A story in the NYT about a church in New Mexico. There’s a hole in the floor, and the dirt therefrom is claimed to have healing properties.
[T]ens of thousands of pilgrims walk eight miles or more to the shrine on Good Friday, some bearing heavy crosses and others approaching on their knees. Scores of people visit every day the rest of the year, many hoping to cure diseases or disabilities with prayer, holy water and, most famously, the healing dirt, which visitors collect from a hole in the floor inside the church.
…
Visitors bring their own baggies or containers or can buy little plastic containers marked “blessed dirt” at the church’s gift shop.Few leave without some of the reddish soil, scooped from the 18-inch-wide “posito,” or well, that is continually replenished — by a caretaker, Father Roca is quick to explain, despite rumors over the years that the pit was refilled by divine intervention.
He pointed to the small building nearby where trucked-in dirt is stored. “I even have to buy clean dirt!” he complained.
Some people take dirt away for divine luck, while those with ailments may eat it, brew it in tea or rub it on the afflicted body area.
…
Father Roca believes in miracles, too, but, he said, “They are the work of the Good Lord.”“I always tell people that I have no faith in the dirt, I have faith in the Lord,” he said. “But people can believe what they want.”
You know, for someone who doesn’t really believe in the dirt, he sure shovels a lot of it. But hey, why not? It brings in the customers, and the rubes can believe whatever they want. Including, apparently, that eating dirt will heal you.
If Father Roca seems like a good guy in this story, it may be because he’s not trying to fleece people with a phony dirt-replenishment miracle — he’s honest about where the dirt comes from. But if Father Roca’s up-front about the little things, he’s dead wrong about the big things. Not only is the dirt of no effect, neither is the faith. But the believing gather up the dirt anyway, despite the feeble protests of the smarter believers.
This symbolises something that’s been bugging me about liberal believers. Lots of smart people claim to believe the Bible (or choose your favourite holy book), but they argue that some of it is intended to be understood metaphorically. (Which parts? The parts that have already been falsified.) They may not even believe much of it at all. Sort of like our dirt-shoveling man — it’s not the details, it’s the big picture.
Some of these Liberal Metaphoricists choose to paper over their disbelief and participate in church anyway. Maybe they like the ‘community’ of it all, or maybe it’s habit — could be the music, who knows. In doing so, they not only dodge the difficulty of dealing with their cognitive dissonance, but they also support organisations that teach ideas they suspect to be false, to the detriment of the most faithful among their congregation. People can believe what they want, right? Everybody’s got to believe in something.
That’s the way it goes. You’re either shoveling out the dirt to the faithful, or else you’re eating it. But it’s dirt all the same. Best to sort it out and get clean.
20 February 2008 at 10:57 pm
I just flippin read this article not 2 minutes ago! Get out of my head demon!!!
20 February 2008 at 11:45 pm
Father Roca shows a distinct lack of scruples to put it mildly. He’s selling the blessed “dirt” in the gift shop and he’s supplying more dirt, despite his claims that he sees nothing miraculous about it.
As to your comment about liberal metaphoricists, you are dead on. Books are simply written stories and in the creation of any good story, you are fictionalizing the contents even if they are based on real people and events. Wading into a deep end of trying to explain what is fact and fiction based on a story involving people you don’t know and events you have not experienced is a sure way to drown in contradictions.
21 February 2008 at 1:33 am
Er…
Who are you, and what have you done with Real Tobin?
21 February 2008 at 8:43 am
“Wading into a deep end of trying to explain what is fact and fiction based on a story involving people you don’t know and events you have not experienced is a sure way to drown in contradictions.”
I plan on doing that for a living.
21 February 2008 at 10:11 am
Well, history’s one of those funny little things.
If I may ask, Alarik, since it’s your field: How do you evaluate historical claims? Are there any guidelines? In other areas of science, you can do replicable experiments, but of course in history you can’t.
I thought of ‘corroboration from other sources’, but anything else?
21 February 2008 at 9:19 pm
Still the same ole tob I think? Got a hair cut? Maybe that is what is different.
Anyway, I really am not passionate about defending short stories written thousands of years ago. I think people that are literalists or metaphoricists (especially in and around the Bible, Koran, BoM, etc – pick your magic book) are being naive and deluding themselves and others around them. And I’m not dismissing the idea that these books are interesting or worth study (I’ve read most of them – several times). But one should always approach such things with a healthy dose of realism and understand their inherently flawed nature.
22 February 2008 at 3:49 am
Beyond source criticism, it’s really just a case of how much you like a given theory. Some of the interpretations going around have no real evidence to them at all.