Valerie Tarico on how people of reason should treat people of faith. 

Even assuming credulity is a weakness, decent people don’t 
jeer at others who are functioning poorly in some part of life.

With religious belief holding such an outsized influence on our society, it is reasonable that atheists, humanists and other freethinkers push back against religious superstitions, outdated social scripts and archaic rules. But one way we often do this is by ridiculing believers themselves, which is less reasonable.

To be fair, most secular scorn does tend to be directed toward a specific kind of believer—with good reason. Not all religious beliefs are equally noxious or untrue. Gods can be defined in ways that are unfalsifiable, and there is a realm of metaphysical conjecture in which all any of us can do is make our own best guesses. Some people embrace god concepts drawn from this realm, which they hold with a great degree of humility. Further, all of us make at least tentative commitments to a worldview that includes opinions about supernaturalism, and that many of our non-religious ideas are viral and socially transmitted. We all could do with a little more humbleness on this point.

That said, some religious beliefs are patently false or immoral; and the ones that tend to do the most harm and be the most socially aggressive—and so receive the most derision— fall into this latter camp. When I raise questions about treating believers with disdain or kindness, it is this kind of religion I’m talking about—where the beliefs themselves aren’t really worthy of respect, or even a pass. But that doesn’t mean the same is true of persons who hold them.

Frustration, Judgment

We freethinkers give ourselves permission to sneer because we tend to think of religious belief as voluntary and lazy, irresponsible and harmful. We often see believers, especially fundamentalists and biblical literalists, as people who have chosen not to do the work of examining their faith and asking the hard questions that could show them wrong.

Their sloppy thinking frustrates us, but what really gets us going is this: Having not done their homework, many seek to impose iron age beliefs and scripts on not only themselves and their children but on the rest of society. Even worse, with traditions and laws stacked in their favor, they often get away with it. So, when we sneer at them or treat them with disdain, we see ourselves as behaving this way towards people who are powerful and abusing that power. In the language of the millennial left, we tell ourselves that we are punching up, which makes it OK.

But does it?

Why People Believe

Freethinkers are well positioned to recognize complex, real-world causal factors that shape human beliefs and behavior, because we don’t look at humankind through a lens of sin and righteousness. We are free to recognize that life experiences and social influences may incline one person to commit crimes and another to win a Nobel prize.

Liberated from a traditional worldview that dichotomizes society into saints and sinners, we are also free to acknowledge complexity within people, to see good and bad in combination and to seek common ground in the good. But we often forget our nuanced, psychologically-informed understanding of human behavior and we abandon our quest for common ground when confronted with superstition and bad behavior that are motivated by religion.

Mind Viruses

A number of atheist writers, including me, have described religion as a family of viral self-replicators, mind viruses that are in varying degrees benign or harmful. To the extent that this description fits, what we know about bacteria—how they are subject to selective pressures and how they spread—offers some insights into religion. So do fields of scholarship like epidemiology. And increasingly, cognitive psychology and neuroscience allow us to understand how false ideas slip past our defenses, how they spread, and why humans are vulnerable to specific kinds of “grand stories.”

But if religious believers are people who are infected with socially transmitted mind viruses and the fundamentalisms are the most malignant of those viruses, then does it actually make sense to scorn and belittle them in the ways we so often do? We wouldn’t do that to someone living with hepatitis or HIV.

Bad People vs Bad Ideas

Careful critics of Islam, like Quilliam founder Maajid Nawaz, draw an important distinction between criticizing bad ideas and hating on people. By way of analogy, I think about my sister who is mentally ill, because it is clear in my own mind that I’m capable of loving her while hating the bipolar illness that has caused so much suffering to her and people around her—including through her own behavior. It can be hard to hold this difference in mind when surrounded by religiously-motivated harms, but it has powerful implications for how we treat people and, in the long run, whether society becomes more civilized or more cruel.

How might the behavior of atheists change if we stayed true to our recognition that religions are powerful contagions optimized by natural selection to slip past human defenses? Even assuming credulity is a weakness, decent people don’t jeer at others who are functioning poorly in some part of life, in part because we don’t assume that under-functioning is always, wholly a choice. Most believers have their religious views literally indoctrinated during childhood, shaping thought patterns and emotions that become extremely difficult to change and, perhaps for some, impossible. The boundaries and even existence of free will seem to be up for debate of late, so perhaps we should give religious dogmatists some benefit of the doubt on this.

I should add, too, that every religion is a factual and ethical mixed bag; a religion that contained only falsehoods and did only harm likely wouldn’t get passed down very long. The Bible and Quran may be full of tribalism and violence. They may have verses that identify women as chattel and offer instructions for slavery. But that is not all they contain. Thomas Jefferson called the wiser parts of the Bible, “diamonds in a dunghill.” The beliefs and values of Christians and other believers are, likewise, jumbled (as is true for all of us); and when we think of people with contempt, we miss their diamonds. We also miss the opportunity to invite them into their better selves.

Recognizing these complexities doesn’t in any way change the need to address the harms done by religion in our world. We must continue to thwart the corrupted moral priorities of those religious believers who are driven by handed-down texts and doctrines to impose iron-age thinking on society. Harmful dogmas and derivative behaviors can and must be met with a firm no.

But if treating even dogmatic believers with dignity rather than disdain allows bridging conversations, reducing religious harms may become more possible rather than less. A kinder approach also keeps us from falling into some of the very same patterns that we so dislike in some of the religious—dehumanizing tribal outsiders while excusing one’s own bad behavior. By confronting toxic faith with kindness as well as clarity, we stay true to our better selves.


Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington.  

She writes about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society.

Treat True Believers With Humanity, Not Contempt

Valerie Tarico on how people of reason should treat people of faith. 

Even assuming credulity is a weakness, decent people don’t 
jeer at others who are functioning poorly in some part of life.

With religious belief holding such an outsized influence on our society, it is reasonable that atheists, humanists and other freethinkers push back against religious superstitions, outdated social scripts and archaic rules. But one way we often do this is by ridiculing believers themselves, which is less reasonable.

To be fair, most secular scorn does tend to be directed toward a specific kind of believer—with good reason. Not all religious beliefs are equally noxious or untrue. Gods can be defined in ways that are unfalsifiable, and there is a realm of metaphysical conjecture in which all any of us can do is make our own best guesses. Some people embrace god concepts drawn from this realm, which they hold with a great degree of humility. Further, all of us make at least tentative commitments to a worldview that includes opinions about supernaturalism, and that many of our non-religious ideas are viral and socially transmitted. We all could do with a little more humbleness on this point.

That said, some religious beliefs are patently false or immoral; and the ones that tend to do the most harm and be the most socially aggressive—and so receive the most derision— fall into this latter camp. When I raise questions about treating believers with disdain or kindness, it is this kind of religion I’m talking about—where the beliefs themselves aren’t really worthy of respect, or even a pass. But that doesn’t mean the same is true of persons who hold them.

Frustration, Judgment

We freethinkers give ourselves permission to sneer because we tend to think of religious belief as voluntary and lazy, irresponsible and harmful. We often see believers, especially fundamentalists and biblical literalists, as people who have chosen not to do the work of examining their faith and asking the hard questions that could show them wrong.

Their sloppy thinking frustrates us, but what really gets us going is this: Having not done their homework, many seek to impose iron age beliefs and scripts on not only themselves and their children but on the rest of society. Even worse, with traditions and laws stacked in their favor, they often get away with it. So, when we sneer at them or treat them with disdain, we see ourselves as behaving this way towards people who are powerful and abusing that power. In the language of the millennial left, we tell ourselves that we are punching up, which makes it OK.

But does it?

Why People Believe

Freethinkers are well positioned to recognize complex, real-world causal factors that shape human beliefs and behavior, because we don’t look at humankind through a lens of sin and righteousness. We are free to recognize that life experiences and social influences may incline one person to commit crimes and another to win a Nobel prize.

Liberated from a traditional worldview that dichotomizes society into saints and sinners, we are also free to acknowledge complexity within people, to see good and bad in combination and to seek common ground in the good. But we often forget our nuanced, psychologically-informed understanding of human behavior and we abandon our quest for common ground when confronted with superstition and bad behavior that are motivated by religion.

Mind Viruses

A number of atheist writers, including me, have described religion as a family of viral self-replicators, mind viruses that are in varying degrees benign or harmful. To the extent that this description fits, what we know about bacteria—how they are subject to selective pressures and how they spread—offers some insights into religion. So do fields of scholarship like epidemiology. And increasingly, cognitive psychology and neuroscience allow us to understand how false ideas slip past our defenses, how they spread, and why humans are vulnerable to specific kinds of “grand stories.”

But if religious believers are people who are infected with socially transmitted mind viruses and the fundamentalisms are the most malignant of those viruses, then does it actually make sense to scorn and belittle them in the ways we so often do? We wouldn’t do that to someone living with hepatitis or HIV.

Bad People vs Bad Ideas

Careful critics of Islam, like Quilliam founder Maajid Nawaz, draw an important distinction between criticizing bad ideas and hating on people. By way of analogy, I think about my sister who is mentally ill, because it is clear in my own mind that I’m capable of loving her while hating the bipolar illness that has caused so much suffering to her and people around her—including through her own behavior. It can be hard to hold this difference in mind when surrounded by religiously-motivated harms, but it has powerful implications for how we treat people and, in the long run, whether society becomes more civilized or more cruel.

How might the behavior of atheists change if we stayed true to our recognition that religions are powerful contagions optimized by natural selection to slip past human defenses? Even assuming credulity is a weakness, decent people don’t jeer at others who are functioning poorly in some part of life, in part because we don’t assume that under-functioning is always, wholly a choice. Most believers have their religious views literally indoctrinated during childhood, shaping thought patterns and emotions that become extremely difficult to change and, perhaps for some, impossible. The boundaries and even existence of free will seem to be up for debate of late, so perhaps we should give religious dogmatists some benefit of the doubt on this.

I should add, too, that every religion is a factual and ethical mixed bag; a religion that contained only falsehoods and did only harm likely wouldn’t get passed down very long. The Bible and Quran may be full of tribalism and violence. They may have verses that identify women as chattel and offer instructions for slavery. But that is not all they contain. Thomas Jefferson called the wiser parts of the Bible, “diamonds in a dunghill.” The beliefs and values of Christians and other believers are, likewise, jumbled (as is true for all of us); and when we think of people with contempt, we miss their diamonds. We also miss the opportunity to invite them into their better selves.

Recognizing these complexities doesn’t in any way change the need to address the harms done by religion in our world. We must continue to thwart the corrupted moral priorities of those religious believers who are driven by handed-down texts and doctrines to impose iron-age thinking on society. Harmful dogmas and derivative behaviors can and must be met with a firm no.

But if treating even dogmatic believers with dignity rather than disdain allows bridging conversations, reducing religious harms may become more possible rather than less. A kinder approach also keeps us from falling into some of the very same patterns that we so dislike in some of the religious—dehumanizing tribal outsiders while excusing one’s own bad behavior. By confronting toxic faith with kindness as well as clarity, we stay true to our better selves.


Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington.  

She writes about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society.

46 comments:

  1. Hear hear. The sneering ‘free thinker’ is not a free thinker at all. A sizeable number could do with reading this article over. The behaviour it brings into question is symptomatic not of an open mind but of a closed mind — and a reactionary disposition. Many Republicans can only have forgotten the section in the Proclamation referring to freedom of religion — one of its core tenets.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Balanced piece ... if religions didn't have, or at least retain some positive utility over and above all the negative stuff, then surely they wouldn't continue to survive?

    There's little value in personalised critiques of another's belief system. Rather that whilst hating the sin, we might acknowledge 'the diamonds in the dunghill' and learn to retain a smidgeen of love for the shinner!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Freedom of religion is a crucially important concept without which no democratic culture can flourish. Freedom from religion is equally important for the same reason. I think it is vital that people be free to practice their religion but also vital that people be free from having religion practiced on them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed, Anthony, but (as the article makes clear) this is not how it works in practice. Actions speak louder than words.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sean - how it works in practice is that many religious types want the power to make decisions for other people on the basis of their own religious opinion. They are entitled to their opinion that blue cheese is forbidden by their religion but they cannot expect me not to eat blue cheese in accordance with their own opinion which is not shared by me. The optimum and just outcome is for them not to eat blue cheese and for me to eat it. Mockery of authority is a time honoured method of pricking balloons and should be protected. That includes mockery of religious opinion as much as mockery of any other opinion. This is why satire is so important. There should be no privileging of religious opinion. By the same time there should be no persecution of it. If Jim Wells thinks gays are an abomination it is not the business of the police. The rest of us can think he is a cunt. And that is not the business of the police either.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Two wrongs don’t make a right, regardless from which side you come at this, and that’s the bottom line.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Given that no one thus far has advocated a wrong the comment lacks relevance. The bottom line is freedom to and from religion. One is as essential as the other. Opinion that religion is useful should be protected as much as opinion that religion is useless. There is no need whatsoever to respect religious ideas or atheist ideas, merely a respect for the right to hold those ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The comment is relevant to those it concerns, among them many Republicans. Their expressed contempt for people of religious belief is reactionary, often verging on fascist. People should be free to express their atheism, yes, and to debate or otherwise discuss whether there is a God etc, but to go beyond that and to make personal attacks and mount personal derogatory descriptions to undermine those you’re arguing with is every bit as reactionary as the views and methods of your Jim Wells. Two wrongs don’t make a right. That Jim Wells is a homophobe and bigot who misuses religion for his own purposes does not excuse the behaviour of others who do similar, only in reverse. That happens to be the underlying ‘raison d’etre’ of the article itself so of course the comment is relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In that context it is relevant.

    Religious opinion should no more be protected from ridicule or contempt than any other opinion. So long as the contempt for religious opinion does not extend to seeking to deny a person the right to hold opinion considered contemptible. The boundary between person and the idea they hold is often cloudy. Republicanism is a secular outlook but it is also citizen centred which means it should treat people's right to hold views but not the views they hold. If I think England is a great soccer team, my view should not be protected from ridicule. Much the same as a view that the pope is infallible.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The bottom line of the article is, clearly, that two wrongs don’t make a right when it comes to attitudes towards religion and how we go about expressing ourselves in that regard. It’s that simple. Many people who I see expressing disregard for others, in this regard, would do well to take this lady’s point on board. Sin é.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The writer only has an opinion - no need for anyone to be bound by it. She is simply calling for civility. But there is no need to be civil when people are threatening kids with hellfire, gays with being burned, health workers who perform abortions with death. There are religious nutters just as there are all sorts of nutters and all their deranged views should be mocked and ridiculed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can agree with that, easily, but the lady has already dealt with what you’re taking about in her article, at the beginning. What you bring in is not the subject she’s considering and it is this, what you bring in, which actually holds no relevance. The sneering ‘free thinker’ is not a free thinker, just the mirror of the sneering zealot. That’s what she is saying and I share her view, having long ago noted this very tendency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you just can't see the relevance.

      Mencken, Voltaire were both labelled sneering freethinkers in their day. We can hardly accuse them of not being freethinkers, even if what they thought we often find ourselves in. No better sneering freethinker that George Carlin. His sneering at the evangelical mob is something t be admired.

      Delete
  13. Although it is argued by atheists that 'there is no proof of God' etc etc and thus mock folk who believe otherwise, the irony is inevitably lost on them when they reject, as evidence, of say, a child in the womb as a human being. Now that's deranged.
    Btw, I ain't particularly religious but have been learning more about Darwins evolution theory and I am coming to the conclusion it's is pure hogwash too. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wolfe Tone - the old abortion debate. That was well lost last year and it would be a waste of time revisiting it.

    Whether Darwin's theory on evolution or Hans Kung's theory on it, we know we evolved and were not made by magic. The only question left to be answered if we evolved without divine intervention or evolved with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can provide evidence of how we evolved I'd be very grateful? Btw, just because an abortion debate was made law doesn't mean diddly squat; it's still horrific to some people and they have a right to say so. My point above still stands I.e it's kinda deranged when folk deny concrete evidence of a human in the womb as not a human or evidence and yet they demand concrete proof from religionists for their beliefs. Heck you'd be forgiven for thinking they were in some sort of cult themselves! Oh the irony.

      Delete
  15. The sneering ‘free thinker’ is not a free thinker but a zealot, no different to those he or she would ridicule — worse in fact because not everyone who such people would subject to ridicule and sneer advocate their beliefs through such methods. Those who would ridicule and / or demonise someone simply for having religion are no better than your Jim Wells, or others of a type alluded to in all of the other examples you cite. Carlin is not among their rank — he attacks the organisational structure, not an individual who practices. That’s the essential point to the article and it’s long overdue from what I can see. What you are introducing is what lacks relevance as it’s a different matter — one clearly not the subject of the article. So it’s not that I don’t see the relevance; it’s that there is none. Wrong is wrong and reaction is reaction, no matter. There lies the article’s bottom line and there are many who’d do well to take its core premise onboard.

    ReplyDelete
  16. George Carlin is a sneering free thinker - the only issue is what he sneers at. Etiquette should prevent sneering at friends, but others don't get the same level of protection. But civil discussion is not helped by sneering or nastiness. If people want to express a view and the view is ridiculed, no big deal. The problem arises when the individual expressing the idea has their person subject to a torrent of abuse. Their views are fair game. All our views are. Ridicule is an acceptable way of dealing with views in a way that using blasphemy laws is not. I am not sure Valerie Tarico gets the balance right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What he sneers at is precisely the issue — as it is the issue addressed by the article itself. Those who use the tactics of the zealots they object to, in reverse, are no different or better than those they bemoan. Their respective approaches are as one: reactionary. Carlin does not, at least to my knowledge, attack individuals of a religious persuasion by and through demonising. He rightly calls out the abuses of organised religion, which is entirely different — just as it is entirely different to what the article alludes to. Demonising or otherwise ridiculing individuals on the basis alone of their having religion is sadly quite common — thus why the author has sought to address it. ‘What about this’ and ‘what about that’ are ultimately irrelevant. They are relevant to a different conversation, of course, but not to what Valerie Tareco is writing about, which is why she dealt with them by extension in her opening paragraph before moving on to her central premise. When we adopt the tactics of those we object to we become as them, regardless from which angle we come at this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It is rare that I see people sneered at for merely believing in some diety. The belief is sneered at but that is fine - no protection for ideas from being offended or special priviledge. They have the right to belive in whatever they choose. Religious zealots get sneered at if they try to insist on inflicting their belief on others. Sneering at them becomes a form of pushing back against the imposition of an opinion.

    The person who believes in paedophilia might be on weak ground when objecting to people sneering at them for holding the opinion they do. In those circumstances it can often be difficult to separate the person from the opinion they hold without ceding the ground of individual responsibility.

    If Carlin sneers at organized religion rather than the abuses, it is fair game. If people feel religion is a vile belief system, there will be a tendency to sneer at those who promote it. Often religious types will claim they are offended by criticism of their religious opinion. Too bad. The rule of thumb should be to play the ball not the player.

    I didn't find the piece one of Valerie's better ones but it raises points that of interest.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Neither the article or what I’ve spoken on are in any way about religious zealots being sneered at.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Should even religious zealots be sneered at or just their ideas/zealotry?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think it’s probably better that we sneer at no-one but I certainly would not object to the like of Wells and his ilk being rigorously challenged — not just their ideas. I’m not sure if I’d defend their right to hold such views as they do, to be honest, but such people aren’t anyway the subject being considered. I certainly have no objection to them being met with scorn but the same does not apply to those who, in a run of the mill sense, hold a belief in whatever be their God. These people should not be belittled or scorned or demonised, as Valerie rightly asserts, and to engage in such demeaning is fundamentally reactionary. I’d say we’re likely in agreement here in the round.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No, not a lot of difference. But I do think Wells has a right to hold the views he does. It is freedom of opinion. I recall writing something in defence of his right against the PZNI trying to police him for it. Ideas will be scorned regardless of their provenance and at the same time people holding those ideas will identify so much with them that they invest them with their own person: they will then claim that an insult to their ideas is an insult to them. People tend not to like being told their ideas are ridiculous but what else is there to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " ... and at the same time people holding those ideas will identify so much with them that they invest them with their own person: they will then claim that an insult to their ideas is an insult to them. "

      Agreed, in those situations, where someone reacts as if their whole sense of self is threatened rather than just their opinion, it's often a reasonable assumption to make that they've been brainwashed.
      They have most likely been indoctrinated, inculcated or socialised into those beliefs rather than having arrived at their own freely thought out position as a result of their own efforts.

      Those with freely thought out positions are least likely to over-react. Those whom have been indoctrinated are those most likely to lash out.

      Delete
  23. WT - go look. I am not going to do it for you on the grounds of it all being so accessible. It is so easy found if you are really interested and has been hashed out here to the point of tedium. Nobody other than a few religious zealots believe in the magical act of special creation but that too has been gone over so often over the years. The Intelligent Design Movement has tried holding out but has been left looking foolish. Some of the best work has been done by Christian scientists. Evolution is no longer an issue for them - just a question of how it started.

    As has often been said, the people have voted, the bastards! They might be wrong of course, and people have every right to dissent from that opinion. But the dissent means diddly squat to use your own phrase. An opinion that has been roundly rejected. It just means women will make their own choice and neither you nor I shall make it for them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. https://www.sott.net/article/415422-Evolution-A-Modern-Fairy-Tale

    ReplyDelete
  25. The issue has been so well settled I neither read pieces for or against. Like watching an action reply from old soccer games. If anything new comes out we will no doubt learn of it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wolfe,

    "If you can provide evidence of how we evolved I'd be very grateful?"

    Pop into your nearest Natural History museum and look at the fossil record for Homo Sapiens. It's blindingly obvious we evolved.

    And that laughable op-ed by a batshit crazy Polish mathematician who clearly has no understanding of biology is not doing you any favours.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Steve - at least you took the time to read it. I didn't so can't comment on it other than to say that the only discussion worth having on these things is whether evolution was kickstarted by God or wasn't. And even then people will go back to their baseline positions of either believing in god or not. It is revealing how the Vatican came around to accepting Darwin's position, claiming that evolution was understood as far back as Aquinas and Augustine before him. I don't think there is anybody who seriously believes that we just appeared one day fully formed and out of the blue - the act of special creation as it is called by ID people. Then we have the Young Earth Creationists who think the world is 6000 years old. They are biblical literalists with even less going for them than the anti-evolution lot.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Steve R, we are privileged to have your scientific wisdom on here. Privileged indeed. Btw, you obviously didn't read the article. The cultish sycophancy on here is a sight to behold.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The material realm — our reality — is a manifestation of consciousness, born of its power to create what we perceive as our reality. Thus it is written that God is all things visible and invisible, seen and unseen, true and untrue, for He is the totality of all that is, that has been and that ever will be. He is the Creator — the conscious force behind creation.

    Experienced reality, as such — the physical realm — is born of and remains connected to the source of all things: consciousness. Consciousness creates our evolving reality while at the same time being there behind all. Indeed it IS all — the totality of everything, which is connected at source.

    I personally believe this power to be Divine but do not attack those who say it isn’t and who hold it as inert. It is also, for me, both infinite and eternal — without beginning or end. A better way of looking at it is that you do not have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body. Soul is connected to what stands behind the material; body is the manifestation of consciousness as it creates the material world, which is constantly evolving.

    My grip on this is tenuous at best, because our understanding of the Divine is limited by the boundaries of our current earthly state. While we believe ourselves to be supreme among the knowing, this is merely perspective. We are learning all the time, yes, about how our reality is operated but have little idea as to why. Our understanding of both, though, is not as advanced as we would believe it to be.

    Our understanding of consciousness when set aside the ‘mind’ of the Creator — how He creates and why — is best considered as on a par to the earth worm’s understanding of this world in comparison to our own. What we think of as ‘death’ will reveal all, for it is then we will return to our original condition.

    Quantum mechanics and theory are making huge strides forward in understanding these matters. A growing section of this field are of a view as my own. Either way, regardless of one’s beliefs, it is in how we interact with the world around us that we can better serve our true purpose — which is surely to create a better balance going forward.

    To return to the article, it’s by being more tolerant of those we disagree with (though not to a point of allowing bigotry and reaction to proceed unmolested, for these must rightly be challenged) that we will change our reality for the better. The prophesied time of the condor and the eagle is drawing near — of the coming together of the heart and the brain. Soon we will see the rising of the moon.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sean - you should try saying that in Latin to enable us to understand it better!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cultish sycophancy - that is a new one for us. Hope you are not a secret god botherer Wolfie!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "......that's a new one for us." Is 'us' being the cult? Is bazza the arch Angel! I havnt bothered 'God' in years but I am mindful not to follow any other self appointed gods either.

      Delete
  32. Sean,

    "The material realm — our reality — is a manifestation of consciousness, born of its power to create what we perceive as our reality. Thus it is written that God is all things visible and invisible, seen and unseen, true and untrue, for He is the totality of all that is, that has been and that ever will be. He is the Creator — the conscious force behind creation."

    That's pure opinion with no scientific evidence to back it up. It answers nothing of the Universe's origins either, rather it adds more questions like "Who created this 'god'?"

    "Experienced reality, as such — the physical realm — is born of and remains connected to the source of all things: consciousness. Consciousness creates our evolving reality while at the same time being there behind all. Indeed it IS all — the totality of everything, which is connected at source."

    Schrodinger put it better.

    "I personally believe this power to be Divine but do not attack those who say it isn’t and who hold it as inert. It is also, for me, both infinite and eternal — without beginning or end. A better way of looking at it is that you do not have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body. Soul is connected to what stands behind the material; body is the manifestation of consciousness as it creates the material world, which is constantly evolving."

    Consciousness is a product of our evolution, you are getting the cart before the horse here. There's zero evidence for a soul. Pretty sure the concept of a 'soul' was invented as an agency to terrify adherents into believing that they faced eternal damnation if they opposed the religious establishment.

    "My grip on this is tenuous at best, because our understanding of the Divine is limited by the boundaries of our current earthly state. While we believe ourselves to be supreme among the knowing, this is merely perspective. We are learning all the time, yes, about how our reality is operated but have little idea as to why. Our understanding of both, though, is not as advanced as we would believe it to be."

    Agree 100%.

    "Our understanding of consciousness when set aside the ‘mind’ of the Creator — how He creates and why — is best considered as on a par to the earth worm’s understanding of this world in comparison to our own. What we think of as ‘death’ will reveal all, for it is then we will return to our original condition."

    Which is...? What? 'Return to the source' like Neo in The Matrix? Death is final, and the great leveler. The only source we will return to is at an atomic level.

    "Quantum mechanics and theory are making huge strides forward in understanding these matters. A growing section of this field are of a view as my own. Either way, regardless of one’s beliefs, it is in how we interact with the world around us that we can better serve our true purpose — which is surely to create a better balance going forward."

    Ask any Quantum Physicist what the fuck is going on at any point and they'll be the first to tell you they haven't the faintest idea. The more they look into the Quantum Realm the more shit becomes confusing.

    "To return to the article, it’s by being more tolerant of those we disagree with (though not to a point of allowing bigotry and reaction to proceed unmolested, for these must rightly be challenged) that we will change our reality for the better. The prophesied time of the condor and the eagle is drawing near — of the coming together of the heart and the brain. Soon we will see the rising of the moon"

    Eh?

    And this critique isn't personal Sean.









    ReplyDelete
  33. Wolfie,

    I did read the article, I even undertood it. But he ommits quite a bit of information that does'nt fit with his narrative. Can you guess why?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Steve - why did you even read the article? Out of curiosity? I rarely read links on anything or I would be reading all day. I don't read the for or the against articles on evolution for the same reason I don't read for or against on the stork bringing new born children. What would I discover? You might recall the Intelligent Design case in Dover (USA) back in 2005 which dealt with the smuggling of religion into the biology class dressed up as science. Christian parents were amongst those who took the case, outraged that their children would not get a proper education if religion was taught in the science class. The testimony of the ID people was that ID was science on a par with astrology. It was chased out of court. Not one ID article could be put forward as having been peer reviewed which was remarkable for something claiming to be a science. ID was a religious cult, albeit much more clever than the crackpot Young Earth Creationists, from whom it was eager to distance itself. None of it of course ruled out the existence of a god: evolution as a fact neither proved nor disproved god which is why the Vatican accepts it. Ultimately, I don't care how we got here - a magical act of special creation or biological evolution. Evidence is really all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Wolfe - "us" is you, me Henry Joy, Sea, Steve R et al who participate here. Too disparate a group to be usefully or accurately described as a cult. A cult to me is a group tightly bound by a shared faith in something contrary to all the available evidence outside of the cult. It might be the stork bringing babies, the earth being 6000 years old, scientology, Intelligent Design - they are more in line with cultic thinking than the mishmash of ideas that feature here. Trying to pull everybody here together is like herding cats. Not going to happen. Nice to know you are not a god botherer. I would have to give you my T-shirt. Stencilled on it is "Today I am going to talk to you about Jesus". It gets me a seat on the bus every day without fail all on my own. I dread the day some cunt gets on with the same T shirt.

    ReplyDelete
  36. AM,

    Yes, curiosity. I sometimes wonder if new brainfarts by the ID mob will make a modicum of sense. I'm thusfar left wanting. As you point out, evidence is all that really matters. But there is no evidence for a special creation, and a significant amount to negate such superstition.

    I grew up a Prod, around the Free P mob. Lord save us from the Christians!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Steve - curiosity as to what other people might read, I can understand but I would never be curious about an argument being made for say a turtles all the way down explanation of the universe. There is so much useful stuff out there to read and no time to do it, why read nonsense? If someone provides a link to a piece arguing for evolution and how it all started in a Smarties factory in Outer Mongolia and that we all evolved form one single chocolate droplet, god had nothing to do with it, why would you read it? Intelligent Design has been so ridiculed as a science that only fraud would get it across the line. But it is always important to get the point that the trashing of ID as a religious cult does not rule out the existence of an intelligent designer nor is it an argument against religion per se. The Vatican, if I recall, rebuffed overtures from the ID people to form an alliance. The Vatican reasoning was its own acceptance of evolution.
    The Free P mob is a cult. They believe in special creation - we all just magically appeared one day, fully formed and developed, and they believe the earth is around 6000 years old. This is the type of rubbish they wanted taught as science in schools. Christian parents were to the fore in fighting against them in the Dover case. You probably recall the Caleb Foundation wanting its gunk on display at the Giants Causeway Interpretive Centre.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If you look at it as an exercise in understanding what it means 'to be human', then reading even base articles which you know are factually incoherent can shed light on the mindset of the person who puts stock in them. The whole 'special creation' schtick is a source of great comfort to the likes of the Caleb nutters whereas to you and I it's illogical and patent nonsense.

    The creationists need to be challenged at every turn. We accept what we walk past. It doesn't matter to those in Dover who lost the court case, what matters is that there WAS a court case. They are working on a 'wedge' strategy. I'm sure you've read Sam Harris? These people believe they are doing good via 'God's Work' and see an inevitable silver lining in a mushroom cloud to bring about their rapture.

    It may sound funny but if you spend anytime in the deep south bible belt in the US they are deadly serious. Not hard to see why the Paisleyites found much to warm them there. The problem I have is that they want to warm the rest of us by nuking Iran, in the name of their 'god'.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Steve R - I get that and would not rule out reading what I presume to be nonsense if only to see what the so called reasoning behind it is. But these things come in the skip load. Any article claiming we are acts of special creation, having just magically appeared one afternoon, is going to be bunkum. The judge in the Dover case asked them if they are so devoted to religious truth why so much lying in the defence of truth. I have read Harris, years ago, although not on ID as such. The best critique of the wedge that I found was Trojan Horse. The Paisleyites and deep south bible belt are a match made in hell!. I am sure there are more than a few Catholic Paisleyites who are prepared to stand with their bible shouting at people going into university lectures of evolutionary biology, "evolution is wrong. The earth is 6000 years old." There really is nothing else to do but smile and walk on by. I took my daughter to a Dawkins event in Dublin many years ago and we had some Muslims that turned up with Korans to protest outside but at least they focused on how it all started and not on the nonsense of magical acts of special creation.

    ReplyDelete
  40. My passion is flora and fauna, unfortunately due to failing every exam I ever took in school I was unable to make a job out of it! But it's through this lense I read most ID literature..and find myself dumbfounded at the sheer effort they put into being wrong. It baffles me that people allow themselves to be led so astray in the face of concrete, incontrovertible proof that ID is very wrong.

    One of my main gripes is basic. ID proponents confuse the basic sciences by using 'Evolution' as a catch-all term when they are actually referencing either Abiogensis, Evolution driven by natural selection and genetic drift (seperate parts), palaeontolgy or cosmology.

    And it's really annoying when the cunts clearly can't tell the difference!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Steve - I never had much interest in science or anything else at school. Do you think they can't tell the difference? I think it is more a case of deliberately confusing and falsifying for the purpose of misleading and misinforming. The judge booted them up the Jaxy in Dover for lying.

    ReplyDelete