23 Dec 2006
Against my better judgement -- because I was pretty sure that it would end with me yelling at the TV in frustration -- I watched one of the Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days documentaries, which involved an atheist woman (Brenda) staying for 30 days with a devoutly Christian couple (Michael and Tracy). Actually, it was pretty interesting for the most part. The Christian couple were intelligent and reasonably open-minded (though Michael made some rather shockingly intolerant comments when discussing the "In God We Trust" phrase on dollar notes), so there was less overt conflict than you might have expected. But one particular comment made my jaw drop to the floor. When Brenda's husband and children came to visit her, Tracy commented -- with palpable shock and surprise -- that Brenda seemed to really love her children and be a good mother.
What did she expect? Did she think that atheists neglect and beat their children and feed them crack? Did she think that without a belief in God, people must be immoral? Other conversations with people in Michael and Tracy's church revealed that this was quite a common belief. I find that frightening and sad. Frightening for obvious reasons, but sad because it implies that people like Michael and Tracy are infantilized. It seems that they believe they need a higher power (or his representatives in the form of the clergy) to tell them how to behave properly, and that if they did not have this, they might behave badly.
It seems to be another instance of a religion treating its followers as children -- something I've talked about before. It's just not true, in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that humans, on average1, naturally behave in a moral way and always have done, irrespective of any religious or secular laws. There's a lot of experimental evidence to suggest that we naturally behave fairly towards other individuals, empathise with the plight of other humans (and even other species), and basic biology would suggest that it is in our own interest to treat our children well. Of course, there are wars (regrettably there seems to be a big difference in the way that humans treat other known individuals and anonymous, distant groups), but it's not as if religious moral strictures have a great record of preventing armed conflict.
I'll leave the last word to Sadie (age 2), who has a excellent counter-argument to a heckling little boy, who accuses her of being "a baby". You tell 'em, Sadie. And a peaceful and harmonious Christmas to everyone.
1 Of course, there will always be a minority of humans (both atheist and religious), who behave badly. ↑
2
Christian fundamentalism is rapidly catching other varieties of fundamentalism. It is part of the "You are special. everybody else is damned" attitude which is the basis of re-energised religions. The Anglican church in the UK has atrophied over the last 30 or 40 years as it is "All inclusive" in the sense that everything is tolerated, all is forgiven, it is seemingly against nothing; no crime cannot be forgiven, all ills can be accommodated; there is to the disinterested and uninterested nothing really positive about it at all. The new, born again are against those that are not for them. At its best it is a mild form of brainwashing and may indeed be life enhancing, at its worse it takes over the lives and souls of those who follow. Personally I do not believe that there is a ghost in the machine, but I am willing to concede that others do, and that they have a perfect right so to do, and would not dream of stopping them. What I do object to is the "Offensive", in the tactical sense, nature of some of the activity, not just suicide bombings, but the WACO cult type of activity. Rant over - Happy Christmas.by Jonathan Briggs @ 23/12/2006 9:26 pm • Permalink
3
I just finished reading a book by Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation. (He's an atheist.) Actually, Jonathan, he's not so cool with the "live and let live" thing because it has allowed, in the United States at least, the Christian right to start influencing, if not actually taking over, alarmingly large institutions of government here, in this country where there is still nominal separation of church and state. And he points out that religious tolerance in Europe has permitted the rise of extremism, albeit Muslim this time. Atheists are the minority in the United States most likely to be reviled and feared, according to some polls. So, yes, I think fundamentalist Christians think they eat their young...4
Actually, I find your post quite sad. Christians don't need someone to tell them what to do because they are children. They choose to believe that their wants and needs are not the center of the universe. They actually find it comforting to believe that the creator of all things cares about them and loves them. And by the way, the Consitution of the US does NOT call for separation of church and state. It says that you may not create a "national" church. It was an activist Supreme Court that chose to create law rather than interpret it, that led to people thinking that somehow the state can't allow any Christian activities. You have interesting posts from other atheists here, but do not seem to see how blind equally bigoted you are in your reaction to Christians.by Teri Pittman @ 25/12/2006 7:05 pm • Permalink
5
Teri, Your last sentence seems to have got a little disordered - I don't think anyone has criticised any religion with regard to bsag's original posting; but they may have criticised elements of fundamentalism which have crept in round the fringes. I find no objection to the moral and social tenets of Christianity, and it is perfectly possible to live life that way without being a signed-up member. Living a law abiding, charitable and compassionate life is not the sole province of Christians, nor of any other religion for that matter, it is intrinsic to the nature of humanity, it is part of the normal expression of enlightened self interest. The 01:00 GMT weather forcast has now finished, so back to the cricket............by Jonathan Briggs @ 26/12/2006 1:58 am • Permalink
6
Teri: Like Jonathan, I'm not quite sure who your comments were directed at, but let's assume that they were directed at my original post. You say "Christians don't need someone to tell them what to do because they are children.", but that's not what I said at all. I wouldn't presume to make such a sweeping statement about all Christians, and I didn't say they *were* children, just that their religion had put them into a childlike role. I was making a comment about this couple in particular: "it implies that people like Michael and Tracy are infantilized." My surprise was caused by the fact that I'd never heard views of that kind from Christians of my acquaintance before, and because the couple themselves were clearly intelligent, educated and nice people. As for a 'blind' and 'bigoted' reaction to Christians, well, you'd have to ask my practising Catholic husband about that. I respect his belief, he respects my absence of belief, and we both recognise that we have far more in common as humans than differences caused by our beliefs, and that was the point I was trying to make. I didn't say anything about the separation of church and state, so I can't comment on that.by bsag @ 26/12/2006 10:41 am • Permalink
7
I've experienced much of this in my life too. I was raised in an Irish catholic family and in my teens started to take a different viewpoint on the world and religion as they did. Since then I've gotten married and started my own family, and dealing with my family on the topic of religion has been quite fascinating. A common thread in beliefs among Irish catholics (and seemingly other countries too) is that before christianity swept across (i.e. forceably took over) the country everyone who lived there was a slobbering idiot who'd sacrifice their family members to their "false gods" for a few pieces of gold. I've been told my child is "like the beasts" because he hasn't been baptised and if he dies before he is that he'll burn in hell. I'm sorry, no. If there is a god (I'm mostly athiest while my wife is pagan) I don't think she'd be so ignorant as to send an infant to "hell" just because it hadn't been given a man-made ceremony. Thanks, but I've had enough exposure to cults.by Damien McKenna @ 26/12/2006 3:46 pm • Permalink
8
Good to hear you're not working them on X-mas :D9
A friend of mine noticed a similar thing with a problem page in one of the national papers (possibly The Observer) - the idea that because someone is an atheist they therefore don't have morality, or a different morality, towards subjects like relationships. I had an argument with a vicar over that - his view was 'how can humans decide what is moral' and my point was that they did - unless you have had a direct revelation from God, then you're basically living by a book written by other people. (And one that is heavily edited and selectively interpreted at that).by JulesLt @ 27/12/2006 9:10 pm • Permalink
10
thanks man! happy new year!11
>It seems to be another instance of a religion treating its followers as children hmm. while having the same reaction as you to the over-simplification, i think you might have fallen in to the same trap: looking for a big neat external cause. i tend to see it more the other way round. these people are looking for a mechanism that both simplifies the world and provides high self-righteousness (a proxy for status). religion fits, for these 2. for others, political correctness is the preferred vehicle. or family values. or whatever. in a broader context, you'll note the most successful group memes are those which most closely fit mass individual desires. but they sit at the overlap of existing forces, rather than themselves forcing people to behave that way. that is, individual actors choose their own actions, rather than fall through life the unwilling and helpless puppets of controlling forces. what you see in aggregate is the sum of individuals' choices. where a would-be controlling force deviates too far from individuals' own motivations, it is ignored or even rebelled against. (you're raised in a christian country, so you kill homosexuals as the bible says, right? ...) a CLEVER meme will align its goals with existing drives. static memes (eg most political parties, the death penalty) will grow or shrink in uptake according to how closely the current population's drives match the meme's characteristics. the most successful memes historically are those that align themselves with fundamental drives, such as reproduction. ergo, ballet & pornography, and religion & politics (looking at the twin physical and status aspects of reproductive "success", respectively) equivalent parables: • "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" • The Northwind & The Sun (wikipedia) " The North Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger, when a traveler came along wrapped in a warm cloak. They agreed that the one who first succeeded in making the traveler take his cloak off should be considered stronger than the other. Then the North Wind blew as hard as he could, but the more he blew the more closely did the traveler fold his cloak around him; and at last the North Wind gave up the attempt. Then the Sun shined out warmly, and immediately the traveler took off his cloak. And so the North Wind was obliged to confess that the Sun was the stronger of the two. " to put it another way, religion offered these 2 the opportunity to behave in an infantile way. they took the opportunity.12
This notion that atheists may be amoral also betrays a back to front understanding of religion. The reason why religious texts tend to encourage us to be good to each other is because that is how we have evolved to succeed. There's a fair amount for evidence for this, and loads of great theories. However the simplest tets of how nature requires us to cooperate is the effect that conflict has on our health. In short it makes us ill, whilst the more pleasant approach is good for out health.13
I gave your post a try but i couldn't even read the whole thing. It's too messy.by Enzymatic Therapy @ 26/06/2007 3:37 pm • Permalink
1
1. Sadie is great. 2. I always find it interesting that people need someone to connect with higher power (if they belive in it's existance - of course). I guess and hope that this is a lonely example and that usualy religious people don't act like you described. OK, you can always find some strange people (or should I say humansby b0j3 @ 23/12/2006 7:38 pm • Permalink