Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Page 11 of 126

Religion and drugs

PZ Myers once said that things would be better if people treated religion as an enjoyable hobby, sort of like knitting.


(This clip was part of a hit piece, so ignore the desperate music.)

Miss Perfect (my girlfriend-partner-fiancée) says that a more apt comparison would be quilting, because quilters are a bit more intense about it, it’s more socially involved, and they’ve evolved rules and customs about their quilting, sort of like a religion.

Crafty metaphors are okay, but after some reflection, I realised that I feel the same way about people who do religion as I do about people who do drugs.

I don’t choose to do drugs (substitute ‘religion’ if you wish) — it’s not my thing — but I have some friends who do. I don’t really mind that they do. I don’t like it, but I guess it’s their choice. Actually, I bet I have some friends who do it, but I don’t even know who they are because they’re not hardcore into it, and it doesn’t interfere with their lives. On the other hand, I do have some friends whose abuse is kind of messing them up, and I feel bad about that.

Is it a healthy habit? Not at all, but I guess it normally won’t harm someone who goes easy on it. I absolutely think it should be kept away from kids, when they’re just learning to use their brains.

I really don’t mind if there are a few people in society who indulge, but society just won’t work if everyone’s into it all the time. And there’s no way that people who use it should be making the rest of us subsidise their habit, or make us to start using it ourselves, no matter how great they think it is. And I’m certainly not going to pay it any undue respect.

If someone realises that they have a problem, and it’s taking over their life, we should have ways for them to get help. Otherwise, as long as they’re cool about it, I can treat it like a private, mildly undesirable pursuit that some people enjoy.

EDIT: A reader is taking me to task for lumping all drugs in together. So fine, it just extends my metaphor.

Just like some drugs are more or less addicting, and some are more or less harmful, we could say the same thing about religions. Maybe casual cannabis use is like default Catholicism — mostly harmless with light use. Don’t get too deep into it though.

Scientology could be like cocaine, or perhaps crack. I hear that stuff’s addictive.

Evangelical mega-churches? Meth.

What about Mormons? Unitarians? Put your pharmaceutical comparisons in comments.

Talk the Talk: Singing Mice

I’m learning all kinds of things about Jess Allen, the Tuesday host of RTRfm’s Morning Magazine. Like I never knew that she likes mice. Good thing I brought this topic, then: the fabulous singing mice of Costa Rica!

Watch as the male singing mouse lifts his head to the sky and belts forth a mighty…

Very tantalising, ¿no?

So we talk about some research involving mice, genetics, and sexual selection. Lots of fun.

One-off show: Here
Subscribe via iTunes: Here
Show notes: Here

Caff it up, Mormons.

When I was a young Mormon kid, the one thing the other kids would ask me is, “So, you can’t drink Coke?” That was the one thing they knew about the Church.

As a believer, I always thought this idea was a misreading of the “Word of Wisdom” — the Mormon revelation that forbids “hot drinks”, including coffee or tea. However, based on the prevailing mood of the membership, I had to allow that it was an extremely common misreading.

Now, it seems that the LDS Newsroom has clarified.

On Wednesday, the LDS Church posted a statement on its website saying that “the church does not prohibit the use of caffeine” and that the faith’s health-code reference to “hot drinks” “does not go beyond [tea and coffee].”

A day later, the website wording was slightly softened, saying only that “the church revelation spelling out health practices … does not mention the use of caffeine.”

I’m not sure if this is a policy clarification, or a full-on revelation — the LDS Newsroom seems to be in charge of church doctrine now. But whatever. The Mormon Church can arrange things how it likes.

What’s kind of surreal to me, though, is that if this is how an omniscient being wants to communicate his will to his people, he’s not a very good communicator. Why so much confusion and ambiguity for fifty years? Let’s follow the path:

In 1833, god gives a revelation to Joseph Smith. It forbids alcohol, tobacco, and “hot drinks”, and places restrictions on meat, but it’s explicitly not a commandment.

Over the next two centuries, Mormons expand and modify the Word of Wisdom. It becomes non-negotiable, and grows to somehow include caffeinated beverages, at least in the imagination of much of its membership. Prohibitions on meat, meanwhile, are ignored. God, apparently, doesn’t feel the need to intervene.

Now, after decades of limbo, the LDS Newsroom clarifies. It says caffeinated drinks are okay, contradicting other church leaders.

Can we agree that this is a dumb way for an omniscient being to communicate? It’s ambiguous, imprecise, and incremental. But consider: While it seems very unlikely that a god would need to use this method for imparting his will, it is exactly the kind of system that humans would use.

Talk the Talk: Language and bias

Walking around with an American accent is fine, but if you’re not in America, it can make you a little self-conscious sometimes. Unless you’re me, in which case you just go ahead and talk to people anyway, even on the radio. Even so, accent has an impact.

For today’s show, the lovely and talented Jess and I talk about some recent work showing that thinking in a foreign language forces you to think more analytically and keeps you from reflexively firing off opinions based on instinct. May be worth trying.

There’s other stuff about accent, and how imitating someone’s accent aids comprehension. And, of course, a shout-out to Mr Neil Armstrong, who faced his final frontier last week.

One-off show: Here
Subscribe via iTunes: Here
Show notes: Here

The claim, and the reality

This, from mormon.org (via Facebook):

This, from Gallup:

This was how Utah voted in the 2004 elections.

I don’t know which is more unaccountable — why the LDS Church would try to make this claim, or why they thought anyone would believe them.

A+

Regular readers will notice a lull in the frequency of posting here on Good Reason. Part of that is that I got a new job that’s keeping me busy, but then I have been busy before. And lately I’ve felt like I’m running out of things to say. But it’s not really that.

Something’s been paining me about Movement Atheism. Elevatorgate was an uncomfortable wake-up call, but I managed to hit snooze. The recent TAM difficulty renewed my discomfort. In both cases, a female atheist blogger expressed perfectly reasonable discomfort with unwanted sexual attention, and was met with rape threats (from the most unhinged) or self-serving counter-arguments (from a lot of atheist guys). The casual and not-so-casual sexism of atheist guys really bugged me. Weren’t we progressive thinkers? Why was this going so wrong? And then Thunderf00t’s actions on Freethought Blogs gave me a rising sense that something bad was happening to my movement. This made it easy not to blog. I was busy, after all. I had other things to do. And it hurt to watch, so I turned away. In the words of Leonard Cohen, I ached in the places where I used to play.

So I was encouraged by this blog post by Jen McCreight.

I don’t want good causes like secularism and skepticism to die because they’re infested with people who see issues of equality as mission drift. I want Deep Rifts. I want to be able to truthfully say that I feel safe in this movement. I want the misogynists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and downright trolls out of the movement for the same reason I wouldn’t invite them over for dinner or to play Mario Kart: because they’re not good people. We throw up billboards claiming we’re Good Without God, but how are we proving that as a movement? Litter clean-ups and blood drives can only say so much when you’re simultaneously threatening your fellow activists with rape and death.

It’s time for a new wave of atheism, just like there were different waves of feminism. I’d argue that it’s already happened before. The “first wave” of atheism were the traditional philosophers, freethinkers, and academics. Then came the second wave of “New Atheists” like Dawkins and Hitchens, whose trademark was their unabashed public criticism of religion. Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists. It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime. We can criticize religion and irrational thinking just as unabashedly and just as publicly, but we need to stop exempting ourselves from that criticism.

Ah, the Second Wave. Remember that? Coming out as an New Atheist, and not afraid to say it. Heady days. And remember how we used to feel like we were on solid ground when we said that ‘atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in gods’? Except when you looked around at other atheists, that wasn’t really true. We really did have other things in common besides just our lack of belief. We were attracted to a constellation of issues, including skepticism, secularism, science, political progressivism, and (pretty uniformly) equality for LGBT people.

I see this third wave — or as a commenter on Jen’s thread dubbed it, A+ — as a simple way of acknowledging that atheism can incorporate positive values, including social justice and gender equality. It can go beyond what I call ‘mere atheism’ and reflect the values that atheism draws us toward, but does not necessarily encompass.

An example of how this works: How do we get from atheism to respect for LGBT people? Many times I’ve seen atheists complain about LGBT posts on Reddit: “How did this get here? What does this have to do with atheism?” Well, not much to do with ‘mere atheism’, but a lot to do with actual atheism. It may be partly “the enemy of my enemy” thinking; religions have had gay people oppressed and killed, we don’t accept the right of religions to do this; ergo, we oppose it. And just as Richard Dawkins’ use of the ‘coming out’ metaphor has been apt in the case of atheists, we feel like our lack of societal acceptance and even ostracism from our families helps us make common cause with LGBT people, who endure much of the same.

So how do we get from atheism to acceptance of women as equals, deserving of respect? I see a clear line from skepticism to feminism. To be a skeptic is to constantly remind yourself that you may be wrong, that you need to keep revising your accepted beliefs, and there’s always more that you could be a little more skeptical about. Well, I’ve realised that I can do better at challenging my attitudes about sexism. Oh, but I don’t consider myself a sexist person, right? Maybe sexists never do. And if I’m truly not a sexist — if I’ve incorporated that value so thoroughly into my thoughts and actions — then why not say so?

So I’m saying so. I’m stepping beyond ‘mere atheism’ and reaching out for that third wave: A+. In some ways, it’s quite natural to do so, and in other ways, I can tell I’m going to have to do a lot of listening, thinking, and updating. But as a skeptical atheist, I can do that.

“Is Life Meaningless?” What’s behind the question?

I was in a debate with Ben Rae of the UWA Christian Union this week, and the topic was “Is Life Meaningless?”

I’ll have a bit to say about this, and I think there may even be video (though I hope not — I have a condition that makes me curl into a ball of pain when seeing myself on film). But I wanted to post an idea that occurred to me as I was passing the staircase.

The way the event went down, there was a lot of Ben saying that life was meaningless without Jesus, and a lot of me saying that, no, life had meaning, atheists have the ability to create meaning in life, and that even Christians have to construct it.

But why would a Christian want to assert that life is meaningless without a god? In a word: marketing. You have to sell the problem before you can sell the solution, and what we saw was Ben selling a lot of problem. There’s really nothing that a religion can offer someone who’s happy and well-adjusted. They do awfully well with miserable people, though.

It would make sense, then, for religions to try to increase human misery in an effort to sell their system, which in fact, they do. It could be considered their chief enterprise.

Talk the Talk: Fast Learners

This was a fun show to do. It’s about babies and language: what do they know, and when do they know it?

It’s a little long though. The idea of having a break in the middle was that, instead of having 14 minutes of me all in a row, we could split it and have 7 + 7 on either side. But what’s happening is that I’m stretching it both ways and getting 10 + 10. Is the world ready for 20 minutes of me?

Well, ready or not, here it is. I might have to impose some self-discipline if Jess won’t do it! But we do have fun chatting. Hope it’s fun for you too.

One-off show: Here
Subscribe via iTunes: Here
Show notes: Here

He really just wanted Doritos, and I said no.

This happened when my son was so hungry he could eat a three-day-old corpse, and I don’t just mean ritually.

The case against the word ‘spirituality’

I’ve had lots of talks with people about ‘spirituality’, and the one thing I’ve learned is that it’s important to figure out what they mean by that.

If by ‘spirituality’, they mean

  • ‘a feeling of wonder and awe at the universe’, or
  • ‘a sense of being interconnected with all things’, or even
  • ‘a focus on worthwhile but non-material things, like relationships’

then they’ll get very little argument with me, because I like those things too.

If, however, by ‘spirituality’, they mean ‘a belief that our material reality is overlaid with an invisible realm of spirits and incorporeal beings’, then that’s just crap. Nobody has any evidence for that.

Well, Sam Harris is making an argument that we should be reclaiming the word ‘spiritual’ to refer to my first bracket of concepts above.

We must reclaim good words and put them to good use—and this is what I intend to do with “spiritual.” I have no quarrel with Hitch’s general use of it to mean something like “beauty or significance that provokes awe,” but I believe that we can also use it in a narrower and, indeed, more transcendent sense.

Of course, “spiritual” and its cognates have some unfortunate associations unrelated to their etymology—and I will do my best to cut those ties as well. But there seems to be no other term (apart from the even more problematic “mystical” or the more restrictive “contemplative”) with which to discuss the deliberate efforts some people make to overcome their feeling of separateness—through meditation, psychedelics, or other means of inducing non-ordinary states of consciousness. And I find neologisms pretentious and annoying. Hence, I appear to have no choice: “Spiritual” it is.

Neologisms (new words) may indeed be pretentious and annoying, but the reality is that they’re also very difficult to implement. It took a good 30 years for Richard Dawkins’ meme to catch on, and even then it’s likely to refer to a picture of a cat. Curse you, semantic shift!

What Harris doesn’t allow for is that reclaiming a word is very difficult as well. It only seems to work with taboo labels for people (queer and nigger come to mind), and only then to be used among people it was formerly applied to. It takes a lot of people to make this kind of change happen, and I just don’t see the impetus for it. If the word is moving at all, it’s moving toward that group of people who describe themselves as ‘spiritual but not religious’, meaning that they believe in a god, but not a church. And they’re much more numerous than us pantheistic-leaning Sagan fans.

I just don’t think ‘spirituality’ is a good choice to refer to the transcendent and ineffable. It’s so fuzzy and imprecise — it could mean anything. And that means that when you use it, you’re leaving yourself open to misinterpretation. Why use a word that you have to explain every time you use it?

Not only that, it’s going to be very difficult to uncouple the word from a set of associations people have about it; memories of being in a church, an implication that religion is positive. These are implications I don’t intend and don’t want to reinforce.

And of course, the link between the word ‘spirituality’ and supernaturalism is well-nigh insurmountable. It has ‘spirit’ at its root. How is someone not supposed to think of spirits whenever you use it?

Instead of trying to redeem the word ‘spiritual’ out of the muck of supernaturalism and religious tradition, why not use another word: transcendent. Or transcendence, if you need a noun to replace ‘spirituality’. These convey the transportive sense of wonder and awe most adequately.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑