community, and by extension about his nation and his times. The Catholic church claims to welcome everyone.

When I attend Mass I arrive on time and do not leave early. I'm entirely polite and do not call attention to my atheism, though I don't genuflect or go to Communion. I silently read a book throughout and don't pray or recite anything--though I kneel, sit and stand along with others.

Some practicing Catholics feel discomfort over my attending Mass--as they perceive me emitting a rebuke. I consider that charge unfair and rude.

When we interact with our neighbor we have a moral obligation to refrain from ascribing ill character without first examining the most obvious arguments against ascribing ill character. We have an obligation to give the person being judged the benefit of doubt: When judging the character of others we should be hypersensitive to avoid politically-motivated and status-based appraisals.

Among themselves, Catholics occasionally trade in dismissive and pejorative statements about those who have left the faith. The Mass-attending lapsed Catholic presents an implicit push-back against his neighbors' ill-considered judgments. He left the faith for entirely justifiable and sound reasons, thank you.

The Mass-attending non-believer forces them to ask, 'Just how persuasive should my religion likely appear, in an unbiased observer's perspective?'

Let me provide a sincere answer to the urgent question I've just mind-read in you:

The unbiased observer does not identify any remote evidence- or ethics-based justification for adopting the Catholic religion.

Attending Mass arms one nary a whit in preparation for defending the faith against good-willed challenge. Catholic private education doesn't give believers much ammunition either. Hence the need to demonize the ex-Catholic in order to justify their hair shirt refusal to entertain his questions.

The unbiased non-believer can surmise many cultural reasons for adopting the Catholic religion, of course.

Calhoun

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:11:34 PST

Someone is said to have recently attended AA at the Minnesota Zen Center, led by a local Guiding Teacher:

We begin with 20 minutes of meditation, occasionally narrated by the guide. She takes questions a bit; it is a formal master-student relationship, occasionally crisp but friendly. I am a bit distrustful entering into this kind of thing: Teacher-exaltation, taken to excess, can impede instructional success.

Some of the master's words ring a bit hollow: Her present gig--she tells--requires frequent out-front leadership. Were there any business CEO's present? Surely they could relate.

An AA meeting in which almost no member-to-member sharing takes place, beyond the occasional hello from person to person before and after the irregularly-timed, pleasantly lengthy event, just about full with forty or fifty participants.

An expression-type one frequently hears, within self-help groups: 'Not long ago, my life was really shitty but I've recently achieved a new plateau, thanks to some courageous life decisions.' This class of statement can often spin on for many minutes--and our Guiding Teacher gave a quite heartfelt and unabbreviated rendition.

There is the assumption of god belief here, the master makes occasional reference to AA's steps and slogans. Given the hierarchical tone, it might even be more difficult here, to challenge the Big Book's offensive sentences.

Attending leaves one, nonetheless, with a self-flattering 'purified' feeling, though an oblique way to go about addressing the affliction.

AA Without Baedeker

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:07:45 PST

Thanks to CherryBomb for a thought-provoking comment concerning Alcoholics Anonymous.

We both acknowledge AA grew out of a predecessor and underwent--and undergoes--a process of evolution. Alcoholics Anonymous' 12 Steps emerged from some other list that predated AA. That the steps have been around for a considerable period of time is not an argument in favor of their validity or the precision of their wording.

Alcoholics Anonymous' ideology often constitutes a form of Newspeak: Its texts are held to be supremely insightful and above criticism, within most AA meetings.

AA professes to urge people to update their thinking when their views have been demonstrated wrong. AA texts include many wrong and prejudiced ideas, but the organization and its most dependable members insist it will never change.

Hypocrisy rules in AA due in part to the success with which AA has banned discussion of its hypocrisy.

To reply to your comment on the Big Book's Chapter Five: The author of The Vicious Cycle fails to demonstrate credible skepticism:

He said something about God or a Higher Power, but I brushed that off--that was for the birds.

The skeptic does not base his rejection of religion upon ridicule. He bases it upon religion's lack of evidence.

The quoted sentence demonstrates the editor misunderstands what skepticism is. The Big Book is wrong--and AA members should promptly admit it. They won't, because honesty is against the rules.

Thank you likewise, CherryBomb, for drawing attention to AA's God as we understood God dodge.

Atheists generally do not see the utility of requesting that all believe in whatever God they like. We tend instead to prefer people be asked to value truth--and to dispassionately weigh the evidence, directing considerable skepticism at magic-based claims.

Perhaps you agree with me: You observe that there is no credible evidence for the existence of god, but you think believing in an imaginary god has utility--as it can be used to help alcoholics achieve sobriety.

If that is your belief, please say so. Then we can have a straightforward discussion concerning whether we want to believe falsehoods in order to live more happily, a debate in which I will very proudly defend the negative.

If on the contrary you believe god exists and he is anything we desire him to be, we can then discuss that assertion.

The atheist is generally not complaisant concerning society's religious tenor: He believes it would be a good thing were more people willing to look skeptically at their magical beliefs--and that if they employed gentle skepticism, folks would accept far fewer magical claims. The atheist believes magic-based thinking exacerbates many social ills.

The personal stories in the big book do not inspire me. Their Readers Digest voice sets me on edge--and never sounds credible. If you are aware of an alcoholic who believes 'no one gets me--i'm an incurable mess,' please introduce that person to me; I have not encountered such an individual. Nor am I convinced self-forgiveness constitutes a central need, in responding to alcohol addiction.

You are naive if you believe Alcoholics Anonymous welcomes all. AA announces quite loudly non-believers are dishonorable and stupid. If you doubt me on this point, please re-read Chapter 4.

AA is highly subsidized--with many churches hosting AA meetings while charging far below market rents--and many court judgments requiring people to attend AA, whether they like it or not.

But even with AA's massive subsidization its success rate is not very impressive.

Contra Boosterism In Print

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:22:30 PST

The Star Tribune recently profiled a handicapped blogger for whose 'positive attitude' and 'sense of humor' Erin Adler vouches.

Today I glanced at his blog.

This does not in fact constitute an important local blogging voice.

The two Eden Prairie newspapers frequently flatter shitty writers in order to advance some noble social objective or other. It is irritating when the state's primary newspaper engages in such nonsense.

A blogger need not feel required to evince a positive attitude. To credit a writer with 'a sense of humor,' I require considerably abler tickling than I see on his blog.

Sentient adult critical assessment, of a blogger, must prioritize compellingness of voice and writing skill. To list any positive qualities of a blog while sidestepping compellingness of voice and writing quality is to engage in boosterism disguised as journalism.

To the dustbin!

Doing It Loud

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:12:50 PST

A respected person recommended An Atheists Unofficial Guide to AA - for Newcomers:

I lead an agnostic/atheist AA group and have found this book to be a great source of discussion topics. It is well-organized and easy to read. It has excellent advice on how to work the program without having to believe that "God" or a supernatural "Higher Power" is the only route to recovery.

The reviewer assumes participating in AA to be a worthwhile time investment, as a means of addressing the difficulty he has experienced in refraining from drinking.

The atheist feels resistant to even pretending any magic-based 'higher power' must play some role. The non-believer is aware in other circumstances the religious consistently oversell belief in God. So he has come to insist such benefits be enumerated and discussed, prior to being granted credence.

I resist attempting to believe something that isn't true and consider it unsporting to insist other adults must adopt false beliefs as a step toward purifying the moral environment.

The sentient atheist notices a central tenet of 'the AA program' is not defensible. The call to embrace a higher power forever relegates AA's non-believers to second-class citizen status--a thuggish, reason-free attack upon the honor of non-believers.

Observing AA's pervasive religious prejudice, the atheist participant must call for organizational reform--for the renunciation of magic-based bias.

AA discussion oft returns to the gratitude the member feels for 'the miracle of AA' and the miraculous sentences found in the movement's central texts. We'd be better off asking how the organization has become as successful as it has despite having such bad ideas, so inelegantly expressed.

When we ponder a successful social movement and ask how it became thus, we must bat away the self-promoting propaganda. AA's marketing department has How it Works, that orgy of insipidity, for the gullible.

When a non-believer casually refers then to 'working the AA program,' we must inquire what such a project entails. What's the minimal departure from orthodoxy that would prevent one from being able to claim he is 'working the program'?

To brass tacks: What would it mean to do any step, and why would one want to do it?

¡Benildismo ya basta!

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:59:01 PST

A year ago I attended an open house at Providence Academy. At such events you first meet en masse and then in a smaller, age-specific group, you're shuntered from classroom to classroom, hearing brief presentations from well-scrubbed staff.

At Providence, I sensed a whiff of full-throated Catholic craziness, as when I met Providence's lead theology teacher, who believes accepting evolution's truth undermines morality. Interacting with the Providence community, I learned many people there reject evolution; a lot of extreme ignorance holds sway at the school.

This evening I attended a similar event at Benilde St. Margaret's, where I followed the junior high school track--pretending I was considering enrolling my now-sixth grader.

Three students perform a relentlessly cheerful advertisement/skit. An older instructor leads us in prayer. The principal welcomes us at some length, mentioning the school--in addition to academics, sports and clubs--emphasizes diversity, multiculturalism and 'gender fairness.'

Chatting with the principal later one-on-one, over a chocolate chip cookie, I ask if he gives good marks to the Catholic Church, in the realm of gender fairness. He gets the joke and giggles knowingly. He mentions the school has had openly gay students and they are welcome and treated with full respect.

'And they're taught to embrace a life of unending abstinence, do I have that right?'

No, they're not taught that. Nor are students taught that there are good reasons for having a celibate, all-male priesthood. Nor are they taught that 'masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder.'

The Catholicism on offer at BSM is invariably tolerant, friendly, moderate and non-dogmatic: If you disagree, fine, we can still be friends.

The teachers at Benilde have decided to soft-pedal or remain silent on their church's nuttier beliefs, yet the outright rejection of religion remains undiscussible.

A biology teacher speaks about the central priorities for seventh grade: understanding the components, properties and reproduction of the cell, the dissection of earth worms, more. A geology teacher talks of her gig, passing around some cool rocks. After my group exits, I ask the two teachers, flat out: 'Do you teach students that evolution is true?'

The biology teacher looks at me and says, 'Yes, we do. And we teach the real age of the earth, and that kind of thing too.'

'No if's, and's or but's?' I cross-examine.

'No,' they return, completely amicably.

The history and social studies teachers suggest they might interject some Catholic content into their lessons. When they discussed the 2012 presidential election, they spoke about the church's position on abortion but allowed students to make up their own minds.

The religion and morality teacher explains and demonstrates a major small group project her students recently completed: To make tv commercials and print advertisements to get young people to attend church more often.

Before leaving I chat with an attractive, hip-seeming Protestant Benilde mom who strongly recommends the school. Sensing my sensitivity she reassures me there's almost no religious lunacy going on here.

She has a [non-Benilde] daughter who is going through a period of intense religious questioning--a girl who announced she would not go through confirmation. 'But we're confident she'll eventually find some meaningful spiritual path, possibly not even Christian. She'll believe in something--I'm confident she won't end up an atheist.'

There's one thing that slightly rubs her the wrong way, at Benilde, despite her effusive praise: About 20% of BSM students aren't Catholic, though all are required to attend weekly Mass--and when they file up for Communion, row by row, non-Catholic students are asked to cross their arms upon their chests, signifying submissive non-participation, exposing non-Catholic students to a subdued, unspoken ritualized exclusion or humiliation.

She's attended Mass herself and is offered Communion--is not asked to perform the noli me tangere gesture--even when she has informed the priest she is not Catholic.

If you think gays and gay marriage should be welcome in the Catholic Church, that women and the married should be allowed to become priests, that pornography, masturbation, oral and anal sex are fine when consensual, that evolution is true, that the Church has much to apologize for, that reasonable people can prefer abortion to be legal everywhere, that any social stigma attached to divorce should be eliminated, that the Pope should be democratically elected, etc--are you really a Catholic?

The Afterlife

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:34:43 PST

To my acquaintance the Catholic priest who knows who he is,

A post or two ago, I commented on what I'd observed at a recent funeral at which two locally famous priests formed the supporting cast while you officiated.

I wondered why the deceased was receiving such high honor, as I knew him quite superficially. In your eulogy, you made clear this was due to the deceased's having volunteered intensively at parish events--and by implication, perhaps a financial contributor too.

Seems a bit funny, if that's the justification for the high exaltation. I'd have expected some more dramatic tale illustrating ethical mettle.

I'm quite sure I heard you praising the deceased for having lived admirably, publicly affirming he is now in heaven--and that one day the family will be reunited there with da.

The funeral is a time when your profession is ostensibly begged to engage in hyper-ideological public statements. In today's post I'm communicating to you that, going forward, you should not feel required to spew this type of bullshit when I am present--as I'd prefer to view you an upright person.

To be clear, I am in no way assessing the specific life to which we recently bid adieu. I've attended a handful of funerals in recent years, and I've heard the same themes repeated, in each case, by the officiating priest. (Each time, the deceased has been 'exceptionally giving' and a moral paragon.)

When people are serious about appraising the ethical character of an individual, they invite negative assessments of the person--and even offer protections to folks who come forward with dirt.

Needless to say, in your funeral duties, you're not engaging in any actual judgment of the deceased--you're simply telling everyone that's what your doing. One reason I am not a priest is because I'd feel uncomfortable saying the kind of stuff you say.

There was a time when a Catholic priest resolutely refused to issue any statement of this kind, presiding over a funeral--and felt no need to issue a personalized endorsement of the character of the just-ended life, would have found it tasteless for a Catholic officiant to assert the deceased 'now resides in heaven' and that the family 'will one day be reunited' in the afterlife.

If a judging, morally serious god existed, I quite doubt she'd score our lives on your easy curve.

Who's to say family relations remain important in the afterlife? In a utopian society, one would find quite little need for the shielding confines of family, would one?

Higher Power

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:29:46 PST

One noted here recently Alcoholics Anonymous is an explicitly anti-atheist organization. It does not merely consider the atheist philosophically misguided--it affirms the atheist is a self-deluded, dishonest jerk:

We finally saw that faith in some kind of God was a part of our make-up, just as much as the feeling we have for a friend. Sometimes we had to search fearlessly, but He was there. He was as much a fact as we were. We found the Great Reality deep down within us. In the last analysis it is only there that He may be found. It was so with us.

Alcoholics Anonymous embeds a rhetorical bait-and-switch, first asking one to feel free to adopt any positive god definition one likes, then 'surrendering' and turning one's life over to this 'higher power.'

Obedient participants occasionally remind others: One's higher power can be an inanimate object, 'the group,' or even 'nature.'

It would be problematic to select the room's doorknob as one's higher power: It would be obvious to all you were not seriously attempting to believe the doorknob held any magical power in your life.

The requirement one identify a higher power does not in fact have any acceptable answer, for the honest non-believer, who feels the need to author imaginary friends is best confined to childhood.

Problems arise also if your higher power is 'the group.' There's no justification for ascribing magical power to this changing set of individuals. The fact that a group of people stirs you emotionally does not constitute evidence of its magical power.

It puzzles us too that someone would equate her higher power with nature--an entity that includes rot, decay and violence, and could hardly exclude cancer, AIDS and the ravages of aging. There is simply no evidence-based reason for believing nature or the universe holds any viewpoint on the value of our lives--or upon any other topic.

The atheist distrusts the religious person's stated desire for submission--as he views it as insincere, as is evidenced by the religious person's frequent stupid maligning of the non-believer.

It may well make sense for alcohol-addicted people to meet regularly with each other, to address the disorder. Accepting this commonsense notion in no way necessitates any magical belief or any dubious narrative of 'spiritual progress'--let alone any prejudice against the non-superstitious.

The Dead

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:22:03 PST

Funerary customs seem odd and yet are often memorable. Today I attended an open-casket wake and funeral, where it was claimed--by officiant and eulogist--that the deceased now resides in heaven. We will one day join him there.

The day will one day arrive when people will feel less obligated to say crazy things into microphones, every time a person dies. We certainly do not know any afterlife exists--and 'in fact, the Bible reveals very few concrete details about heaven, the afterlife and what happens when we die.'

The weirdness stems in part from the popular belief that we get to choose whatever afterlife we like. The atheist is therefore fairly criticized for his 'smallness of vision,' admitting as he does that the evidence for any afterlife is zero. How stingy.

The other aspect of the custom seems reasonably above-board: The posting of photos of the deceased, the recounting of a buffed-up biography, the intermingling of folks from our pasts, albeit noncommittally. At the funeral we ought to be communing with each other, not pretending we're doing anything of extra-reputational benefit to the dead.

The hardcore magic stuff--the display of the body 'sleeping' and 'at peace,' the slow motion wafting of incense-smoke over the casket, the public personal claims to having knowledge of the afterlife--atheists shouldn't do anything to stop such silliness, other than to publish the occasional carping blogpost.

Speaking with two 80ish mothers this afternoon, both ultraliberal Catholics, I remind them of the unlikelihood of today's Mass' implicit magical claim, each still feels confident that an afterlife exists, though it seems they only think 'claiming to be religious' represents an admirable maturity-in-the-face-of-life. I ply them with 'pretending to believe things no one can know should not be considered a criterion in the assessment of others' moral fitness'--to no benefit beyond my fun.

They think, Gavin's weird, and we go get coffee.