Do you like Red Lobster? What about homosexuals?
Most bible-believing Christians don't realize that the same chapter that condemns homosexuality also prohibits eating shellfish. The point being that many Christians (as well as believers of other religions) pick and choose what they believe. They'll say "well, that was the Old Testament" whenever atrocities such as genocide, rape, incest, slavery, or murder are brought up. Yet, they'll cite things such as the Ten Commandments or the condemnation of homosexuals without care that they're referencing the very same Old Testament.
I've been thinking a lot about this buffet-style approach to faith recently, and I'm sorta on the fence. One the one hand -- and this is probably due to an afterglow of my once held faith -- but I generally tend to look down on wishy-washy believers. (Here's an old semi-tongue-in-cheek post on moderates.) They can't commit to the whole meal that they ordered with their chosen faith. It's like saying you're a KKK member only because they have great barbecue parties, and ignoring "all that bad stuff" they do. They can't stomach the evil or idiotic doctrines in their faith, so they pretend like they're not there.
To me, you should be aware of the where and the why for the things you believe about your god. Those who claim to be "not religious but spiritual" come to mind here. It's strange to think that someone can have all these words, phrases, and ideas without realizing where those things originated, regardless of how much the believer alters them on their own. In a way, it's just rebooting and rebranding a story, and I guess that tends to irk me (thanks, Hollywood).
On the other hand, I see it as the only possible way a sane human being can live in this day and age and still believe in the nonsense of religion. As Matt Dillahunty frequently points out, science has dragged religion kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. Just look at Galileo, the man that proved the earth rotated around the sun and was not, as the Church vehemently claimed, at the center of the universe. Now, in the modern world where things like the germ theory of disease and the heliocentric theory are practically common knowledge, you see religious people trying to claim that they had it right all along, and that those other people weren't True Believers™. Religious people in the modern civilized world are bearing such a huge cognitive dissonance that they almost always have to cherry-pick parts of their faith's cannon in order to function. Imagine a religious doctrine that goes something along the lines of "Water can't freeze. Everything in this book is the word of the creator of the universe, and is 100% correct." Now think of the mental hoops that someone living today would have to jump through in order to adhere to that belief and still be an otherwise rational, sane person. When you know for a fact that certain claims made by religions can be proven wrong to a monumentally high degree of certainty, but you believe with all your heart that the evidence is contradicted by what you think is the direct word of God, there are only so many ways the situation can resolve itself.
For many, realizing those claims are a mix of fairy tales, folklore, misunderstandings, allegories, and attempts by ignorant people to explain nature is enough to drop the "100% Truth" label altogether. For others, their interpretation concludes with some of it being allegory and some being truth, and the current unknowns get to remain "true" until science show them to be otherwise, then they get become "allegory-all-along" in the believers mind without skipping a beat. The moment science advances and shuts a gap that God had previously filled, the believer must either accept reality or ignore it. Often enough, once ignoring it becomes impossible, they claim their religion had it right all along.
So yeah, I find myself coming down on both sides: you should be a fundamentalist if you're going to believe in a thing. Don't half-ass it; try to understand everything it encompasses and do everything that entails. On the other hand, it's a good thing to be a moderate believer. You're showing that you're not a complete nut-ball, and that you understand how reality can be determined.
-STA
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
It's The Cheesiest!
Do you watch Glee? I do...religiously. (What I did there, did you see it?) While I would consider myself a Gleek, I realize that the show doesn't appeal to everyone. The cheesiness over-the-top caricatures are too much for a lot of you. So if I'm going to talk to you about Glee, I'll need to be sensitive to those who are not fans.
But why am I talking about Glee?
Well, last night's episode dealt with religion, a topic that many successful television shows either fail to tackle or handle so incredibly poorly that you're left screaming at the TV. The Glee episode in question had potential that wasn't entirely fulfilled and at the same time wasn't entirely horrendous. Since the show's staples are an often grating mix of satire and blunt honesty, I was prepared and able to decipher the parodied character types and stereotypical situations to get to the messages in the episode. And those messages weren't all that bad.
NOTE: There will be spoilers, so if you're a fan who hasn't seen the episode yet, you might wanna skip this post. Try this one instead. Also, I realize this is a long post but hey, I've barely written in a while. Be happy!
I knew that the episode had potential when I read its title: "Grilled Cheezus". Finn Hudson, co-captain of the high school glee club, makes himself a grilled cheese sandwich upon which he thinks he sees the face of Jesus. After eating half of it (he was hungry, after all), he makes three wishes to the remaining Cheezus. I told you the show is over-the-top with the zaniness. When these wishes start coming true, Finn professes his belief in Christianity and asks that he give praise to God through the glee club song selections.
Meanwhile the show's openly gay character, Kurt Hummel, is devastated when his father suffers a heart attack. Most of his friends in the glee club are of some faith, so they immediately set upon him during this trying time, urging him to seek comfort in God. It is at this point we learn that Kurt is also an atheist (by some definitions, a "strong atheist" -- he says he knows there is no God).
Let me step back and address some of what's already running through my mind at this point.
Holy shit! Not only one but TWO nonbelievers on a popular show?! WOW.
Yeah, let's not get too happy just yet. Let's see how they handle themselves first.
We atheists don't believe for different reasons. While many, like myself, are nonbelievers for intellectual reasons, some don't believe out of being misinformed, misanthropic, or having had something terrible happen in their past. Sue seems to be the latter kind. Her sister has Down syndrome and Sue's personal way of handling the problem of evil is to, in effect, "blame God" for letting her sister contract (or inflecting her with) her condition. Like I said, we're atheists for different reasons, and while I think the problem of evil is truly a valid philosophical issue that is irreconcilable with a loving god, Sue's rejection of belief isn't couched in philosophy. She can't explain the reasoning behind why such a problem is indeed a problem that points to evidence against a traditional idea of God. Instead, she's angry with the idea that such a god would even do such a thing, and as a child her prayers for her sister went unanswered, therefore there must not be a God. Sue doesn't want to be a nonbeliever. Her sister tells her "God doesn't make mistakes" and offers to pray for Sue, to which she happily agrees. She wants to have this same peace that her sister has.
So while I'm not going to go into a no-true-Scotsman rant about how Sue isn't a true atheist, I will state that this portrayal of atheism in entertainment media is as old as time. No wonder we nonbelievers are bombarded by religious people asking questions like "so what happened in your past that made you so mad at God?" or "who hurt you?" or "why do you feel like God let you down?" Makes me wanna scream.
But back to the recap. So Kurt's dad is in the hospital, comatose. Kurt has been pelted with pleas to find strength in faith, as the other kids sing gospel and spiritually-laden songs. Kurt pushes his friends away, asking them to keep their views to themselves. Coach Sylvester urges Kurt to make a formal complaint to the school, citing church-state-separation issues.
Here's where the show makes a gross error in judgment. Either due to Sue's own personal take on First Amendment rights or by ignorance on the part of the show's writing team, Sue claims it's a violation for the children to sing about Jesus in public school. This is not the case. While they do have a problem if a student complains, there is no law against such a practice. It would only be against the law if it were teacher-lead, and we see the glee club teacher, Mr. Shue, realize this and try to tone down the religion-specific songs to just "spiritual" songs. (If you'll recall my previous post, 67% surveyed said that teachers are not permitted to read from the bible as an example of literature, something the law clearly allows. A lot of right-wing conservatives I've talked with falsely claim that kids can't even pray in school. I'm wondering if Sue's tactics are based in this line of thinking.)
Throughout this episode, the views of both sides are expressed through characters' actions and dialog. There are characters who express new-age beliefs like "God is all religions" and "God exists, just not in any man-made religion". Here are some other examples:
So far the show has been building up to a familiar pattern and I was fearing the worst. [sarcasm on] Here we have a kid going through one of the worst times of his young life, and his friends are only trying to comfort him with their religious beliefs. But he harshly refuses them (soooo close-minded), pushing his friends away every time they bring it up. He obviously doesn't believe in anything, and we all know that if you don't have God then your life is an empty, hurtful void of meaninglessness. If only he'd just give prayer a chance! [sarcasm off]
Then comes the scene where the atheist goes to church. From the pulpit, Mercades tells him, "I know you don't believe in God or the power of prayer and that's okay, to each his own. But you've gotta believe in something...something more than you can touch, taste, or see, 'cause life is to hard to go through it alone without something to hold on to, without something sacred." She and the choir then sing as Kurt ponders her words. Oh no, I'm thinking, here we go...the immenient conversion.
At the show's conclusion, Kurt is sitting at his father's bedside, holding his hand and crying. He tells his comatose father that he should have let his friends pray for him the other day. Any minute now, he's gonna start praying. But he doesn't.
I told you the conclusion was surprising.
If I'd been paying closer attention I could've caught it sooner. The clues in the dialog...the writer's tricks laid bare for all to see, but I was too caught up in this valid attempt at a network show to seriously address religion. You see, just before his heart attack, Kurt's dad was scolding him for planning to miss out on family dinner night, something he said was "sacred". That word was the key, and it was planted in the first few minutes of the episode. Kurt does believe in something sacred: love. The love for his father, who accepted his homosexuality, and who was there for him when his mother died. Kurt tells his father, "I don't believe in God, dad. But I believe in you; I believe in us."
I couldn't have been more happy in that moment. And I'm really not too let down with the show as a whole. Like I said, I don't like how some of the arguments were handled, but I think that both sides were equally portrayed. Nobody's ideology "won", and for every argument there was a counter argument. Kurt says he should have let his friends pray for his dad; that it wasn't about himself, but about his father, and it was a nice gesture. I feel the same. When most believers say they'll pray for someone, they're not trying to be snide or arrogant, they're doing it from a place of love. It's a nice gesture, but please, do it on your own time -- don't force it on us. And that's what I think Kurt meant at the beginning of the show, when he told them he didn't want their prayers. If they would have prayed in their own church services or on their own time, it would have been fine.
A lot of ideas got at least partial treatment, and for that I'm thankful. No one converted or deconverted (except maybe Finn, but his "faith" was more of a parody to spring-board into the topic). Of course I personally think that the believer's best arguments could have been easily crushed if the atheist characters actually put forth their own, but obviously that's not the show's goal (think of the number of viewer's they loose...and the hate-mail!). I'm happy they at least got some of our arguments out to the general public, and that they didn't rely on the usual, misinformed portrayal of atheists. I'm happy that it showed that atheists don't all "believe in nothing" but that we seek out the love of our friends and family in times of trouble. And that's something we can all do, whether or not there is a god.
Since this is a show about music, I'll leave you with the apt words of Rush (from their song, Faithless):
I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
you can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me
that's faith enough for me
-STA
But why am I talking about Glee?
Well, last night's episode dealt with religion, a topic that many successful television shows either fail to tackle or handle so incredibly poorly that you're left screaming at the TV. The Glee episode in question had potential that wasn't entirely fulfilled and at the same time wasn't entirely horrendous. Since the show's staples are an often grating mix of satire and blunt honesty, I was prepared and able to decipher the parodied character types and stereotypical situations to get to the messages in the episode. And those messages weren't all that bad.
NOTE: There will be spoilers, so if you're a fan who hasn't seen the episode yet, you might wanna skip this post. Try this one instead. Also, I realize this is a long post but hey, I've barely written in a while. Be happy!
I knew that the episode had potential when I read its title: "Grilled Cheezus". Finn Hudson, co-captain of the high school glee club, makes himself a grilled cheese sandwich upon which he thinks he sees the face of Jesus. After eating half of it (he was hungry, after all), he makes three wishes to the remaining Cheezus. I told you the show is over-the-top with the zaniness. When these wishes start coming true, Finn professes his belief in Christianity and asks that he give praise to God through the glee club song selections.
Meanwhile the show's openly gay character, Kurt Hummel, is devastated when his father suffers a heart attack. Most of his friends in the glee club are of some faith, so they immediately set upon him during this trying time, urging him to seek comfort in God. It is at this point we learn that Kurt is also an atheist (by some definitions, a "strong atheist" -- he says he knows there is no God).
Let me step back and address some of what's already running through my mind at this point.
- The satirical situation of Finn finding Jesus on a sandwich is hilarious and a great way to show that the writers of the show find that sort of idea ripe for parody.
- Oh boy, they're portraying an atheist on prime-time TV! Too bad that usually leads to gross misrepresentation.
- The believers on the show are already coming at this situation the wrong way, in my opinion. But they're believers, that's what they do.
Holy shit! Not only one but TWO nonbelievers on a popular show?! WOW.
Yeah, let's not get too happy just yet. Let's see how they handle themselves first.
We atheists don't believe for different reasons. While many, like myself, are nonbelievers for intellectual reasons, some don't believe out of being misinformed, misanthropic, or having had something terrible happen in their past. Sue seems to be the latter kind. Her sister has Down syndrome and Sue's personal way of handling the problem of evil is to, in effect, "blame God" for letting her sister contract (or inflecting her with) her condition. Like I said, we're atheists for different reasons, and while I think the problem of evil is truly a valid philosophical issue that is irreconcilable with a loving god, Sue's rejection of belief isn't couched in philosophy. She can't explain the reasoning behind why such a problem is indeed a problem that points to evidence against a traditional idea of God. Instead, she's angry with the idea that such a god would even do such a thing, and as a child her prayers for her sister went unanswered, therefore there must not be a God. Sue doesn't want to be a nonbeliever. Her sister tells her "God doesn't make mistakes" and offers to pray for Sue, to which she happily agrees. She wants to have this same peace that her sister has.
So while I'm not going to go into a no-true-Scotsman rant about how Sue isn't a true atheist, I will state that this portrayal of atheism in entertainment media is as old as time. No wonder we nonbelievers are bombarded by religious people asking questions like "so what happened in your past that made you so mad at God?" or "who hurt you?" or "why do you feel like God let you down?" Makes me wanna scream.
But back to the recap. So Kurt's dad is in the hospital, comatose. Kurt has been pelted with pleas to find strength in faith, as the other kids sing gospel and spiritually-laden songs. Kurt pushes his friends away, asking them to keep their views to themselves. Coach Sylvester urges Kurt to make a formal complaint to the school, citing church-state-separation issues.
Here's where the show makes a gross error in judgment. Either due to Sue's own personal take on First Amendment rights or by ignorance on the part of the show's writing team, Sue claims it's a violation for the children to sing about Jesus in public school. This is not the case. While they do have a problem if a student complains, there is no law against such a practice. It would only be against the law if it were teacher-lead, and we see the glee club teacher, Mr. Shue, realize this and try to tone down the religion-specific songs to just "spiritual" songs. (If you'll recall my previous post, 67% surveyed said that teachers are not permitted to read from the bible as an example of literature, something the law clearly allows. A lot of right-wing conservatives I've talked with falsely claim that kids can't even pray in school. I'm wondering if Sue's tactics are based in this line of thinking.)
Throughout this episode, the views of both sides are expressed through characters' actions and dialog. There are characters who express new-age beliefs like "God is all religions" and "God exists, just not in any man-made religion". Here are some other examples:
- The show attempts to show different views of religious theology. Puck and Rachel are both Jewish, Mercades and Quinn are Christians, Kurt hires a Sikh acupuncturist, and he also makes a reference to the FSM. Oh, and Kurt's version of Russell's teapot not only had me in stitches but also applauding the writers, some of whom surely either are atheists or have had intelligent conversations with one.
- Yes, Kurt hires an acupuncturist! I was pissed off at first, but I've come to see it like this: he's still just a kid! He's in high school for crying out loud, and he's not (yet) a full-fledged rationalist. And you should all know by now that being an atheist doesn't automatically make you a skeptic or critical thinker.
- There are some great quips in the dialogue:
- After simply stating his nonbelief, Kurt is barraged with questions like "Why don't you believe? You can't prove there's no God!" and "We shouldn't be talking like this...it isn't right!", Kurt politely says to his friends, "You all can believe whatever you want to, but I can't believe something I don't. I appreciate your thoughts, but I don't want your prayers." It's also funny to see that the simple act of one person saying "I don't believe" causes an entire room full of people to start claiming they're being oppressed or silenced.
- When guidance counselor Emma Pillsbury sits down with Sue Sylvester to ask her why she's trying to take away the other children's means of comforting Kurt in one of the shows best scenes, Sue responds with, "Asking someone to believe in a fantasy, however comforting, isn't a moral thing to do. It's cruel." Emma retorts with, "Don't you think that's a little bit arrogant?" and Sue hits back: "It's as arrogant as telling someone how to believe in God and if they don't accept it -- no matter how openhearted or honest their decent -- that they're going to Hell. That doesn't sound very Christian, does it?" (I'd have to disagree here and say yes, it's perfectly Christian, as Christ is supposed to have delivered the doctrine of eternal hellfire for infidels himself.) The riveting scene ends with Emma saying, "If that's what you believe, fine, but please keep it to yourself" and Sue replying with, "So long as you do the same." High-five Sue!
- Finn's eventual confession to Emma that Grilled Cheezus has granted him wishes is met with healthy skepticism and a round-about explanation of coincidences and self-fulfilling prophesy. If only she could apply that ALL of her beliefs...oh well. Finn finally "loses his religion", probably becoming/returning to colloquial agnosticism, and eats what's left of Grilled Cheezus.
- Kurt finally gives in to Mercades's pleas and goes to her church with her. This scene is important on several fronts, mainly for the episode's surprising conclusion.
So far the show has been building up to a familiar pattern and I was fearing the worst. [sarcasm on] Here we have a kid going through one of the worst times of his young life, and his friends are only trying to comfort him with their religious beliefs. But he harshly refuses them (soooo close-minded), pushing his friends away every time they bring it up. He obviously doesn't believe in anything, and we all know that if you don't have God then your life is an empty, hurtful void of meaninglessness. If only he'd just give prayer a chance! [sarcasm off]
Then comes the scene where the atheist goes to church. From the pulpit, Mercades tells him, "I know you don't believe in God or the power of prayer and that's okay, to each his own. But you've gotta believe in something...something more than you can touch, taste, or see, 'cause life is to hard to go through it alone without something to hold on to, without something sacred." She and the choir then sing as Kurt ponders her words. Oh no, I'm thinking, here we go...the immenient conversion.
At the show's conclusion, Kurt is sitting at his father's bedside, holding his hand and crying. He tells his comatose father that he should have let his friends pray for him the other day. Any minute now, he's gonna start praying. But he doesn't.
I told you the conclusion was surprising.
If I'd been paying closer attention I could've caught it sooner. The clues in the dialog...the writer's tricks laid bare for all to see, but I was too caught up in this valid attempt at a network show to seriously address religion. You see, just before his heart attack, Kurt's dad was scolding him for planning to miss out on family dinner night, something he said was "sacred". That word was the key, and it was planted in the first few minutes of the episode. Kurt does believe in something sacred: love. The love for his father, who accepted his homosexuality, and who was there for him when his mother died. Kurt tells his father, "I don't believe in God, dad. But I believe in you; I believe in us."
I couldn't have been more happy in that moment. And I'm really not too let down with the show as a whole. Like I said, I don't like how some of the arguments were handled, but I think that both sides were equally portrayed. Nobody's ideology "won", and for every argument there was a counter argument. Kurt says he should have let his friends pray for his dad; that it wasn't about himself, but about his father, and it was a nice gesture. I feel the same. When most believers say they'll pray for someone, they're not trying to be snide or arrogant, they're doing it from a place of love. It's a nice gesture, but please, do it on your own time -- don't force it on us. And that's what I think Kurt meant at the beginning of the show, when he told them he didn't want their prayers. If they would have prayed in their own church services or on their own time, it would have been fine.
A lot of ideas got at least partial treatment, and for that I'm thankful. No one converted or deconverted (except maybe Finn, but his "faith" was more of a parody to spring-board into the topic). Of course I personally think that the believer's best arguments could have been easily crushed if the atheist characters actually put forth their own, but obviously that's not the show's goal (think of the number of viewer's they loose...and the hate-mail!). I'm happy they at least got some of our arguments out to the general public, and that they didn't rely on the usual, misinformed portrayal of atheists. I'm happy that it showed that atheists don't all "believe in nothing" but that we seek out the love of our friends and family in times of trouble. And that's something we can all do, whether or not there is a god.
Since this is a show about music, I'll leave you with the apt words of Rush (from their song, Faithless):
I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
you can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me
that's faith enough for me
-STA
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
We Know What We Don't Believe
A new survey given by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has shown something I have found to be pretty much the norm: atheists know more about religious than believers do. Yeah, we know about the claims of religions -- that's why we're atheists!
Questions were asked to people of all faiths, including atheists and agnostics. While most of the reports I've seen stat that on this survey label "atheists" as "people who say there is no god" and "agnostics" as "people who just aren't sure". If you're a long-time reader (or someone who's remotely familiar with the issue), you'll know that those definitions aren't entirely correct. But for the sake of this survey I'll let it slide. The study found that that on average, most atheists and agnostics scored higher on all questions (average 21 correct out of 32 questions), while religious people scored poorly on questions about their own religion and even worse on questions about other faiths. These were multiple-choice questions where things like, "What religion was Mother Teresa?" or "In what city was Jesus born?".
We atheists tend to be a thinking bunch. We are generally well-educated and highly analytical. As Pew director of research Alan Cooperman said, "[Atheists] are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."
And we do. We care more about whether or not what we think is true rather than if it makes us feel good. We want to know how the world works. We listen to claims of religions (and scientists, politicians, ghost hunters etc.) and we think critically. Most religious people either can't be bothered to -- or have been trained to -- not analyze what they're being told. The just accept it as truth and repeat it. In Brian Flemming's documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There", he asks random church-goers questions like "Have you ever heard of Dionysus?" or "Who was Mithras?" and the believers just respond with umms and aahhs and "All I know is Jesus, man; it's just all about Jesus!"
Some believers also seem to think that they can spend two minutes on the internet and are thus qualified to tell a field scientist he's wrong. This is particularly popular with Evangelical creationists, but no believer is immune.
So if you are a believer, ask yourself why. Ask yourself if you can name one of Hinduism's holy texts. Do you know who Joseph Smith is? What were the first Ten Commandments given to Moses? In what century was Mohammad born? You don't have to be highly intelligent or all that educated, just learn when you don't know something, and learn how to look into it.
Actual survey here (PDF) or test yourself here.
-STA
Questions were asked to people of all faiths, including atheists and agnostics. While most of the reports I've seen stat that on this survey label "atheists" as "people who say there is no god" and "agnostics" as "people who just aren't sure". If you're a long-time reader (or someone who's remotely familiar with the issue), you'll know that those definitions aren't entirely correct. But for the sake of this survey I'll let it slide. The study found that that on average, most atheists and agnostics scored higher on all questions (average 21 correct out of 32 questions), while religious people scored poorly on questions about their own religion and even worse on questions about other faiths. These were multiple-choice questions where things like, "What religion was Mother Teresa?" or "In what city was Jesus born?".
We atheists tend to be a thinking bunch. We are generally well-educated and highly analytical. As Pew director of research Alan Cooperman said, "[Atheists] are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."
And we do. We care more about whether or not what we think is true rather than if it makes us feel good. We want to know how the world works. We listen to claims of religions (and scientists, politicians, ghost hunters etc.) and we think critically. Most religious people either can't be bothered to -- or have been trained to -- not analyze what they're being told. The just accept it as truth and repeat it. In Brian Flemming's documentary, "The God Who Wasn't There", he asks random church-goers questions like "Have you ever heard of Dionysus?" or "Who was Mithras?" and the believers just respond with umms and aahhs and "All I know is Jesus, man; it's just all about Jesus!"
Some believers also seem to think that they can spend two minutes on the internet and are thus qualified to tell a field scientist he's wrong. This is particularly popular with Evangelical creationists, but no believer is immune.
So if you are a believer, ask yourself why. Ask yourself if you can name one of Hinduism's holy texts. Do you know who Joseph Smith is? What were the first Ten Commandments given to Moses? In what century was Mohammad born? You don't have to be highly intelligent or all that educated, just learn when you don't know something, and learn how to look into it.
Actual survey here (PDF) or test yourself here.
-STA
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Second Nature
Now, Tell Me What You See Here
We are pattern-seeking animals -- we have to be. It's what keeps us alive as a species. Avoiding danger and finding food are our rewards for successful detecting patterns. Take Pavlov's dogs for instance. Once they could recognize the bell had a direct correlation to food, they salivated upon hearing the bell. They, like many sentient beings would, had a reasonable expectation that BELL = FOOD.
We're so good at detecting patterns that we can find one even where none exists. The more certain among us are called superstitious. Studies have shown that people tend to be more superstitious when they are in situations where they lack control. We do what we can to influence the outcome, however trivial it may seem. The greater the perceived lack of control, the more superstitious people tend to become. Humans aren't the only animals to experience this, either. Take for example Skinner's pigeons. B. F. Skinner ran an experiment in which he placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to them at random intervals. The birds, however, began to exhibit signs of superstitious behavior. They appeared to think that they were somehow influencing when the treat would be delivered based on what they were doing right before the previous drop. The pigeons were soon performing all sorts of "rituals", such as turning two times counter-clockwise, then bobbing their head back and forth and pecking the cage twice. The birds behaved as if there were a causal relation between their behavior and the presentation of food, although no such a relation existed. But the pigeons believed it. I'm sure if they could talk, many would probably stand by their strong convictions even in the face of evidence. Sounds familiar, huh?
Humans have evolved not only to perceive patterns even if there are none, but we've also evolved a sort of upgraded version of that pattern-seeking software that specializes in faces. Again, this helps us survive. If we can detect a face hidden in the bushes, as well as discern the faces of our family (our tribe), we stand a much better chance at survival. Pareidolia is the phenomenon whereby we see patterns where there aren't any. How many times have you saw a face in the wood grain of a door, wall, or desk, or seen faces in the clouds? How many times has the likeness of Jesus or Mary appeared in toast or other places?
Oh, I See What You Did There
Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, has coined the term "Patternicity", the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise. When doing so, two types of errors can result. Type I errors are false positives, believing a pattern exists when it doesn't. Type II errors are false negatives, not believing a pattern isn't real when it actually is.
We want to believe, it's evolutionarily our default position. Consider and early hominid hearing a rustle in the grass...is the hominid skeptical and thinks it's just the wind, or are they cautious and believes its a dangerous predator? We listen when we're told by our parents or elders that, for example, don't swim in the lake because there are snakes. We automatically listen to and believe what we're told -- we can't afford not to with a risk as high as death.
Shermer has discovered that you'll find meaningful patterns in things when the cost of making a Type II error is less than the cost of making a Type I error. It's easier to not believe in Bigfoot (especially if you live in the city) than to not believe in Hell, because the perceived cost or personal danger is much higher. We evolved down a path in which the more cautious survived. In the earlier example, if the rustle in the grass was indeed only the wind, then the cost to assume it was a dangerous predator is low -- you just move away and be more observant.
It's the Everywhere
We tend to attribute agency in scenarios like this as a result. The major difference in assuming an unknown sound in the bushes is another animal as apposed to thinking it's harmless wind is that the latter is inanimate, the predator is an intentional agent. This is why we attribute agency to many unknown things, and why our lives are filled with ghosts, gods, angels, demons, aliens, and even malevolent government conspirators. Things that confuse us or baffle us by their complexity often get ascribed to an agent. And it's easy for such a thought to arise -- "She can run faster than me, and he can run faster than her...there must be someone out there that can run faster than all." Powerful beings beget powerful ideas, and before long you have a being of ultimate speed, might, and power. And if it's that powerful, then it must be responsible for this currently unexplained phenomenon.
These reasons make it difficult to use skepticism and science, because they're against our nature. Studies have shown that children start to apply purpose-based meanings to things at about the time they begin to recognize man-made tools that really do serve a purpose, such as cell phones. But science has proven itself to be the best tool we can use to determine reality. If we can understand ourselves, if we can recognize the places where we are more prone to these kinds of errors in thinking, then we can start changing for the better. After all, if we can find patterns so well, finding the patterns in our error-making habits should be...second nature.
-STA
We are pattern-seeking animals -- we have to be. It's what keeps us alive as a species. Avoiding danger and finding food are our rewards for successful detecting patterns. Take Pavlov's dogs for instance. Once they could recognize the bell had a direct correlation to food, they salivated upon hearing the bell. They, like many sentient beings would, had a reasonable expectation that BELL = FOOD.
We're so good at detecting patterns that we can find one even where none exists. The more certain among us are called superstitious. Studies have shown that people tend to be more superstitious when they are in situations where they lack control. We do what we can to influence the outcome, however trivial it may seem. The greater the perceived lack of control, the more superstitious people tend to become. Humans aren't the only animals to experience this, either. Take for example Skinner's pigeons. B. F. Skinner ran an experiment in which he placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to them at random intervals. The birds, however, began to exhibit signs of superstitious behavior. They appeared to think that they were somehow influencing when the treat would be delivered based on what they were doing right before the previous drop. The pigeons were soon performing all sorts of "rituals", such as turning two times counter-clockwise, then bobbing their head back and forth and pecking the cage twice. The birds behaved as if there were a causal relation between their behavior and the presentation of food, although no such a relation existed. But the pigeons believed it. I'm sure if they could talk, many would probably stand by their strong convictions even in the face of evidence. Sounds familiar, huh?
Humans have evolved not only to perceive patterns even if there are none, but we've also evolved a sort of upgraded version of that pattern-seeking software that specializes in faces. Again, this helps us survive. If we can detect a face hidden in the bushes, as well as discern the faces of our family (our tribe), we stand a much better chance at survival. Pareidolia is the phenomenon whereby we see patterns where there aren't any. How many times have you saw a face in the wood grain of a door, wall, or desk, or seen faces in the clouds? How many times has the likeness of Jesus or Mary appeared in toast or other places?
Oh, I See What You Did There
Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, has coined the term "Patternicity", the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise. When doing so, two types of errors can result. Type I errors are false positives, believing a pattern exists when it doesn't. Type II errors are false negatives, not believing a pattern isn't real when it actually is.
We want to believe, it's evolutionarily our default position. Consider and early hominid hearing a rustle in the grass...is the hominid skeptical and thinks it's just the wind, or are they cautious and believes its a dangerous predator? We listen when we're told by our parents or elders that, for example, don't swim in the lake because there are snakes. We automatically listen to and believe what we're told -- we can't afford not to with a risk as high as death.
Shermer has discovered that you'll find meaningful patterns in things when the cost of making a Type II error is less than the cost of making a Type I error. It's easier to not believe in Bigfoot (especially if you live in the city) than to not believe in Hell, because the perceived cost or personal danger is much higher. We evolved down a path in which the more cautious survived. In the earlier example, if the rustle in the grass was indeed only the wind, then the cost to assume it was a dangerous predator is low -- you just move away and be more observant.
It's the Everywhere
We tend to attribute agency in scenarios like this as a result. The major difference in assuming an unknown sound in the bushes is another animal as apposed to thinking it's harmless wind is that the latter is inanimate, the predator is an intentional agent. This is why we attribute agency to many unknown things, and why our lives are filled with ghosts, gods, angels, demons, aliens, and even malevolent government conspirators. Things that confuse us or baffle us by their complexity often get ascribed to an agent. And it's easy for such a thought to arise -- "She can run faster than me, and he can run faster than her...there must be someone out there that can run faster than all." Powerful beings beget powerful ideas, and before long you have a being of ultimate speed, might, and power. And if it's that powerful, then it must be responsible for this currently unexplained phenomenon.
These reasons make it difficult to use skepticism and science, because they're against our nature. Studies have shown that children start to apply purpose-based meanings to things at about the time they begin to recognize man-made tools that really do serve a purpose, such as cell phones. But science has proven itself to be the best tool we can use to determine reality. If we can understand ourselves, if we can recognize the places where we are more prone to these kinds of errors in thinking, then we can start changing for the better. After all, if we can find patterns so well, finding the patterns in our error-making habits should be...second nature.
-STA
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Day In The Life: The Long Goodbye
A Great Loss
These past couple of weeks have borne many emotions for me, many of which I still find myself trying to deal with. I have recently shared in the suffering of a great loss for my family. While the passing of a loved one is never an easy thing to abide, the surviving family members can often make matters worse simply by attempting to console one another.
My stepfather's mother finally succumbed to cancer last week. Having exhausted all medical options, she was sent home to await the inevitability we all knew would come soon. It was both a comfort and a curse, for while the family knew that her time was short, it was good for her to be in her own home surrounded by her loved ones. We each had the opportunity to say our final goodbyes in those last days, and this too was comforting. It was also the hardest thing I've ever had to experience. Nothing can compare to the heartache of leaving the room of a cognizant person whom you (and they) know you'll never see again.
MASSively Unnecessary
Yet most (I dare say all, save my wife and I) think that we will indeed see Grandmother again. She belonged to a catholic church for the last 40 years of her life, an obvious venue for her funeral. The large church was complete with the trappings of the catholic faith: the holy water, candles, lavish alter under a huge statue of Jesus nailed to the cross and solemnly looking skyward. The three priests wore their adorned coats and were catered to by alter girls while they performed their sorcery and chanted their rituals. All of this I held in silent contempt for the respect of my family and their loss.
On that day, I didn't abhor these religious people for their belonging to a group of respected pedophiles, nor for their tedious adherence to strict, formal worshiping practices, nor for their ignorance . On that day, I detested them for their complete disregard of the loss this family had suffered. If you've never been to a catholic funeral, here's what to expect: a few amazingly beautiful and sad songs, several readings of scripture, each followed by a collective "Thanks be to God" from a seemingly entranced congregation of sheep. Then the priests will perform a long ritual whereby they take turns putting this ingredient into that chalice, kneeling, saying magic words and gesturing like a Vegas performer until finally they transform a cracker into flesh and then eat it. Once you realize how sick that sounds, you'll understand the discomfort of someone like me watching all this play out. Then the congregation may come up and partake in this cannibalistic practice -- that is, those who've had the proper training. Apparently, if one were to engage in any of these sacraments without the said training, one's head may just catch fire (or some equally frightful thing). Afterward comes more chanting and praying, until finally the casket is brought up and is blessed with smoke in a fashion similar to what a jungle shaman might employ.
In all of this, you're lucky if you get five minutes worth of mentioning the deceased and what their life meant. I will say that what the Monsignor said about Grandmother was apropos and brought tears to my eyes. But this brief mention was overshadowed by the rites and practices of making sure you bow this way and say these exact words and do this and that to make sure YOU get into heaven and don't piss God off, that it might as well not have even been considered a funeral at all.
Of course, the reason for all this hullabaloo was, as I said earlier, was because they believe this is not the end for Grandmother, and that she either is in Paradise, was going to be there as soon as we put her in the ground, or would return on the "Last Day" (I don't think they ever decided which one it was; or like the Trinity, it was all at the same time). I suppose that if you thought this way, then all this would be better than simply sitting around telling stories and remembering the life of selfless, kind, caring woman -- a woman who put others before herself so much that the day before she died she used the last of her strength to fill out birthday cards to friends and family up to the end of the year. That kind of selflessness wells me up even now. The faithful cannot claim that this is due to her catholic beliefs, for this is just the kind of person she was. More mention of that would have been nice, instead of awkwardly sitting through a Eucharistic liturgy.
Once the procession was moved to the cemetery, there was another short ceremony where the priest of the church related a story whose moral summed up Grandmother's life, and I suppose the idea of it was apt. After this, the priest went on to "ask God to bless the place of her burial", but I had had enough. Me and several others went to the cemetery's family center for food and conditioned air while the rest of the throng went to watch the matriarch of the family be placed in the ground.
That Grim Specter
Throughout each of these religious ceremonies, we were asked by the priests to "comfort each other through words of faith" -- translation: "lie to each other and fill the heads of the mournful with wishful tales". The priest also used the very familiar technique of letting the faithless know that we have no hope and that our lives are worthless without Jesus Christ.
I'm not about to launch into that triad (I'm sure you can find out what I think on the matter somewhere on here, and if not, email me). I'll just close by reiterating the point I made earlier. To those of us who cherish life for the special thing it is, filling the last occasion in a person's life with droning prayers and mindless rituals misses the point of the exercise entirely.
And this ties in with the second point I made regarding doing more harm by attempting to heal with religion. It's a helpless and lonely feeling to realize that what people in this situation do to try to cope with death only makes things worse. The fact that they can't deal with death or finality is draped across their tear-shined cheeks and soak the words they use. These kind of situations ultimately end in self-reflection for many people in which they search their own hearts for meaning and confront the realization of their own future demise. None of this is helped by religion. It's not an easy thing to do by any means, but telling someone they'll see their loved one again and that they suffered and died because of some grand plan is the least comforting thing you can do. It should be obvious that the best course of action is to look it in the face and try to understand it, not shut your eyes and ears and think of your happy place.
When I die I don't want anything remotely compared to the farce of a memorial I was present at. Come, pray if you want (there will be no formal group-led prayers), eat crackers and proclaim they're someone's flesh, do whatever religious exercise you feel you need to -- but do them on your own time. I simply want a small ceremony in which I am remembered. Perhaps some writings of my could be shared, along with tales of past deeds and memories from those who wish to share. After all, that's what it should be about, and that's the only way I'll "live on"...through the memory of those I touch.
As for Grandmother, while she held many beliefs that are at odds with my own, she certainly touched my life, and I am thankful to have known such a thoughtful, kind, loving person. She will be missed.
-STA
These past couple of weeks have borne many emotions for me, many of which I still find myself trying to deal with. I have recently shared in the suffering of a great loss for my family. While the passing of a loved one is never an easy thing to abide, the surviving family members can often make matters worse simply by attempting to console one another.
My stepfather's mother finally succumbed to cancer last week. Having exhausted all medical options, she was sent home to await the inevitability we all knew would come soon. It was both a comfort and a curse, for while the family knew that her time was short, it was good for her to be in her own home surrounded by her loved ones. We each had the opportunity to say our final goodbyes in those last days, and this too was comforting. It was also the hardest thing I've ever had to experience. Nothing can compare to the heartache of leaving the room of a cognizant person whom you (and they) know you'll never see again.
MASSively Unnecessary
Yet most (I dare say all, save my wife and I) think that we will indeed see Grandmother again. She belonged to a catholic church for the last 40 years of her life, an obvious venue for her funeral. The large church was complete with the trappings of the catholic faith: the holy water, candles, lavish alter under a huge statue of Jesus nailed to the cross and solemnly looking skyward. The three priests wore their adorned coats and were catered to by alter girls while they performed their sorcery and chanted their rituals. All of this I held in silent contempt for the respect of my family and their loss.
On that day, I didn't abhor these religious people for their belonging to a group of respected pedophiles, nor for their tedious adherence to strict, formal worshiping practices, nor for their ignorance . On that day, I detested them for their complete disregard of the loss this family had suffered. If you've never been to a catholic funeral, here's what to expect: a few amazingly beautiful and sad songs, several readings of scripture, each followed by a collective "Thanks be to God" from a seemingly entranced congregation of sheep. Then the priests will perform a long ritual whereby they take turns putting this ingredient into that chalice, kneeling, saying magic words and gesturing like a Vegas performer until finally they transform a cracker into flesh and then eat it. Once you realize how sick that sounds, you'll understand the discomfort of someone like me watching all this play out. Then the congregation may come up and partake in this cannibalistic practice -- that is, those who've had the proper training. Apparently, if one were to engage in any of these sacraments without the said training, one's head may just catch fire (or some equally frightful thing). Afterward comes more chanting and praying, until finally the casket is brought up and is blessed with smoke in a fashion similar to what a jungle shaman might employ.
In all of this, you're lucky if you get five minutes worth of mentioning the deceased and what their life meant. I will say that what the Monsignor said about Grandmother was apropos and brought tears to my eyes. But this brief mention was overshadowed by the rites and practices of making sure you bow this way and say these exact words and do this and that to make sure YOU get into heaven and don't piss God off, that it might as well not have even been considered a funeral at all.
Of course, the reason for all this hullabaloo was, as I said earlier, was because they believe this is not the end for Grandmother, and that she either is in Paradise, was going to be there as soon as we put her in the ground, or would return on the "Last Day" (I don't think they ever decided which one it was; or like the Trinity, it was all at the same time). I suppose that if you thought this way, then all this would be better than simply sitting around telling stories and remembering the life of selfless, kind, caring woman -- a woman who put others before herself so much that the day before she died she used the last of her strength to fill out birthday cards to friends and family up to the end of the year. That kind of selflessness wells me up even now. The faithful cannot claim that this is due to her catholic beliefs, for this is just the kind of person she was. More mention of that would have been nice, instead of awkwardly sitting through a Eucharistic liturgy.
Once the procession was moved to the cemetery, there was another short ceremony where the priest of the church related a story whose moral summed up Grandmother's life, and I suppose the idea of it was apt. After this, the priest went on to "ask God to bless the place of her burial", but I had had enough. Me and several others went to the cemetery's family center for food and conditioned air while the rest of the throng went to watch the matriarch of the family be placed in the ground.
That Grim Specter
Throughout each of these religious ceremonies, we were asked by the priests to "comfort each other through words of faith" -- translation: "lie to each other and fill the heads of the mournful with wishful tales". The priest also used the very familiar technique of letting the faithless know that we have no hope and that our lives are worthless without Jesus Christ.
I'm not about to launch into that triad (I'm sure you can find out what I think on the matter somewhere on here, and if not, email me). I'll just close by reiterating the point I made earlier. To those of us who cherish life for the special thing it is, filling the last occasion in a person's life with droning prayers and mindless rituals misses the point of the exercise entirely.
And this ties in with the second point I made regarding doing more harm by attempting to heal with religion. It's a helpless and lonely feeling to realize that what people in this situation do to try to cope with death only makes things worse. The fact that they can't deal with death or finality is draped across their tear-shined cheeks and soak the words they use. These kind of situations ultimately end in self-reflection for many people in which they search their own hearts for meaning and confront the realization of their own future demise. None of this is helped by religion. It's not an easy thing to do by any means, but telling someone they'll see their loved one again and that they suffered and died because of some grand plan is the least comforting thing you can do. It should be obvious that the best course of action is to look it in the face and try to understand it, not shut your eyes and ears and think of your happy place.
When I die I don't want anything remotely compared to the farce of a memorial I was present at. Come, pray if you want (there will be no formal group-led prayers), eat crackers and proclaim they're someone's flesh, do whatever religious exercise you feel you need to -- but do them on your own time. I simply want a small ceremony in which I am remembered. Perhaps some writings of my could be shared, along with tales of past deeds and memories from those who wish to share. After all, that's what it should be about, and that's the only way I'll "live on"...through the memory of those I touch.
As for Grandmother, while she held many beliefs that are at odds with my own, she certainly touched my life, and I am thankful to have known such a thoughtful, kind, loving person. She will be missed.
-STA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)