sarahmichigan (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sarahmichigan) wrote2008-03-07 07:04 am
sarahmichigan) wrote2008-03-07 07:04 am
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
- 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
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.