This morning my train entered a reception hole, I had no data connection, so no twitter with which to twit. Consequently I figured I might as well subject you to my meandering waffle. 
With some more added this afternoon, herewith a Friday blither 
I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of god, and religion, and religious people, and the pope/Catholic Church’s continued execrable actions in putting the Church above people, and atheism, and billboards, and websites, and mocking… and so on.
My conclusion? Humans are bloody ridiculous creatures. In no particular order though, I’ll set down some of my musings – with or without points/conclusions.
Mocking
It’s easy to mock religion – it has so many obvious targets painted on – but sadly it’s all too easy to move into mocking religious people. Most people who believe in god, or Allah, or buddah, or who/whatever are no more defined by their religion than I am by my lack of religious belief. They and their religion are not the same thing, so even if one intends to mock a religion, or a religious institution, or a particular figure in that institution, allowing it to become mocking of the people who believe in that religion is not just unkind, but intellectually lazy or dishonest. One should identify one’s target and not just attack anything/anyone connected with it.
Next point: is mocking useful or acceptable at all? I would say it depends on your goal. Mocking for the sake of it is probably just hurtful, and unlikely to actually achieve anything. Maybe that’s what separates it from satire, which can be very biting (and yes: mocking) but there’s a point. Tim minchin’s “Pope Song” is a great (albeit extremely confronting) example of the latter. All the offensive language and mocking is in service to a great point at the end, where he challenges the listener to really examine their own thought processes and consider whether his “filthy fucking language and fucking disrespect” upsets them more than the (alleged, but pretty damn clear) actions of Pope Benedict – now, and as Cardinal Ratzinger.
I submit that this clearly-defined aim turns it from pointless mockery to very worthwhile comment.
Billboards
There are billboards going up in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch (I do like the irony) saying things like “In the beginning Man created God” and the line used in the UK: “There’s probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life”. There’s a similar billboard set to create some angst in the US (I forget where exactly).
I’ve just joined a website called Think Atheist. This is populated by “noisy atheists” talking about atheism (and science and other cool stuff). In a way it feels kind of weird to think of groups of atheists, because there’s really nothing that’s shared, simply by virtue if being atheist. A lack of something (belief) isn’t a thing or a quality to share. So I find it slightly odd. Maybe it’s a safe place to let out frustrated mocking impulses, with an audience who will appreciate it rather than switch off and be offended.
I guess since I grew up indoctrination-free I don’t really “get” the depth of feeling of many other atheists. I honestly didn’t realise until into adulthood that religious belief was widespread and not just confined to a small number of whackaloons. Ok that’s partially because I’m dense but I knew there was a bible and Christian belief in close to the same way I knew about the Norse gods: pre-scientific explanations of the world. I thought that was the way it was – and that the majority of people thought the same way. For a long time I didn’t realise it was actually the other way around. Consequently I guess I still haven’t shaken that mindset, and so don’t feel quite the same urge to seek solidarity.
Though it certainly is nice to know there are people I don’t have to worry about offending if I blither on atheistically about something
Like now …
Faith
With apologies to Mark Knopfler, faith is useless, theology’s worse I find faith an odd thing, but can accept it a whole lot more than theology.
Example of faith:
Christian: God is real
Atheist: there’s no evidence for the existence of God
Christian: God is real
Atheist: there are mountains of evidence that refute the statements in the Bible
Christian: God is real
Athesit: butbutbut! Logical inconsistencies, contradiction, frankly evil stuff in the Bible!!!11!!!1!
Christian: God is real
While I do not understand that, and cannot even respect or value its denial of rationality, I can indeed respect its honesty. The person with real faith can accept that the evidence shows us otherwise, but simply maintain his or her faith.
Theologians on the other hand …. they really anger me. What they do is the same as “creation scientists” (I threw up in my mouth a little just from typing that oxymoron): they begin with their conclusion, and all their “thought” is bent simply on justifying that conclusion. While theologians would probably repudiate that statement, I do not see how any rational person could truthfully apply that rationality to a careful study of the Bible (or probably any holy text) and come away still believing in God, other than by blind faith, as I’ve described above. The difference is that they are dishonest about it. They try to cloak their faith in the guise of rationality, but to examine an issue rationally one must be prepared to relinquish even the most dearly-held pre-existing beliefs. They cannot. If they could, then we would not have any more theologians – at least not associated with the Churches, because they’d all become atheists.
Any theologian reading this (hah! like a theologian would be reading my blog. Hah!) might be extremely offended by the assertion I have made about their intellectual endeavours. I would invite them then to explain where I’m wrong, and to demonstrate how they have been willing to let go of the existence of God, but rational study has proven to them that he exists.
In fact, I’d open it up for a guest post on the blog. I’m serious, by the way.
My take on this is that trying to “justify” one’s religious belief, through intellectual endeavour or pseudoscience or whatever, actually speaks volumes about the weakness of that person’s faith. If they truly have faith they would not need to prove or justify it.
So glad…
The Church, the Pope … I don’t know if I should even go there. I am just sooooo glad right now I’m not Catholic. I would be so embarrassed and appalled by the actions and attitudes of my Church. Condemning a legal raid which was carried out as part of a criminal investigation by Belgian police … come on, man! I think they must share PR departments with BP or something. The Church needs to just be sensible about this: make a real and sincere apology, and start co-operating with proper secular authorities, and show what they are doing to ensure this doesn’t keep happening. If they did that, Tim Minchin wouldn’t be writing nasty songs about them
And I wouldn’t have the cognitive dissonance engendered by knowing that the vast majority of christian people (like the vast majority of people in general) are good, decent, caring human beings – as are most priests, vicars, whatever – but their Church (capital C) is deceitful and morally bankrupt. And let’s face it, my cognitive dissonance is what’s really important here.
That’s all far too much for a Friday. And you know what? Really it boils down to one primary thing: honesty. Honesty in thinking, honesty in interacting with our fellow human beings, honesty in all aspects of our being. I (honestly) think this world would be a better place for it.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Interesting thoughts. I like you distinction between mocking and satire. Nevertheless, there is still a part of both which can be unkind. Satire aimed at an institution is one thing. Satirising individual beliefs is another, as you indicate.
Billboards such as those you mention are as much based in faith as those that say God lives, or whatever. Absence of proof of God's existence is not proof of God's nonexistence. I agree that it may be more rational to doubt, or even strongly hold to the atheist view; the evidence pointing in that direction outweighs any evidence pointing the other, and hence faith.
Which brings me to the issue missing from the above discussion. That is spirit. The ancient Greeks did appear to have a better concept of this than we are managing today, I suspect. The word "psyche" is variously translated as soul, as spirit, as well as mind. We do not know the location or nature of the mind vis-a-vis the brian. But it is clear in its absence. Less clear, but still observable is the presence of some ineffable quality that is best satisfied by either spirit or soul.
Viktor Frankl contrasted his approach to therapy (Logotherapy) with psychoanalysis, by calling the latter a depth psychology, and his a height psychology. He was convinced that emotional distress is most closely linked with spiritual distress. That if one is spiritually strong, then one is better able to deal with the vicissitudes of the world. And the best way of attaining that strength of spirit is to be looking outwards (and upwards) rather than inwards (and downwards).
I argued in an essay some 15 years ago that using the Aristotelian view of the soul (mind) as tripartite (he foreshadowed Freud, or maybe Freud plagiarised him!). The vegetative, the appetitive and the rational. On that basis I suggested that the role of the psychiatrist is to assist the psychiatrically unwell person to re-establish the primacy of the rational in their soul. The best way I have found of doing that is to recognise the importance to each individual of her/his conception of spirituality and work with that.
I am also minded of something I have just read by AC Grayling. "questions about the mind are not exhaustible by investigation of the brain; there is here still work for philosophy".
And congratulations to you on advancing those discussions.
Soul is easily defined: "Boomalakalakalaka boomalakalakalaka…" :-p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYrz5y1mW5U