Heaving Dead Cats » faith

Don’t Assume I’m A Sensitive Soul

Neece — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:30:27 +0000

I received this email from a woman the other day. After careful thought I replied to it and decided it was worth sharing.

Here is the email in its entirety:

Thank you for sharing “Wild Geese”. After Joe Biden used most of this poem as his reflection upon the anniversary of 9/11, I went in search of the poem. The two of Mary Oliver’s collections I own did not include it. I was happy to find it at your site and amazed, actually. Amazed and delighted, because a poem I find so “religious” is at the same time such a balm for you. I grew up Roman Catholic; I am now an Episcopal priest. I am convinced after 20 years that what most people throw away – the cats they heave – are indeed worth heaving. Sometimes we have to go deeper, below the interpretations of history, to find our own deeper truth.

Yes, a “barbarous” God exists in the pages of the Bible: What all-kind God and Father would will the death of a Beloved Son? How could God command Abraham to kill his son Isaac as a test of faith? Isn’t that sadistic? Yes, indeed. On the face of it. For us in the 21st century these stories are barbaric. They are foreign to our experience. They were not foreign to the persons for whom they were written when the “first fruits” in ancient societies were offered up to the deity – including in some cases, the first born child. In some places in later writings there seems to be a critique of these practices in the Bible itself. The question becomes, it seems to me, is it worth reinterpreting these stories for our own time, or do we jettison them and replace them with our own stories of sacrificial obedience and love? Yes, life does involve sacrifice – we give up our children constantly to the gods of war who exact a savage price. There are no rams in the thicket to take their place …

But the same source of barbarism comments on itself in texts of amazing love and mercy. We cannot hear these texts enough.

I hope the love, mercy is what you kept when you threw away the dead cat of guilt and the burdens of all that teaching that depressed and suffocated you. If you are still seeking a metaphor or metaphors for the love that is the universe and your place in it, Mary Oliver’s poetry surely hints at it in all its complexity. It is worth the search if you are willing to expand your conversation to include persons who have made a transition through the grief and disillusion you have experienced.

You have purified your heart. You have surrounded yourself with friends eager to share what they’ve rejected. Is it time to resume the search for what you seek and share what you have found as a replacement that has enriched you spiritually, given you new life? Perhaps you have done so.

Please forgive me if I’ve “pried” too much or presumed too much. You are obviously a sensitive soul. Thank you again for sharing a favorite poem.

And here is my reply:

Thank you for your email. I’m glad you enjoyed Wild Geese. It’s a great poem. Funny that you find it religious. It seems very anti-religious to me, which is why I like it. I guess it’s down to interpretation. I also think you are very presumptuous with your assumptions of me. My character is not nearly as weak as you suggest. The poem is not a balm to me. I find it inspirational, but I don’t need to be soothed by it. I find it delightful. Perhaps it might be best to not assume what others are thinking and maybe just ask them.

You immediately go into apologetics with your loose, cherry-picked interpretations of the bible. If a caring, loving god inspired the words of the bible, I’m sure slavery would not have been condoned, nor the rape of daughters, nor the hatred of your own family (that was Jesus, by the way. How loving was that?) If it can’t be taken literally, then the whole book is just about how you interpret it, which means it can mean anything, which means it’s completely worthless as a guide. It IS completely worthless as a guide anyway. It was written in the middle east in the iron age by goat herders. It has zero relevance for today. It is filled with hate and murder with the occasional rape. Lovely. How you can find anything worthwhile in there is beyond me.

What little bit of “wisdom” in the bible is not original or new. The Golden Rule? Older than Jesus. He didn’t come up with it. If he even existed, which is highly doubtful.

So no, it isn’t worth reinterpreting those fables into stories for our own time. We don’t need them. They fuel hate in people who interpret them literally, and just confuse good people who think they are the word of their god. They are completely useless to society.

And no, why do we need to replace them with more sacrificial obedience? Why do you need that? How is that healthy to anyone? Love, sure. We can all use love. But the bible is very thin in that department. Give me a book like The Golden Compass. That has love. And even sacrifice for the good of all mankind. A great epic story with no mixed messages to confuse people. It even has god.

Life involves compromise and sometimes sacrifice. But teaching children ethics, critical thinking and basic philosophy while giving them love will give them the structure they need to build their own moral code. Not one based on blind obedience and fear of eternal damnation if they make a mistake. How could a loving god torture his creation for all eternity just because they aren’t blindly worshiping him? He needs some serious psychotherapy. That’s insane.

I kept nothing from the bible or my early indoctrination into christianity. I have jettisoned the guilt and fear. There was no love to be had. There was only that blind sacrificial obedience you mentioned. That is not love. That is sickness.

And you presumed again that it depressed and suffocated me. I find that offensive that you would presume to know me. Do you talk to your parishioners with such condescension? Why not ask someone what they are thinking instead of arrogantly assuming. I did not experience grief. Although of course I was disillusioned by the lies of religion.

Shaking off the lies of the church, ridding myself of that sick pack of lies was the most liberating, uplifting, positive step I’ve ever taken.

Again, you presume that I am seeking some great truth. How patronizing. For me, the completely natural workings of the universe inspire and awe me daily. That is my truth and I am quite happy to explore it often. I don’t need to find some god or false belief in a supreme being, or the ridiculous reward of an afterlife. I am happy to have nature in all its complexity. Science is fantastic. That’s all I need. It’s quite satisfying to rid myself of superstitions and myths. You should try it. It’s quite liberating. Maybe it will help you to ask people their feelings and thoughts instead of filtering what you think they experience through your own worldview.

Oh, and you don’t know who my friends are either. Again with the presumptions. I guess you probably don’t think I”m a sensitive soul anymore. Well, when someone I’ve never met claims to know me so intimately, I get a bit irritated. I don’t have a soul. Neither do you. Live this life for today, not for a future promise which doesn’t exist.

I’m glad you enjoyed the poem. But just because I like it too, obviously for very different reasons, doesn’t mean I think like you or share your delusions.

I hope someday you too can shake off the shackles of blind faith, sacrificial obedience, repression and future rewards for constant servitude.

Have a great day!

Debating Evolution is a Waste of Time (yeah, I know it’s been covered before)

groovecat — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:08:20 +0000

Debating Evolution with religious folk is a waste of time.
With the unknown, one is confronted with danger and discomfort–the first instinct is to abolish these painful states. First principle: any explanation is better than none. We all do it, we hear a strange noise and we quickly come up with a guess to explain the noise, i.e., wind, a ghost, a…? All tribes/social groups through time have come up with myths to explain unknowns, answers arrived at not through reason or logic, but to tranquilize the fear of the unknown, providing comfort.

Religious folk form their identities through their religious teachings and any information that doesn’t fit their belief system, triggers feelings of insecurity and fear; emotionally, they feel they are being personally attacked–they must abolish the danger and discomfort they feel. They can’t use reason or logic to evaluate any of the millions of facts supporting evolution–because they are indoctrinated and imprinted as children to feel shame and fear if they question their church’s authority.

Don’t waste your time debating Evolution with a creationist; respect the right of others to believe as they wish, but never miss an opportunity to demonstrate the irrational paradox and dangerous delusion that is religious faith.

Anywhere in the world, where education increases, belief in religion declines and inversely, women’s rights increase. The greatest intolerance for religion comes from religious folk’s intolerance of other religions or sub-groups within their own religion.

It’s time to tax all religious businesses and for the greater enforcement of the laws separating church and state; including, but not limited to, the armed forces, religious schools and donations to political parties.

Justifying Our False Beliefs

Neece — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 07:31:47 +0000

I think I’m beginning to understand something about believing. Over the years I’ve encountered many religious people who have tried to explain to me why I need to believe as they do, why they are right and I am a fool for not understanding that. But I don’t have faith like they do. Hell, I don’t want it. Faith, by definition is belief that is not based on proof.

I embrace reason and a desire to understand the universe. While we certainly don’t have all of the answers, that doesn’t mean we stop asking questions. There is always something interesting to learn about.

I love asking questions. One that has puzzled me in the last year or so is why people cling to false beliefs so strongly. No matter how much I reason with a True Believer^TM or try to educate them with facts, they just dig in their heels, sit on their haunches and bray their myths and lies over and over. They block their ears, squint their eyes shut and cry out, “I can’t hear you, I won’t listen… lalalalalalalalala….”

Yesterday I found a new study on ScienceDaily titled “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification”. It was published in the most recent issue of Sociological Inquiry. It’s a study by four research institutions to understand why people kept believing that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks even once it was obvious that there was no evidence supporting that claim.

But that’s not why I was so fascinated. What caught my attention was the underlying research about false beliefs.

Some people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence thanks to a mental phenomenon called motivated reasoning, says sociologist Steven Hoffman, visiting assistant professor at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the study. “Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. For the most part,” says Hoffman, “people completely ignore contrary information” and are able to “develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information.” (Newsweek)

Now, let’s think about the belief in a god that created the world in 6 days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, shall we? And of course, Jesus who died on the cross to save us all from hellfire and damnation. So let’s talk a bit about motivated reasoning:

On page 2 of the paper it states: This model [motivated reasoning] envisions respondents as processing and responding to information defensively, accepting and seeking out confirming information, while ignoring, discrediting the source of, or arguing against the substance of contrary information (DiMaggio 1997; Kunda 1990; Lodge and Tabor 2000).

Motivated reasoning is a descendant of the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959; Kunda 1990), which posits an unconscious impulse to relieve cognitive tension when a respondent is presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs or preferences. Recent literature on motivated reasoning builds on cognitive dissonance theory to explain how citizens relieve cognitive dissonance: they avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against the challenge (Jobe, Tourangeau, and Smith 1993; Lodge and Taber 2000; Westen et al. 2006).

Sound familiar?

What happens when one set of ideas (about god the father and his peace-loving hippie son Jesus) is repeated over and over to you when you are a child? You haven’t even formed your ego before age 6, and already you know about Jesus dying on the cross for you, or whatever myths your parents and religious community has brainwashed you with. When you get older and information starts to conflict with these beliefs, how do you handle it?

Cognitive Dissonance: an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Of course the easiest way to deal with cognitive dissonance is to justify and rationalize your beliefs, and deny anything that might contradict them. That brings us to:
Confirmation Bias: an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions or working hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

Back to the paper (page 3): This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them, regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

So how do people go about dealing with contradictory information to their beliefs? There are several options: (% is how many people in the study used the different strategies)

Bayesian Updating: the willingness to change your mind in the face of contradictory information from a trusted source. To successfully change your opinion you need to attend to new information, remember it, and then use it in decision making. (page 7 of the study) (2.04% of respondents actually changed their mind when given contradictory information)
Deny you ever believed the contradictory information in the first place. (page 9) (14.29% in the study simply denied that they had ever held the false belief)
Resist the new information: (page 11)
- Counter-argue: directly rebut the contradictory information. (12.24%)
- Attitude Bolstering: bring facts that support your position to mind without directly refuting the contradictory information. Change the subject and justify your opinion with other reasons that seem good to you. (32.65%)
- Selective Exposure: Ignore the contradictory information without rebutting or supporting other positions. Just say you don’t know. (6.12%)
- Dispute Rationality: argue that opinions do not have to be grounded in facts or reasoning. (16.33%)
- Inferred Justification: infer evidence which would support your beliefs. This is a sort of backward chain of reasoning. You start with something you believe strongly and work backward to find support for it. (14.29%) (with another 2.04% possibly also falling in this category)

So, here’s what I think. You get indoctrinated by your family, your church, your peers, your culture and your society. As a child you are a sponge for their information about everything. As you get older, perhaps you are faced with contradictory information. You are going to either attend to that new information and assimilate it after careful thought, perhaps changing your belief system in the process. Or, more likely, you’re going to resist the new information in one or more of the above listed ways.

Oh, and regarding attentiveness to the contradictory information by the study’s respondents, the researchers said,

“We found that while all of our “above average” respondents did attend to the information, a substantial minority of our less well-informed respondents—nearly one-third—ignored or refused to engage with information that challenged their political preferences, even when that information came from a source they favor. (page 16)

How many times have I had a conversation with a religious person only to have them pointedly ignore the information I have? Lots. Or when they quote from their own bible and only pick out the parts that support their set beliefs, and blatantly ignore the parts they don’t understand or don’t like? Cherry-picking, anyone?

So this is all food for thought. It at least starts us thinking why most people cling to their gods and myths like safety blankets. It certainly gives us an idea as to how they resist the facts, logic and new information they may come across in favor of their old comfortable beliefs.

Note: I need to clarify something. Belief is a powerful force in our minds that we can all fall into. Quite some time ago I wrote about how knowledge and beliefs are stored differently in the brain. I am sure I have justified my beliefs many times in my life. You probably have as well. I think the difference is when some people are confronted with conflicting information, they attend to it, maybe do some research on it, process it, then use it to change their minds as necessary. I’ve done that many times. The more I practice re-analyzing old beliefs and getting rid of ones that have no basis in reality, or ones that don’t fit my ethics and understanding of the universe, the easier it gets. I think that’s what makes some people skeptics and atheists. It can be quite challenging.

I think there is a difference between a skeptic who is willing to look at different information and change their mind and someone who is dogmatic. That is who is addressed here.

What are your thoughts?

Delusions and Wishful Thinking: Pope Not InFALLible

Neece — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:58:39 +0000

So I guess the pope is not infallible. Since he fell. Get it? in-fall-ibility? LOL!

Pope Benedict XVI quipped to well-wishers: “My guardian angel didn’t prevent my mishap, certainly on orders from on high. Perhaps the Lord wanted to teach me more patience and humility to give me more time for prayer and meditation,” said the unholy father, who is expected to make a full recovery from his injury.

What has the pope been doing instead of praying to baby jesus that he needed to be punished in this manner? Too much time playing on his Wii? Too much time surfing for boy porn on the interwebs?

Not to mention, believing in fairy godmothers or guardian angels is wishful thinking. And delusional. But since so many sheeple believe it I guess it’s ok, right? No? No. I didn’t think so either.

Maybe, just maybe, he fell because he’s old and frail, clumsy or drunk on sacramental wine. Sometimes bad things happen to good bad people.

(please thank Jenny, my good friend, for giving me all kinds of insight on this story.)

How Far Does God Push The Faithful?

Neece — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 09:20:40 +0000

Apparently Abraham is the role model for how far god can push the faithful. Only in real cases, sometimes someone innocent actually dies. It seems that parents kill their children through denial of medical attention all too frequently these days. Often I don’t blog about these sad stories because I am so enraged I don’t feel I can do it without copious amounts of profanity and vitriol.

We have all heard about the Neumanns. They were both convicted of 2nd degree reckless homicide in the death of their 11 year old daughter Madeline. She had diabetes but it was undiagnosed. She died a horrible death at home, surrounded by praying sheeple who refused to call an ambulance until she stopped breathing. Doctors testified that Madeline could have been saved if she had received simple medical care like insulin and fluids before she stopped breathing.

The mother said that she and her husband believed their daughter’s deteriorating condition may have been the result of a falling out with another couple, and called them once the girl was unconscious and persuaded them to come pray for the girl.

“I asked her if she loved Jesus,” the mother testified. “She might have said yes. I know for sure she was acknowledging it. What sounds came out, I don’t remember. She was making noises. … My focus definitely was to pray.”

Their lawyer told the jury that Neumann sincerely believed praying would heal his daughter and he did nothing criminally wrong.

“Dale Neumann was doing what he thought would work for his daughter. He was administering faith healing. He thought it was working.”

What god would punish a young girl because her parents had a fight with another couple? Oh, right. The christian god. Of course. Dale Neumann had studied to be a pentecostal minister, but at the time of Madeline’s death the family didn’t belong to any organized religion. The mother said she didn’t have anything against doctors either. Then why is her daughter dead? Oh, right, because it was a spiritual illness. Yeah, the prayer really was helping. I see why they decided to hold off on the tried and true medical care in favor of pleas to an invisible man in the sky. Go with what (doesn’t) work, and keep doing it till your daughter is dead. Smart thinking.This is beyond reprehensible to me. I never wanted children of my own. But I feel that if you have a child, that is the most important responsibility in your life. You are obligated, as a human being, to do your very best to raise that child to become a healthy, happy adult. You created it, you take care of it and make sure it’s in good health. This means you must educate yourself, sometimes compromise your own comforts for that child, and so on.

Nothing is more important if you decide to create a life. If you can’t handle the responsibility, then don’t get pregnant, get an abortion, or put the baby up for adoption. It’s that freaking simple.

Why is the charge so minor for such a horrid crime? This girl could not walk, talk, drink or eat. People sat around and watched her die. In 2008. In America. And the worst they get is up to 25 years?

In Oregon a man was convicted of misdemeanor criminal mistreatment for praying instead of seeking medical treatment for his 15 month old daughter who died of pneumonia and a blood infection in 2008. Both of the girl’s parents were acquitted of manslaughter charges. Why?

How criminal is it to let your own child die a horrible death while you watch and pray? What the hell is wrong with someone to be so detached from reality under such awful circumstances?

Two years ago, at 5:15 am, my husky, Stazi, came to the door after being outside for a few minutes. Her face was swollen horribly and I freaked out. She had eaten a bee! I called the emergency vet and waited for 2 minutes in a panic for the return call. The vet calmly told me to give her benadryl, and told me not to panic. Now, Stazi is my dog, not my baby, but I would have rushed her to the vet in a heartbeat if it had been serious and she needed medical care.

If it’s so simple for me to make a decision about my dog, how divorced from reality and common sense does a person have to be to forgo medical attention for their daughter or son? How devout and brainwashed do you have to be to think that god is testing you?

That’s what the Neumanns thought, that god was testing them and all they needed to do was pray. They never changed their story, even during the trial. Never said they were guilty of anything, and plan to appeal their sentences. That’s appalling. So I guess they failed that test though. Or did god?

Would you let your child die as a test of faith? Would you even let your dog or cat die as a test of faith? And if your dog or child did die, would you feel remorse? If you didn’t, wouldn’t you then be a heartless monster? Would a loving god push you that far, to the point of killing your own child?

No. Definitely not. But there is no god at all. The christian god is made up, as are all the others. Created by superstitious men and women who don’t understand the way the world works so they fill it with flawed gods. Gods that punish children for their parents’ sins. Gods that kill babies. Gods that breed hatred and fear.

I for one am glad to be god-free. Can I hear an amen?

From Here, Here and Here

Conversations With christians – Beth 6 – Realization and Conclusion

Neece — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:58:44 +0000

While I am a 7th degree black belt atheist, I do have a heart of gold, as I’m sure you know. (just kidding! I’m trying to lighten the mood! Ok, you’re right, I’m not kidding, I really do have a heart of gold)

Where was I? Oh, right. When someone comes to me and asks me to have a conversation with them about religion and atheism, I feel it’s my responsibility as an atheist to show that a discourse is possible. I want to show religious people that I am indeed a living, breathing ethical atheist. I am rather nice to people, especially if they aren’t visiting my home for more than one night. (Then all bets are off) I try to show people how to use reason, logic and facts to find out things for themselves.

Sure, sometimes I can get a bit testy when a christian insults my intelligence or pointedly tries to manipulate the discussion into an argument. I am not a debater, and I can’t stand logical fallacies, especially when employed specifically to win unfairly. This is unethical and inexcusable to me.

Of course, people often use logical fallacies because they don’t know any better. I will then happily teach a person about the logical fallacy being used, and will then expect that person to refrain from further use of it as we go through our discussions.

Of course, often a person will stubbornly cling to their beliefs and faith and eschew reason, logic and common sense. They will pull out dirty tricks to try to show their beliefs to be the “truth”.

This is where we are with Beth. And I have come to a decision. I’ve written a short note which I am sending to her in a few minutes. Here it is in its entirety:

Beth,
After careful thought, I have come to the conclusion that you are after confirmation in your faith. You want to know that the path you’re on is just and right. My many attempts to direct you to facts and historical information have been shunned and ignored in favor of apologetic christians bent on “proving” christianity with logical fallacies and misinformation.
Your refusal to even acknowledge the simple concept of cherry-picking in favor of blind faith has led me to the realization that this “conversation” is completely one-sided and closed.
What you seem to want is simple faith, based on your beliefs, culled from the best concepts of religion, the happiest and most loving ideas mashed together to suit your wish for a supreme being to watch over you, love you unconditionally, and give you eternal life.
Facts, science, reason and logic have no part in this quest of yours.
Therefore our conversation will never give you what you’re looking for. All it will ever do is frustrate you and cause you to burrow ever deeper away from reality and logic.
I wish you a pleasant journey down the path of faith and belief. Perhaps it can fulfill you and give you the peace you seem to be searching for.

You see, Beth and I have diametrically opposed goals for this discussion. This has become a stalemate. I feel, for my sake as well as yours, that there is little to no benefit with continuing this argument any further. I am still open to talking to other christians. Hell, I could even be talked into opening the dialogue with Beth again in the future, if she would simply be willing to learn new information, instead of just parroting tired old apologetic christians in an attempt to cling to preconceived myths and notions.

But for now, I think this path has reached a very definite dead end. Let’s call it a day and use our time for more productive and fun pursuits. What do you think?

Holy Shit! A “Miracle” From The Heavens!

Neece — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:27:22 +0000

So, I’m far from original, but the title of this article is so appropriate. The blessed virgin mary of guadalupe has appeared! All hail mother mary! Of course, she’s here to share a miracle (miracle yet to be noticed) and she wants us to pay attention… to the bird shit on this truck.

“As soon as I looked at it, it just gave me chills all over my body!”

Heaving Dead Cats » faith

Don’t Assume I’m A Sensitive Soul

Related posts

Debating Evolution is a Waste of Time (yeah, I know it’s been covered before)

Related posts

Justifying Our False Beliefs

Related posts

Delusions and Wishful Thinking: Pope Not InFALLible

Related posts

How Far Does God Push The Faithful?

Related posts

Conversations With christians – Beth 6 – Realization and Conclusion

Related posts

Holy Shit! A “Miracle” From The Heavens!

Related posts