sarahmichigan | Julia Sweeney on God & Non-belief

Entry tags:

atheism,
religion

Julia Sweeney on God & Non-belief

You may know Julia Sweeney as an ex-SNL member and not know much more about her. Well, she's an atheist who has written a one-woman show about losing her faith in god, a cancer survivor, and the single mother of an adopted child as well.

She gave a speech at a "Freedom From Religion Foundation" convention not too long ago, and there are excerpts on the FFRF website. I love some of the points she makes about religion and belief (and she's funny, too).

#1. People Want to be good. "When I talk to [my friends] about religion, they don't say, "Oh, did I feel good yesterday thinking how Mary was a virgin and conceived Jesus!" They don't say anything about Catholicism. They talk about the community work that they've done. And that's what they connect with their church. They assign that good feeling to their church."

#2. A code of behavior is often necessary.

#3. People want to be in a club.

#4. People love to hate. "People feel closer to other people if they have a common person they don't like. Come on, everybody knows that's true! And it's true for us, too. Religion delivers on that, too! It gives people an instant common enemy, whether it's Islamic fundamentalists or secularists, that's immediately there and provided. At Saturday Night Live, we were never closer than when Steven Seagal hosted--because we hated him so much!"

Read the whole piece here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's a good article.

Ultimately, though, "religion" is a fundamental, near-inescapable aspect of human function that is not even vaguely limited to churchified practises or formal religions. One of the most difficult things for me to come to terms with on this topic has not been the behaviour of religious people, but rather the difficulty people have with recognising religious behaviour in supposedly nonereligious people and arenas.

For example, "atheism" covers a wide scope of beliefs that range from the perfectly logical to the utterly religious.

I do like the way that she approached the list as a list of near-universal human characteristics that can act to support churches and religious behaviour, rather than approaching the list as a set of characteristics of "religious people".

I think that's sort of her point- there's a universal human need for belonging, for ritual, for feeling like you're doing good. I wouldn't call that "religious" in people who don't believe in god, but certainly I think even people who are diehard atheists have a need for many of the things that religion often provides (community, a moral compass, weekly or yearly rituals, etc.).

Hmm.

I'm taking it further than that, though.

I am saying that nonreligious people often like to point at religion as being a prime example of illogic in action, but that the same illogic for the same kinds of reasons acts in the lives of both religious and nonreligious people, and in their attachments and behaviours within churches as well as secular institutions.

The presence of illogic in atheists doesn't negate the idea that religion is "a" or even "the" prime example of illogic in action.

Many, if not most, theists would agree that not only is religious belief illogical, that's rather the point of faith in the first place. If faith were provable, it wouldn't be faith. :)

The fish who calls the other fish "wetter" proves himself blinder, not drier.

But the duck who says fish are a prime example of "things that swim" is making an accurate observation.

There's nothing inherent in "X is a prime example of illogic" that says "Y does not have moments of illogic."

See also: Tu quoque fallacy.

I thought I'd clarified it earlier by implication, but I was indeed talking about that subset of nonreligious people who think that religion is *the* prime example of illogic, and who think that religious people are by definition less logical than irreligious ones.

As such, your counter-example simply has little to do with what I was talking about.

I do find that religious or irreligious people who are able to calmly discuss non-rational aspects of religion in a way that doesn't scapegoat or demonize are the treasured exception rather than the rule. But your experience may differ.

I'm an off-and-on theist who thinks that religion is illogical.

How is saying that demonizing non-rational aspects of religion? Why is it so important that every thought pattern conform to logic?

I think one of the reasons why many atheists have trouble understanding the importance of religion is that because, for those atheists, logic is more important than anything else. For many/most theists, logic simply isn't the most important thing in building a worldview. Accepting that calling something "illogical" is tantamount to demonizing it is accepting the rationalist's rule set for assessing the quality of a worldview. Take the teeth out of the insult and it can't bite. :)

What impresses me about Sweeney's comments: She gets it; she's not a theist, but she gets why some people would feel that urge to believe without having to demonize or ridicule them (well, any more than she ridicules anyone, which is her job).

I know what you're trying to say, but I disagree that my analogy has little to do with what you're talking about.

Hmmm. I think I see some misunderstandings. Let me try to clarify:

- I didn't mean to accuse you of demonising anything. At all.
- I *don't* think it important that "every thought pattern" conform to logic.
- Such conformity is not in keeping with what we know of human neurophysiology- it doesn't seem possible. Emotion runs through everything we do. Even if possible, such conformity hardly seems desirable, far less important...
- I do, however, think it important for things labelled as logical to conform to logic, and for people claiming to be basing positions on logic to do so, or withdraw the claim.
- I think that many atheists who claim to found their worldview in logic are likely fooling themselves. I can't so label any individual atheist who I don't know particularly well, however. Idiosyncratic apathy, ignorance, and rebellion against religion as an unpleasant authority figure are common reasons for atheism in my experience- and valid reasons too, arguably.
- I can't support the idea that any complex human endeavour such as religion can be accurately broadly painted as "logical" or "illogical".
- This is independent of your very real point (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332) that we should not blindly accept "illogical" as an insult.
- Your analogy was weakly related at best to what *I* was talking about for reasons that I mentioned; I am talking about irreligious people who demonise, while you seem to be talking about irreligious people who calmly muse. I'm sure it was quite pertinent, however, to the point that you were trying to make.
- I liked the article for many of the same reasons that you do. I'm just noting that Sweeney's reasons apply widely to affiliations other than church and religious ones.

I hope this helps...

adrian

We're likely arguing for different but related positions, sure. And all of what you say makes sense, I don't think I have a quibble with any of it.

One issue, I think, is that the logical result of applying deductive reasoning and the Scientific Method to the existence of God is not in fact atheism, it's agnosticism. Atheism requires the additional step of assuming some version of Occam's Razor, that is, that if the natural phenomena of the universe can be adequately explained without a reliance on Deity, then no Deity must exist. But Occam's Razor isn't hard logic, even though it's a rational, reasoned approach. So atheism requires a quasilogical assumption.

I certainly agree with you about people who spend so much of their time attacking theists. I see the reason in a certain amount of challenge -- such as against those religions that put children at risk by refusing medical care -- but blanket bitterness towards religion doesn't accomplish anything useful.

Accepting that calling something "illogical" is tantamount to demonizing it is accepting the rationalist's rule set for assessing the quality of a worldview. Take the teeth out of the insult and it can't bite.

From a rationalist's point of view, though, that's changing it from a dismissal of the religious belief to a dismissal of the person with the religious belief. It's much easier to accept that someone is wrong (or that you might be wrong yourself) than that someone is uninterested in what's right.

It's much easier to accept that someone is wrong (or that you might be wrong yourself) than that someone is uninterested in what's right.

You're demonstrating my point by equating "right" (i.e., "correct") with "logical," and you're also hyperbolizing by suggesting a theist is "uninterested" in logic. Some of the greatest writers in logic and philosophy (Darwin, Descartes, Locke, Jefferson, and many others) were theists: Clearly, they were able to set apart the logical from the intangibles of faith. But modern rationalists are increasingly leveraging people's discomfort at being deemed "illogical" to conflate "correct" and "logical" (and by extension, "intelligent," "enlightened," and a bunch of other positive concepts). Just because someone fails to put logic above all other things, that doesn't mean they're uninterested in it.

Ultimately, it's begging the question. If the rationalist/scientific rules are used as the sole means for determining what's correct, then the results of rationalism/science will by definition be correct. But that means "correct" means "the results of rationalism/science." And so nothing has been proven except that there is at least one viable worldview that is rationalist and scientific. Saying that's correct because it works is circular.

I'm not saying that the atheist perspective is incorrect. Underneath it all, I'm an agnostic, and have no more proof against atheism than I do against theism. After all, atheism's sole proof, the only thing that differentiates it philosophically from agnosticism, is Occam's Razor. But that's not logic per se, it's a rule of convenience.

you're also hyperbolizing by suggesting a theist is "uninterested" in logic.
No, you did that. I was trying to illustrate why that would not be taking "the teeth out of the insult", but actually turning it into something far worse, from the point of view of someone like me.

the results of rationalism/science will by definition be correct.
There's still plenty of room for disagreement, errors, weighing factors differently, etc. The question is between disagreement that I can respect/understand and might be discussed as something interesting, and something coming from a worldview that's so foreign that there's nothing to be done be try to stay away from the topic.

Ultimately, it's begging the question.
Yes, I know, and I'm not trying to argue that my worldview is right because I realize it's impossible. But I also don't think it's fair to expect me to feel differently about faith than fundamentalist religious person would feel about me even considering the idea that they might not be right.

You misunderstood my initial point. An insult is only affective if the person being insulted feels insulted. What the insulter means by something is generally not relevant to the feeling of the apparent insultee.

And I don't believe I did in fact suggest that a theist is uninterested in logic. If that's your interpretation, so be it, but it's not what I meant; I've since clarified what I did mean, but if you need a further explanation, ask, and I'll provide one.

To clarify more overtly, here's what I said: For many/most theists, logic simply isn't the most important thing in building a worldview. Accepting that calling something "illogical" is tantamount to demonizing it is accepting the rationalist's rule set for assessing the quality of a worldview.

The key words here are "the most important" (which implies it could be important, and therefore hold interest) and "demonizing." I see I also started the comment with "I'm an off-and-on theist who thinks that religion is illogical." -- not hyperbole so much as stating that religion is not inherently bound by the dictates of logic. But I can see where you could have inferred that I meant to say that religionists are uninterested in logic.

Many, if not most, theists would agree that not only is religious belief illogical, that's rather the point of faith in the first place. If faith were provable, it wouldn't be faith.
That's basically what ended my religious beliefs. I was never comfortable with faith in the first place, and had convinced myself for a long time that it did make sense.

The topic of faith has become a muddy one.

If faith requires the absence of proof and logic, then what is the difference between "faith" and "blind faith"?

Is all faith then blind?

Yes, that's the difference between faith and belief.

Let's bring "belief" into it as well, then.

"Faith", "Blind faith", and "Belief".

What distinguishes among the three?

The way I've heard it described is that there are two types of religious people: philosophers and believers. Philosophers want to know why; believers don't care.

I would make a distinction between non-logical (i.e. interpersonal and emotional) reasons for attachements to behaviors and "illogical" but I get what you're saying.

Can you tell me some more about your distinction between illogical and non-logical? It sounds useful...

Well, illogical implies the presence of fallacious reasoning, and a "wrongness" to your thinking, while "non-logical" is just acknowledging that we make decisions based on factors OTHER than pure logic, and, personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

If you didn't hire someone as your personal assistant even though she's highly skilled based on some fallacious assumptions about her ability to do the job which are in turned based on illogical beliefs about women's capability in general- this would be an "illogical" decision.

Hiring someone with slightly less experience and a lower skill level over someone with better skills and more experience because the first person is a better fit with you personality-wise is a "non-logical" way of making a decision, but it isn't necessarily "illogical." If you're in a small business where you're working with only one or two other people, personality fit is certainly a huge factor (or should be) in hiring decisions.

Even with this distinction, I feel there are non-trivial cases where atheists act illogically.

Christopher Hitchens on Bill Maher last week, for instance, had quite a few fallacies (such as his argument for Hussein's protection of al Qaeda in Iraq before our invasion, which appeared to be "Because I'm an editor of Vanity Fair and I said so!").

Oh, I'm not going to dispute that. We're all prone to fallacious thinking, as the article I linked to in my previous post about the "Myth of Consistent Skepticism" noted.

Aye.

Dawkins has, in my view, descended from a past foundation of calm, measured scientific writing into the most horribly illogical, theologically ill-informed screeds on religion, which do more to discredit religious criticism than to advance it.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm particularly unbiased on the issue myself, since I loved his earlier writings and had been looking forward to his wider criticisms. I feel almost personally betrayed!

Dawkins' "The God Delusion" got a mostly positive review in my Skeptical Enquirer in one issue, but a few issues later, they also published a critical look at the places where Dawkins veers out into some unsupportable views and claims in the book, too. He's definitely not as logical on all points as he'd like to think he is.

Dawkins I think has fallen victim to a common celebrity phenomenon, allowing himself to pander to the self-righteously spiteful among his audience. Hate is a powerful force for group cohesion, sadly more powerful than any of the positive emotions, and once the spark of "let's burn the witches!" takes hold, it's difficult to keep the fire from overpowering the core message.

That doesn't mean he should be excused for letting himself get where he is, of course. He should definitely be held accountable for it.

Exactly so!

Illogical = fallacious
Non-logical = extralogical, e.g. idiosyncratic preference

Completely reasonable.

I'd say, by the way, that hiring a better personality fit despite lower qualifications is utterly, utterly logical, and that dismissing personality factors is illogical in the extreme. I have HR research to back me up, too. :-D

I'd say, by the way, that hiring a better personality fit despite lower qualifications is utterly, utterly logical, and that dismissing personality factors is illogical in the extreme.

To generalize that, I've always thought that the presence of various emotions and preferences should be considered facts, and taken into account as factors when making logical decisions.

I've always thought that the presence of various emotions and preferences should be considered facts,

So should "I'd be happier if there were a God" be considered a fact, and if so, shouldn't any decisions based on that be considered logical? In which case, someone who attends church every Sunday, who gives money to the Church, who reads religious literature and prays regularly: These are reasonable decisions for this person, correct? If so, on what grounds would you challenge a theist, as you have done repeatedly in the past?

So should "I'd be happier if there were a God" be considered a fact
Yes.

shouldn't any decisions based on that be considered logical
The only decision I can think of that could logically be based on that would be a decision to look for more evidence that there is a god.

Mm. Then I don't understand your earlier tacit acceptance that somebody should use personality traits to hire somebody who is significantly less qualified. The logical thing that appears to follow, from my understanding of your position, from "I'd like to think that getting along with me is a better trait for an employee than someone being qualified for a position.", is to do HR research on the matter, not making a hiring decision.

"I'd like to think that getting along with me is a better trait for an employee than someone being qualified for a position."
That's a substantially bigger thing to accept than I had in mind. I meant "this person and I will get along better" would be a single fact that would be weighted against qualifications, somebody's history of how long they stay at each job, etc.

I'm thinking I didn't explain my reasoning very well in the previous comment. "I'd be happier if there were a God" is a perfectly acceptable fact -- it just doesn't seem to have many practical implications.

Fair enough.

As an addendum, it could well be that someone's going to church, etc., IS a form of looking for proof. It's not unusual for someone to try several different churches and then commit to the one that appears to have the most real world efficacy (even if that efficacy is ultimately illusory).

Exactly so!

In the past, it's what I've meant when I've said that Atheism (the communal act of being non-religious, as opposed to the individual act of not believing in God) is a religion.

And it's true for us, too.

I'm really glad to see this level of self-awareness. Especially at a group whose very name pretty much reflects, if not out-and-out hate, at least a very strong communal distrust and dislike.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Julia Sweeney on God & Non-belief

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject