One of the most basic pro-religion arguments volleyed at atheists is the "what-if argument." What if, they argue, people need to believe in religion, even if it's wrong, since it helps make them happy? Then, the conclusion is, that us atheists should shut up and let others live how they want to live.
What-if problems are always flawed and reveal the biases of their users.
Because for every what-if positive argument, there is always a what-if negative. Therefore, someone using a what-if positive is just justifying their existing opinion.
There are plenty of what-if negative counter-arguments to religion. What if religion is just a memeplex that infects people's minds, pushing them into mindless servitude to some powerful, but untrue, concept? What if people are brutalized by practicing religion? Christianity, for example, has guilt as a major commodity. Would I be happier if my life was riddled with guilt? Would I appreciate and experience all the beautiful moments that I have on Earth if I was torn by a sense of hesitation?
While I agree that anybody proselytizing anything is irritating, if one wants accuracy, one should be(a)ware the "what-if" fallacy, and consider both the positive and the negative.
Oh yeah, and Thank you William Safire for supporting nixing the "under God" part from the Pledge. While I can live with "God" in the memespace, I "pray" that America might give me hope and stomach being accurate this time around.
color=red
aural=intodust
I'd like to thank Mel Gibson for teaching me that "Ecce homo" is Latin for "Behold the Man." This is what Pontius Pilate proclaims to the mob of querulous Jews as he plants the crown of thorns on Jesus' head.
What I beheld in man--and woman--as I stomached The Passion of the Christ was the power of loyalty. At least a hundred times in the film, someone gazed into Jesus' eyes, enraptured with hope and faith. Early on, we see Peter perch up like a gopher with nervous hands both near his chest and tilted outward as if to gesture, "Lord, I will gladly sacrifice my heart for you."
Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.Hominids must have necessitated messiahs and religions at some point in evolution. As they were arising up on two feet they must have also arisen as proto-philosophers, wondering not only where they came from, what they were made of, and where they were going, but most importantly what they were to do. Loyalty provided the cure of purpose through the vehicle of self-sacrifice.
Bible, Ruth 1:16 (Random Bible Quote)
To nail-in the concept of loyalty, I ask you to reflect: when was the last time you felt fiercely loyal?
color=crimson
aural=goldenpath
Phil's Romantic Digression to Illustrate Impact of "Loyalty"
My deepest memory of loyalty was when I came to the aid of a lover of mine over the last nine days of the school. We discovered in spring that she was the victim of identity theft and we suspected that the perpetrator was one of her close "friends." The cause of fear was that this "friend" was also a bit psychotic and in possession of weapons: she packed a gun in her car and hung a butcher knife on her wall that had the names of enemies inscribed on it.
As my friend explained the situation to me, I was immediately struck with a sense of mission. I became aggressive in gathering evidence on the identity thief and aggressive in coordinating with authorities. My friend had to move out so I helped in packing, ignoring the needs of the quarter's finals. I transformed into an obedient dog, ready to do anything she needed. Courage sprung up within me as well as a healthy irrational animus toward the evil-doer. I donned her struggle, her pain, her strife, and made it my own. And I felt great. I felt driven by internal compellation, like a magnet was yanking me forward. I felt alive.
The quarter then passed, the danger disappeared, and I de-animated, returning to my nihilistic equilibrium. I went back home and painted for the first months of summer and then did some web design in the second half. San Diego was enjoyable and relaxing, with the sun consistently lightening up each day. However, no matter how bright that summer was, those three months will never shine like the sun's reflection off the stucco by the window of her new place, as I climbed in once a day for those nine days and felt important.
Sure, it's not as dramatic a story as when Kerry ordered his gunboat back into enemy fire to save his buddy. But still, there's my strongest instance of loyalty, and that's how good it tasted. Either way, I'm sure you would agree, based on your experiences, that devotion is one of life's sweet gifts.
Back to the main idea
Christianity and other religions' main draw is a similar sentiment. Every Sunday, millions of Christians huddle together to renew their loyalty to an ancient Superman. Even if some don't believe whole-heartedly in the Bible story, just being around other devotees inculcates the same feelings in them. For a few moments, the nihilistic specter of life is vanquished, and the worshippers feel alive.
So the point of The Passion is to pound Jesus' martyrdom into the audience's collective head in case they have forgotten where their loyalties lie. It has apparently done the trick as millions are feeling more faithful, especially with their pocket book, by buying the soundtrack and books in droves.
I personally did not feel rapturous watching The Passion of the Christ. Rather I was astonished at the stares of Jesus' faithful followers, experiencing a proxy to the billions of descendents who are still loyal to the same, single hero.
The following are the necessary disclosures on the controversies of the film.
On the violencia
Roger Ebert said that The Passion is cinema's most violent, which is significant considering how many movies that critic has seen. Perhaps he is correct. The Passion is certainly the most gut-wrenching in detail: the audience is treated to the blood on Jesus's crown of thorns, dripping and glistening like Christmas lights, in addition to the shine of Our Lord's crusty, gelatinous backside on account of the whipping.
On the anti-Semitismo
If I was Christian, unintelligent, and already had a seething suspicion about Jews, this film would fan the flames. But this is the same with any movie that involves a class of people as the enemy. For example, in True Lies the glorious Arnold Schwarzenegger battles silly Iranian terrorists which probably incites anti-Iranian attitudes on some level.
The question is then reduced to whether or not Mel is trying to be anti-Semitic. The answer is not so clear as Pontius Pilate's lack of culpability was over-emphasized, but so was Jesus' "Jewish" co-bearer of the cross. I'm not a master of the topic of anti-Semitism, so I won't settle this debate. My intuition is that while Mel tried to be fair, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some Jewish hate lurking around somewhere in his head.
Random note
I guess being the son of God means you can build IKEA-style tables by hand with no problems. Go Jesus! Which reminds me of Owen Wilson in Meet the Parents, explaining to Greg Focker that he made the "khoppa" because JC was a carpenter. Good times.
Off-topic notes
Sorry for the week-long respite of posting, I was busy with finals. Oh yeah, and Noam Chomsky e-mailed me on Wednesday. I had asked him what were his thoughts on the shock election in Madrid. He told me that I should check out an editorial in the Financial Times (which I'm still looking for) and then he went off on the cowardice of Anzar's choice to engage in Iraq against the wishes of 90% of his people. He noted that this was the true shame on democracy, and not the election of the anti-war Socialist Party. I mentioned Chomsky last week here. You should note that the white-on-beige graphic in my blogfabric is in rememberance of those who died on 3/11 in Madrid (Read the Original Reference)
Noam Chomsky's Definition of God
(Noam's always right, but he's still a bastard)
Why I Am Not A Christian (Bertrand Russell)
There's a MSNBC article summarizing the major strides that the gay community has made recently in America: the first gay Episcopalian bishop was elected yesterday, the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws a month ago, and it seems likely that at least civil unions between same-sex couples will obtain some recognition.
If this is a genuine, permanent paradigm shift, then these events are big from a social evolution standpoint. Let's consider the opposite: homophobic societies. Obviously they exist to promote reproduction so that these societies can persist; societies that carry anti-gay, pro-reproduction memes tend to survive.
So, when a society comes out of the closet, what does it mean? It could mean that that society is on its decline. Michael Savage apparently agrees, slamming gays as "sodomites"--which would be a reference to Sodom and Gamora of Babylon, a civilization that crumbled possibly because of too much Hedonism and sodomy.
Now, I'm no crack-pot religionist, but is this wholly untrue? It would be too hard to prove or disprove. But the ultimate question is: does social population growth matter? Have societies withered away simply because they stopped having babies? I can't think of many that jump to my mind. But Europe may be in danger of having this happen to her.
But, there could be something unique about our time period where the society construct is losing its weight and therefore its monopoly on memes. Globalization breaks down the walls between societies so that could be one possible source to look at.
Also, this could be a prelude to the Singularity. Gays, self-involved Hedonists, and those who participate in unmarriage could all foreshadow a future where we don't need coitus to generate better information processors (children) in order to help the species persist.
I haven't heard a good counter-argument to the notion that homosexuality could lead to the declining population of a country.
However, I think homosexual acceptance is an inevitable result of societies that sponsor freedom and the rapid exchange of ideas. A closed society can easily shut down homosexuality without too much resistance from its citizens if the citizens are kept in the dark about homosexuality's acceptance elsewhere or if the standard for freedom is low there.
-- well, maybe not shut "homosexuality down" but still force people to have sex with the opposite sex, even if it is not their orientation.
So from another perspective, this could be a test for societies that know how to actively encourage population growth. Traditional methods for curbing the gay tide are losing their steam. Religious arguments are becoming mute as there is a wealth of other sources of information than your local parish (and if they support a Gay bishop, there goes Church's force in keeping the gayman down. Open scientific debate and the free movement of education has also shown that there is nothing physically dangerous about being homosexuality except the increased possibility of getting AIDS if you don't use protection. And also, urban legends and myths your parents used to feed you, have also lost their weight due to the free exchange of information.
What's my personal stance? I'm a firm believer in the Singularity's imminent arrival, so I don't care too much about population decline, as the consequences won't be felt.
If the Singularity doesn't happen though, would totalitarian societies be more favored then, by forcing certain ideas on its people? Or can a society allow freedom to float freely while managing to enforce policies that ensure its survival?
Which leads to another issue I will get to later: The importance of freedom and its relationship to survival.
Is marriage a little bit of an atavism these days? Yesterday, I saw Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, the "Mayor of America" making out with his mistress on national TV as the clock struck midnight. How ironic is that? The symbol of our new year, decade, century, millenium is the mayor with the fumbling divorce, prostate cancer, and domestic company with gay men. Oh, did I mention that he's the most celebrated and loved "Person of the Year" in America right now. This was the man that the terrorists were after, this symbol. And if most "conservatives", when confronted with those same small details but in a different person, a different mayor, would not this man be frowned upon.
Death to the conservatives then, because this is the new age. What is marriage afterall? Chattel slavery for women [and men] mind you, as my philosophy professor, Lanier Anderson put it. Maybe, could be, by God it is! I mean, why should you have a pact that binds you to "love" somebody, that's the most insane contradiction. Isn't the greatest love free? I mean, look at its converse. The love that the 16 year old Nazi youth seargent has for Hitler. The love that the middle-management yes-man has to the all-powerful CEO. The love that a child has to the angry mother who in a rage, forces the child to obsequesce. The love that is free, the love that nature gave us, is far more valuable.
Egypt censor unloads ‘Matrix’ sequel
“It explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in,” it said.
Japan’s chilling Internet suicide pacts
The discovery Sunday of the bodies of four young Japanese men in a car at a vista point near Mount Fuji appears to be more evidence of a grim new trend in the prosperous country — group suicides of strangers who meet over the Internet. The suicide pacts, which have resulted in at least 18 deaths since February, are shocking to experts, even in a nation plagued by an astronomical suicide rate.
UPDATE: Yikes, I didn't explain some of my premises. But basically, what I'm saying is that if someone had unfettered access to intelligence, they'd eventually reach those zones that explain to them that the world is just an illusion, nothing happens after you die, even if you did die you wouldn't be there to care about the effects, and that their existence depends on the suffering and enslavement of many people, animals, and earth. i.e: Nothing matters and everything is far from ideal anyways, so adios.
Pascal's Wager [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] - Blaise Pascal, French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability theorist (1623-1662). He makes an argument for believing in God basically because, "hey, what have you got to lose?" I haven't read the whole thing, but there's a counterargument that follows afterwards saying that by making such a statement, you're trivializing the god-believing experience into something practical, and therefore, making it ineffectual.
UPDATE: I actually kind of find Pascal's Wager ridiculous. Like WTF, by putting up a matrix of that sort you're automatically assuming that such things do happen as a result of believing in god or not believing in god. You could substitute "believing in god" with ANY belief. And there's a good counter toward the end about, "What about the Professor's God?" which is the God that rewards those who remain skeptical. Yes, this is ridiculous, and it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God.. instead it's just another ruse to proselytze..
What Is Kabbalah, Anyway? By Ed Finn Last week news broke that Madonna spent over $5 million for a London town house that will become a new center for the study of Kabbalah. This religious movement, long associated with Judaism, was little known until it became popular among celebrities. What is Kabbalah all about?
(from e-mail to Roberto)
Yeah, the West is so ubar-individualized. Everybody gets this feeling of ownership and being. The ego's inflated while as the hyperego is de-flated here in the West.
Of course, it's just an illusion that we are our own selves and composed of only what we make. For me, I can look at every thought I have and I can draw, to some degree, a causation map of things that I've encountered by luck that influenced that thought.
RE :religion, it's hard to form a religion around individuality. Sartre did it, but he's like the only one that I know to do it effectively. Developing a cult of the self, at least in my personal practice, descends one into vanity and egotistical behavior. In addition, it's hard to develop a _sense_ of purpose when everything is all for the raising and glorification of one node. i.e. If your goal is to amass lots of money and achievements, it'll be sad to know that when you're dead, all of those just become vaporware. While as if you see yourself as connected to others as "one" then, then your efforts seem to work for something bigger than yourself. I think most of us have this ascetic trait and so limiting your realm of interest to oneself will lead to unhappiness.
Now, not to say that selfish people don't serve a "purpose" in this world. Every thing serves a purpose, but I think if one is to walk around and be able to say to themselves, "Man, I feel like my life has meaning" then I think it has to extend to things bigger than the self.