IT'S WEDNESDAY; KELSO'S LAZY; WE'RE THROWING A QUESTION TO THE PANEL: IF YOU ARE A TRUE BELIEVER IN GOD OR A CAUSE, WHAT'S IT LIKE?
“I came to the conclusion long ago that all life is six to five against.”
-- Damon Runyon
The above quotation is a very profound one. It can be interpreted any number of ways. Literally, he means that the probability of one's being right in any ONE particlular decision of the thousands we make each day is on average 45.45%. Or maybe he means that, given that human life is finite, on average, every human being is a net 4.55% loser. If the latter is true it's no wonder organized religion is so powerful. Organized religion tells it's followers that with just a small contribution from tithe to $1000 Yom Kippur tickets to voting a certain way, one's life need not be finite. Heaven, hell, reincarnation, some random sense of foreverness. They are selling an antidote for memento mori. Think about that for a second. To Kelso they are selling a very powerful drug -- far more powerful than any opiate or coca derivative. One that has all the strength of an intoxicant but without any physical and/or legal danger.
Kelso tends to take the Runyonesque view of things. Life appears to be a series of random draws from a slightly unfavoable bag. We may control our decisions, i.e., how, where, when and why we draw from the bag? But we certainly not our results. Orgainized religion again says "not so." Each has a prescribed way to draw from the bag which according to each's liturgy maximizes and for many sects guarantees eternal life and luck way better than figures to result from Runyon's positied core odds of 6/5 against. So, OF COURSE, Lauryn Hill is going to thank her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when she wins a Grammy. Whether she does that after or before thanking her PR firm and accountant is a whole other question.
Kelso has talked to other believers who claim that God answers their prayers "at least 90% of the time." To that Kelso has often inquired "if that's the case then a) why the fuck aren't you rich? and b) why are you so angry and dismayed by your life if your life is so blessed and characterized but such certainty? A perfect example of a famous person like this is John McCain who claims great Christian devotion. Why is he so distraught all the time? Why is he so hostile and bellicose? Why did his God put him in the POW camp in Vietnam? Nevermind. Bad example. He's rich. A far better example is what FAIRLANE call the "wing-nuts." They are the most devout Christ-worshipping people on Earth and the angriest. Is it possible for these two states of nature to co-exist without bringing about cognitive dissonance in anybody?
So, it goes out to the panel. If you believe in God, in eternal life, in the ability of a historical philosopher of old to "save," what does it FEEL like? Does it feel like being high all the time and never having to worry? If you believe, does that lift the boulder from your shoulder, safe in the knowledge that a divine creator has taken an interest in you, specifically to the point where "he" will grant wishes? Do you believers ever suffer from anxiety or depression or anhedonia or anomie and/or affectlessness? If so, how does that square with your belief in a divine, superantural's being having taken an interest in your success?
Kelso is not mocking anyone. Having been raised an atheist, Kelso knows no other way to (not) believe. As a result, every day above ground is a good day. Every day with stress above ground can have a lot of very bad parts. We stare into an abyss and see nothing staring back. Kelso believes that if God exists he care about as much whether Kelso's happy or sad, alive or dead as he does about miners trapped in Utah or the Jews of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. More to the point, if God exists and the accounts of organized Christianity are to be believed then look what happened to Job. What the fuck does "God" have in store for Kelso, then?
Musn't every day with faith in the promises of organized religion be a great day even with stress? Surely, that day or some variant thereof ipso facto must be repeated at some later date or in some other space? Or else it's another day in an eternal string. What then do a day's stresses really mean to a believer? From these eyes, those stresses would appear to be trivial as a against a trade-off for eternal life.
But Kelso is an ignorant man. Please explain what it's like to believe in an organized relgion or an organzied cause for that matter. And please do not put forward any mouldy cliches about "a feeling that there is a greater being than onesself" or a "feeling of oneness with all and with nature". That's a dodge. It's Buddhism Lite and it makes no sense as a core belief it you are not a Buddhist. If you're a Christian tell us about heaven and hell and what certainty feels like. If you're a Jew tell us what's required of you to attain eternal life. If you're a Muslim, what do you feel Allah has in store for you and why is that good? Tell. Kelso's fully aware that it's like telling a color-blind guy all about mauve! But believers so out-number non-believers, it's important for us in the latter camp to try to get a handle on it beyond just making facile remarks.
If it has to do with answered prayers, Kelso will offer one opinion from The Book Of Reason but will attempt no further to argue anyone off his or her beliefs. Here's the Kelso guess on "answered prayers." There does exist some observable effect called "mean-reversion", meaning things tend to return to some steady-state, and very few pray for themselves when things are flying super-great for them. They pray as they sink and there is usually an inflection point around the time they're ready to cry "Uncle" or "God".
As for true believers in this "cause" or other, the same rules apply. WHY is the resolution of the problems created by society's neglect of your particular cause so important? What would resolution of said problems feel like to you? Like being high or being saved? Let's say your cause is animal rights or pollution. What would a perfect result be? How would it make your life better? Agian, no bullshit about "society" being better off. "Society" generally progresses, albeit in fits and starts. How does it help you, specifically, because if it didn't have that chance, you wouldn't bother with it. One in a million are so selfless. Is it a career? Is it a hobby? Or is the chase more satisfying than the kill?
Please no one take this the wrong way about religious belief or commitment to causes. Kelso -- without religion or particular cause -- is INVITING opinion and scholarship, not looking for an argument.
Kelso's Nuts love you
11 comments:
i'm clearly presenting opinion, or obvservation, not scholarship. and i'm answering your question with my question.
perhaps i haven't read enough dawkins or hitchens, but i am always amazed at how people who say they are atheists seem refer back always to western religious notions: that god is a personal god, one who listens and answers prayers, that jesus died and rose from the dead, that salvation is is to be achieved outside of oneself, i.e., in accepting christ as "savior" or some such nonsense.
what do atheists who have (logically, in some respects) rejected the western model, have to say with regard to eastern religions, such as buddhism, hinduism, taoism, etc., that espouse that the divine (god) is in fact within us all. that the divine is integral to both the adherent (individual) and the universe.
what i also find interesting, and bizarre, and depressing, is so many people think that the united states is a "christian" nation. and, unlike you kelso, i don't think john mccain's statement belied any inherent antisemitism. what it showed was a) his pandering to his audience; and 2) his stupidity by his mis-reading of the history of this nation.
people believe the "founding fathers" were "christian" in the religious sense and take that to mean that therefore our nation was established based on the tenents of one or more particular christian sects.
what most people don't know is that the founders were not particularly religious christians, nor were they evangelical in ANY sense. in fact, you could say they were more "cultural" christians, following the norms (church on sunday, for example) but their beliefs were far more complex than that. the intellectual history of this nation follows from the concept of deism (with it's own flavor of eastern mysticism):
Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.
do atheists reject this almost "middle way" in terms of belief?
Because it's never presented that way. It's presented as the book or nothing. I can only write for myself but I don't find too much to object to in your definition of deism. I just see it maybe more of humankind not being developed enough to understand the "whys" at this moment.
Anti-semitism by any other name smells just as sweet those fuckers like McCain. "Christian nation" is ipso facto anti-Semitic because it excludes the two Semitic faiths.
I'm not all that curious about Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. They are not faiths which are as "hard" as Fundamentalist Christianity but they are still well organized means of authoritarian control. They don't however present as intoxicating a brew to the faithful as American Christianity does. And they are not terribly important as a politicaal factor in the States right now. The latter, of course, could change at the drop of at with regard to Buddhism. Just as the Dalai Lama was an ATM for anti-Communist money during the Cold War, expect the same real, real soon now that China has just sold $50bn of US 30s. Bush will be getting that Lincoln Bedroom ready for Richard Gere real, real soon.
But I specifically don't want an argument. I don't want to defend my atheism. I don't want to evangelize for atheism. I don't want to negotiate my atheism into a more "scheduled" non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim religion like Agnosticism, Unitarianism, Deism, Animism, Wicca, whatever.
I AM interested in the nature of Christian and highly supernatural Jewish belief.
Great post, Kelso! I won't even attempt to be as cerebral as you and Anita are about this subject, but I do want to add my two pesos.
I have thought long and hard about religious belief and how it is that modern humans above the age of ten or twelve can believe these fairy tales. I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny when I was six, Santa Claus when I was seven and god when I was twelve. It just didn't make sense to me to believe in something I couldn't see, hear or feel.
I can understand how belief in some sort of god or gods came about, in ancient times, before the advent of scientific thought. The cave man looked around his world and said, "Christ! Where did all this stuff come from?" So he and his buddies dreamed up a creator and whatever accompanying pantheon their particular tribe enjoyed thinking about. And then, on the other end of the spectrum was the unpleasantness of death, and the desire to think that you didn't really die but could live forever if certain rules were followed. And in between birth and death there are all those tight spots that we get into that we could really use some divine guidance to help us get out of.
But now, mankind is all grown up! At least in the "civilized" world. We know a great deal about the earth's beginning and development and a lot of other stuff that seem, to me at least, to completely refute all the biblical stories.
Okay, I just realized that I have no idea where I'm going with this, and it sounds positively BLOVIATED!
So, I'm going to sign off and go work on my lascivious climax to my Pan-man post.
Your sister loves you.
"If God did not exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him." -- Voltaire
Kelso, I think that's it in a nutshell.
You are asking your readers to explain "the nature of Christian and highly supernatural Jewish belief." From what I can tell, none of us are in a position to discuss this because none of us are religious fanatics and are generally far too educated to even consider that as a possibility. Those who can or would answer your question aren't reading this blog and if they did I don't think they would think too highly of you (no offense).
You are forgetting that the vocal minority of hard line "believers" of any religion (or group for that matter) make one believe that they speak for the majority. You are forgetting that the fringe elements of religion are cult-like and there is a certain amount of brainwashing (for lack of a better term) involved. You are forgetting that there are many people, unwilling or incapable of dealing with the complexities of life, who are more than willing to turn the decision-making and opinion-making processes over to others. This, to me, is the only rational explanation of something that is so utterly irrational.
Kelso -
First off, awesome post. I particularly liked the way you couched in terms of mathematical probabilities. Like betting in LV or AC or Foxwoods or (pick your gambling parlor of choice), the only winners are the house and card counters.
As to Anita's question:
what do atheists who have (logically, in some respects) rejected the western model, have to say with regard to eastern religions, such as buddhism, hinduism, taoism, etc., that espouse that the divine (god) is in fact within us all. that the divine is integral to both the adherent (individual) and the universe.
I'll say this, despite the universal oneness is these "faiths" purport it still makes assertions on the human condition for which there is no proof. How do Buddhists or Hindus truly know that a god lives within us all? Is this the result of some hallucinogenic reductionism?
I apologize, Anita, if it seems that I am mocking you; I don't mean to. But, for me, these questions are at the core of my non-belief. And, so far, no religion, Eastern or Western, has been able to satisfactorily answer it. All they ask, in their own roundabout way, is suspend my notion of disbelief. For $10 and a bag of Twizzlers, I can do that at the movies and have a lot more fun at it.
Z: First of all, STOP RUNNING YOURSELF DOWN! There's nothing wrong with your thinking or your flow. Have you not noticed the startling LACK of competitiveness in this little corner of the blogosphere. Nobody has it right all the time. Anita catches my errors all the time and I love it. Fairlane, too. We're all here to take a lesson and give one. Go back to Oliver Twist in the musical upon joining Fagin's crew. Consider yourself ONE OF US. No more self-deprecation.
ANITA: You're right as usual which is why you're such a pain. My question was sincere because I don't believe in the supernatural, but you're right that MY putting the question out there was a pipe dream bound to fail because no one who does believe at the level I'm curious about is checking for me.
You could, perhaps, shed some light on my problem even though we are pretty close philosophically and politically. The dudes in the Wall Street kiddie-pool ARE believers yet are always angry when they should be in a constant state of Satori. What gives?
Tu sabes su vaina, si o no? Entonces, que pasa con ellos y su filosofia? Porque son tan cabreados con los de la bandera roja, rosada o ellos sin bandera? Son catolicos o evangelicos, si o no? Entonces, expicame como sea pa' ellos creer? Hay que ser estado de putisima madre saber que no vayan a morir. O sea, que vayan a vivir de nuevo en el cielo despues de morir. Para mi, cierto! Y si yo fuera com' asi, no estaria cabreado ni mucho menos. Me sentiria un pedo super-fantastico y pondria una sonrisa com' un girasol pegada en la cara. Jajaja!
I know how much they love "spics" so I figured I'd re-ask you the question in Spanish. Just to bust balls, of course. I'd never let anyone of Latin descent loose on them -- oh, say -- like...
...SPARTACUS, for example: Thanks for the props, buddy. Glad you got my meaning with the Damon Runyon quotation. Also, thanks for writing the BEST refutation of the easy out of Buddhism, Deism, etc., I've read so far. I'll be sure to steal it but I'll be sure to give you credit. I can't speak for Anita, but I doubt she took much offense. She's super-rational and nothing you wrote was offensive or personal.
I'm kind of a mutt when it comes to what y'all seem to be considering "believer" (a rather icky term really). My faith, and alternately through the circle of my life my eschewing of faith, has come from ennui, rebellion, selfish fear, research and peyote just to name a few. I'd say that Anita's definition of deism comes pretty close to where I'm at now, though it comes across as a bit of Jeffersonian stodginess, so I keep myself mostly sane with a healthy dose of irreverence coupled with humour.
Kelso, you said when you look into the abyss nothing stares back at you. I haven't been so lucky, because at the very least I see ME staring back me. Mouldy cliches notwithstanding, with all I've been through I'm way comfortable with "a [simple] feeling that there is a greater being than onesself" as an ethos. I don't subscribe to the benevolent creator schtick - there's no Jesus up there getting me killer parking spaces and such - and so I don't believe in prayer. Supernatural to me just means something natural of which we haven't achieved understanding. So even random chemical reactions being uninspired make about as much sense to me as thinking there is no other intelligent life in the universe (there's a bet for you K!). Thing is I don't really care if it's Jah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The inward focus of Eastern beliefs appeals to me if for no other reason than that is largely what delivered me from the BS view of the great reward/punishment beyond. To quote from an admittedly whacked religion that I admire on certain points:
Most people think
Great God will come from the skies
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high
But if you know what life is worth
You will look for yours on earth
And now you see the light
You stand up for your rights!
I would submit to Spartacus that, although I'm a sucker for Twizzlers and a good flick, faith is a lot more than suspending disbelief, though I concede that would have to be the starting point. But can you look at the most devout people and see how much they bring themselves to it? No, of course not, so while it cannot be proved it also cannot be disproved. I think the seeking of "answers" tends to cloud up faith, while conversely blind devotion leads to spiritual danger.
Well, before I go all Dr. MacDougall I should close by saying that perhaps I'm about as close to an atheist as a "believer" can get. And I think I've determined my new religion: quasi-rastafagnosticism
Thank you for the chastisement (given in a kind and encouraging way), Kelso. I didn't even realize that I was, effectively, "running myself down." It's a lifelong habit, I'm afraid. I have very little confidence or self-esteem, in spite of trying to acheive those valuable features. Perhaps your encouragement will nudge me in the right direction.
I think intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is a HUGE FAVORITE to exist
Re: intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is a HUGE FAVORITE to exist"
I'm in!
I'm curious, Kelso - ever read any Joseph Campbell or seen his interviews w/ Bill Moyers?
Post a Comment