a musing on the parity of religion and self-doubt

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html?cnn=yes

CNN has been doing a bunch of things dealing with religious extremism. This was somewhat more moderate, but did deal with religious questions, so it caught my eyes. The extremist interviews themselves are quite odd, ie asking a Iranian woman in a burka repeatedly why it was ok in any religion to stone a teenage girl to death. I actually semi-accepted her reply, paraphrased, that latching onto some extreme behavior was a bit silly, but didn't accept that as an answer. Merely that pointing out the wackiness of an ideology makes anything seem pretty insane. In other words, the interviewer should have asked more useful questions dealing with the status of women in Iran rather than deal with something relatively minor (only 4 stonings this year?, phessh).

This had some jewels of 'observation'. Since it centers on a largely respectable and respected woman of serious religious piety, I'll ignore that element of the story and leave whatever individual opinions people have on saints and such where they belong. To me, the introduction of doubt into a person, even of strong religious sentiment, seems entirely natural and even necessary. Someone who puts stock in god is bound to put less in themselves or their work (by work I mean to imply that which defines them, not merely their job). Moving on.

"But to the U.S.'s increasingly assertive cadre of atheists". I'm not sure where Time is going and seeing these people. Outside of a few ACLU lawyers (who occasionally do useful things, mostly pissing off theocratic conservatives or other fascists), I don't know of an 'assertive cadre of atheists'. In fact, most sensible atheists (myself included) tend to be rather silent on the topics of religion and faith unless the argument is brought directly to them. I do not myself directly challenge people's convictions largely because I cannot appeal to reason when someone is basing a belief. It's a waste of time and intellectual resources on my part. Sometimes I'll bring up radically different religious substances to confuse the issue like Taoism or Confucianism. But for the most part, I stay in my little fort, perfectly contented with my conclusions and able to tackle various religious affronts to my personal structure. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to let this be a personal matter so long as others let me do the same. So in my view, sensible atheists have learned to tolerate some elements of religious behavior. It is the strong cross-over into political elements, mostly with abortion and holy war advocates that bothers me, not the commeration of Christmas with lights and trees. If I get free stuff for Christmas, I can't see why it's in my best interest to shut that down. Otherwise I might have to go shopping for clothes once in a while. So with that, I don't see these assertive people Time was talking about.

Part of the core problem with people who've aggressively attacked piety and religion, not that I mind or find fault with the realizations that are brought to bear, is that the central arguments used tend to lump the ideology all together with its failures and thus declare it a pointless and useless invention of man, as with any other ideological system we've created and endowed ourselves with. Indeed, there are a great many failures of religions all over the world. But there are moments where this devotion to some higher order serves some useful purposes. In fomenting even subconscious fear and doubt into more self-serving and base behaviors many would happily enjoy there is a conjecture toward morality. This of course lends credence in the opposite direction; that religion brings morality, when it does not appear to have any direct correlation, let alone any requirement. In observing people, it seems clear that most are unprepared for hazy judgments of truth in the foggy middle ground. I suspect there are a great many religious people who by their extremist beliefs will never accept rational behavior as a basis for morality, but I suspect there are a good many atheists who cannot abide religion as having any basis in moral behavior either. I found a happy medium where I have no use for religion personally , preferring a steady diet of logic, but I can tolerate those who do as it seems clear not everyone is as evolved as I am. A great many of my personal influences emphasize personal efficacy and self-reliance. I have no doubt that these are good influences (when I am capable of following their precepts). But without these internal demands I suspect I would be more prone to demand some explanations for the seemingly random sequences of events that at turns plague and amuse me. Most people are not so fortunate as to have considered the idea that the world around them is big and complicated because it's in motion. And that the things that happen to us are the result of us either not moving or trying to move in each other's way. It's inevitable, those conflicts and sorrows. I say deal with it. Most people appear to hope someone else is. As long as they can do that and not bother me with their bumper stickers I'll be fine.

Religions principal ability, much as philosophy or even science serves for those of a higher order of intelligence, is to raise some questions about the world around us. By and large these are the same types of questions, and religion unfortunately has the distasteful element of truthiness rather than dialectic involved, but at least it can start the brain working (this assumes one has a brain capable of working still, perhaps a hopeful measure on my part). The problem comes in when it starts organizing and raising money and ordering holy quests of death and rails against 'moral decay' and so forth. (I suspect Gandhi's line here is somewhat applicable "I like your Christ, it is your Christians I cannot abide", sounds about right). It seems to me that if religion exists, it's proper order is as a personal question and by extension, personal direction. It is entirely right to simply ignore these questions as irrelevant, which they are, once someone finds something more practicable to focus their time and energy into personal developments. I could care less if atheists were an assertive minority in this country, but I suspect we could do with a less assertive religious majority. In fact in my conclusions in theological study, that's what people are supposed to be anyway, private and humble in their ministrations. Why some skip over those passages and try to bother me with their savior or holy words must have something to do with the money.

phase two of my internal musings for the day
"Psychologists have long recognized that people of a certain personality type are conflicted about their high achievement and find ways to punish themselves". This has often occurred to me as a problematic habit. It takes a good deal for me to recognize any excellence as I rarely place much importance on the measures most standardly employed (ie, grades for school, money for work, points in sports). I display it often in arrogant ramblings that I am aware I have some specific significance and ability above that of most other mortals. Yet I am consistently amazed that in the company of such people I am somehow distinguishable. I consider myself undistinguished and unaccomplished. So I would have to wonder whether this holds any water. It's also possible I have through my various weaknesses and inappetites developed an inability for success by giving it no discernible definition. I'm not sure. More likely it's that I'm still basically a kid and this section of ranting was self-indulgent nonsense.


I'm not concerned about my 'feelings' in relation to god or country. That is not a place in mind that causes pain and doubt or disconcertation, or actually anything at all because I have no time or effort to expend on useless metaphysical disturbances. Besides I have other things that manage quite well at causing me pain and privation without piety. But there are aspects of people, even those who have strangely devoted themselves to a holy order or quest, that demand respect or attention. "The tendency in our spiritual life but also in our more general attitude toward love is that our feelings are all that is going on," he says. "And so to us the totality of love is what we feel. But to really love someone requires commitment, fidelity and vulnerability." That whole segment means a good deal at this point because I could be arguably among the least emotional people I know so it confuses greatly everyone personally around me. I cannot and do not apologize for my lack of enthusiastic expressionism most of the time. But I suspect those people who've known me longest are aware of my other failings and blindnesses toward them.