Get Out of the Car!

– the chaplain

 

Three Types of Falsehood

Some of you may have noticed, by glancing at my sidebar, that I’m currently reading The Daily Show and Philosophy. Those of you who are TDS fans, or those who are interested in the philosophy of language, communications and rhetoric, may enjoy this book. I’m currently reading a section that carries the provocative sub-title, Critical Thinking and the War on Bullshit. In light of the fact that President Bush will be delivering his final (maybe there is a god after all!) State of the Union address this evening, it may be helpful to consider distinctions between lies, bullshit and spin.

In a chapter that examines bullshit and political spin, Kimberly A. Blessing & Joseph J. Marren adopt Harry Frankfurt’s (author of On Bullshit) position that, “In the case of a lie, the aim is to deceive people about what’s true” (TDSAP, p. 142). What this means is that liars know what is true (or what they believe to be true), but want to lead their audiences to believe that something contrary to that state of affairs is actually the true state of affairs.

Blessing & Marren also agree with Frankfurt’s position that “the bullshitter aims at deceiving the listener about what the bullshitter does or doesn’t know, yet can succeed without actually going to the trouble of forming a belief either way” (TDSAP, p. 142). In their view, the bullshitter doesn’t care, and doesn’t need to care, one way or the other about what is true. Rather, the bullshitter’s only interest is in selling his or her message to someone. He or she will say anything regardless of its truth value to promote whatever message is being sold. So, the difference between liars and bullshitters is in their stances toward the truth: liars must know the truth in order to compose their lies. Bullshitters do not face such a constraint.

Blessing & Marren part company with Frankfurt on the matter of spin. In an interview with Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, Frankfurt claimed that spin “is a form of bullshit” (TDSAP, p. 140). Blessing & Marren contend, to the contrary that, unlike bullshitters, spinners “must know what’s true in order to spin it” (p. 142). They must start from something that they know is true, then proceed to “manipulat[e] a listener’s opinion to persuade the listener that their spin is true” (TDSAP, p.142). So, spin is similar to lying in that it must take truth into consideration, and it is similar to bullshit in that it consists of twisting content to suit spinners’ purposes. Hence, spin comprises a third category of falsehood, alongside of lies and bullshit.

Are people equally tolerant of all three of these forms of falsehood? More importantly, should people tolerate of all of them equally? Blessing & Marren contend that “Spinners are required to know what is and is not true and then try to color the (commonly known) facts; unlike liars, they don’t try to use this knowledge to deceive us about what the facts are. Mere bullshitters would never even bother with the facts” TDPAS, p. 143). In my view, bullshit is the most dangerous of the three types of falsehood. Lies can be uncovered by fact-checking. Spin, being a version of truth, is often obvious and easily countered. In contrast to these, the bullshitters’ lackadaisical attitude toward truth is pernicious, and it’s often difficult to cut through their verbiage to ascertain which parts of their bullshit, if any, are true and which are false.

I’ll conclude by referring back to my opening paragraph and reminding you that President Bush will be addressing the nation tonight. As you listen to him, amuse yourself by seeing if you can figure out how much of what he says is unvarnished truth, spin, lies or bullshit.

– the chaplain

 

What’s So Bad About Religion?

I’ve been debating with myself for several days about whether I should write this post. Since some other bloggers have dealt with this question quite effectively recently, I haven’t felt that I would have anything useful to add to the conversation. I changed my mind when I read Brian’s recent heart wrenching post. For the religious folks who wonder why nonbelievers care at all about religion and why we can’t we just respect believers’ beliefs and leave them alone, I offer the following thoughts.

The first problem that I have with religious beliefs is that, as Greta Christina pointed out recently, acting on the basis of false beliefs can lead to ill-conceived, even harmful, behavior and decisions. Take, for example, cases of snake handlers who die from snakebites, or Jehovah’s Witnesses who die for want of blood transfusions – both of which have occurred in the USA within the past several months. One may argue that such beliefs are misunderstandings of scriptural injunctions, but to so argue merely cedes my point. Yes, I agree, such beliefs are misunderstandings, but those misunderstandings are founded upon what believers have read in scriptures and they are founded upon traditions that have been passed down to successive generations for millennia. Quite simply, the misunderstood scriptures would not be taken so seriously, and the errant teachings that have been transmitted through the ages would not exist, were it not for the religious contexts that gave birth to them and continue to nourish them.

Consider the subject of Brian’s post that I alluded to in the opening paragraph of this post. In this case, a man who was suffering from mental illness heard the voice of god telling him to slaughter his family. He responded by killing his teen aged daughter. Fortunately, his wife was not home at the time of the murder so she was spared. Prior to that event, the man had told members of his church that he was haunted by demons, was hearing voices and so on. The church people believed that the man was extraordinarily blessed to have such experiences! The tragedies of this man’s delusional beliefs and his resultant behaviors are highlighted by the inconceivable (to me) failure of the man’s religious community to distinguish between mental illness and the leading of god’s holy spirit! Remove the shroud of religious superstition from the community’s thought processes and the man’s derangement would have been clearly evident.

I can already hear several of the faithful protesting that I’m painting all believers with the same broad, tainted brush. Most believers are not deranged, most believers do not handle poisonous snakes as part of their worship rituals, and only a few believers eschew modern medicine…. All of that is true, but it doesn’t change the underlying fact that theistic belief in any form is mistaken. Even if those mistaken beliefs don’t cause believers to make such egregious errors in judgment as those noted above, they can lead to other errors, such as susceptibility to swindling televangelists, or refusal to believe that one’s pastor is molesting Sunday school children, or the notion that abstinence-only sex education is sufficient, or the conviction that gays are evil…. Even though the vast majority of believers apply rational thought processes in most areas of their lives, there is a corner of their minds, especially for religious conservatives, in which they refuse to shine the light of reason. Every scrap of information they process is run through religious filters. If it does not threaten to undermine the religious scaffold around which they’ve built their lives, then normal reasoning processes can be applied safely. If a bit of information contradicts the scaffold, then it must be rejected. Religious liberals, on the other hand, frequently bend the scaffold so that it will accommodate new information. Whatever process one applies, the fact remains that there are points at which reason and religion conflict. How one handles those conflicts determines the extent to which religious belief is harmful. Sometimes the harm is confined to believers. Other times, however, that harm spills over and affects others, believers and nonbelievers alike. This brings me to my second problem with religious belief.

The second problem I have with religious belief is that believers do not live in vacuums. Their religious beliefs are not always private and those beliefs do affect others, including me, in numerous ways. Billy wrote a great post about this recently. To cite one example, when creationists and Intelligent Design proponents advocate for the inclusion of their non-scientific theories in school science curricula, in addition to hurting their own children, they threaten to undermine my children’s education, they threaten to undermine American progress in scientific and medical research and they threaten to dilute the American education system and thereby weaken our nation’s economy. In short, when they bring their religious beliefs into the public square and seek to impose those beliefs on others, they threaten our livelihoods and our well-being. Another example: when a fundamentalist presidential candidate advocates amending the Constitution so that it conforms to an ancient book of fables, he threatens my liberty of conscience. Cases like these and countless others lead me to conclude that the only way I can adopt a philosophy of “live and let live” is if religious believers will pledge to do the same. The moment they open their church doors and let their ideas drip all over the pavement is the moment they invite me, regardless of whether they intend to do so, to examine those ideas. This leads to my third problem with religious belief.

The third problem I have with religious beliefs is the persistent entreaty that I respect religious beliefs simply because they are religious. My response to this demand is that I’ll extend to religious beliefs the same degree of respect that I extend to astrology or phrenology or alchemy and not a speck more or less than that. Nevertheless, I will always strive to respect believers, regardless of what I think about their beliefs. If believers want their beliefs to be considered as plausible foundations of social, economic, international, educational, or any other public policies, then I will critique those beliefs just as scrupulously as I would critique the beliefs of a Marxist, a Maoist, or a monarchist. Religious beliefs are simply one class of ideas among many that have the potential to do real damage to individuals, societies and nations (though it seems self-evident to me that false beliefs will seldom pass muster as suitable foundations for good policy decisions). All ideas, religious and otherwise, should be scrutinized ruthlessly before one renders judgments regarding their soundness. Religious ideas are no more special than any others, they are simply more widespread and more deeply ingrained than most.

Setting aside, momentarily, the fact that religious beliefs are detrimental to believers and nonbelievers alike, it is true that all of us hold many values, interests and aspirations in common. These are bases upon which we can all agree to work together for our common good. If we can agree to do so, then maybe one day I’ll be able to revise my view of religion and concede that, perhaps, it is good for some people, though certainly not for all. Until that happens, however, I will continue to maintain that, given current conditions, religion’s bad effects far outweigh its good ones.

– the chaplain

 

Thoughts on Sex and Religion

Although there is no uniform view of sex in the Church, there can be little doubt that, for the most part, the Christian community has negative attitudes about sex. Even within moderate congregations sexuality and sex are viewed in a restrictive light. Committing a sexual sin is viewed more gravely than most other sins. There is a spoof that has been circulating in various forms in blogs, in presentations and in books as being a credible document. The authenticity of a document credited to Ruth Smythers in 1894 is questionable. Though it appears to be a fictitious document, it reflects views commonly held during most of the 1800s and into the 1900s. Remnants of such views continue to reside within the Christians community, particularly within the fundamentalist and evangelical community. Even though it is a more recent document than it purports to be, and it is likely over the top at various points, as it helps to articulate the attitudes of the age, it is found here in the chapel for reflection and contemplation purposes.

To the sensitive young woman who has had the benefits of a proper upbringing, the wedding day is, ironically, both the happiest and the most terrifying day of her life. On the positive side, there is the wedding itself, in which the bride is the central attraction in a beautiful and inspiring ceremony, symbolizing her triumph in securing a male to provide for all her needs for the rest of her
life. On the negative side, there is the wedding night, during which the bride must pay the piper, so to speak, by facing for the first time the terrible experience of sex.

One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. ….. While sex is at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be endured.

Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly during the first months of marriage. As time goes on she should make every effort to reduce this frequency. Feigned illness, sleepiness and headaches are among the wife’s best friends in this matter. Arguments, nagging, scolding, and bickering also prove effective, if used in late evening….Clever wives are ever on the alert for new and better methods of denying…A good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to once a week by the first year of marriage and to once a month by the fifth year of marriage…..By their tenth anniversary, many wives have managed to complete their child bearing and have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual contacts with their husband.

Most men are by nature rather perverted, and if given half a chance, would engage in quiet a variety of the most revolting practices…including among others…mouthing the female body; and offering their own vile bodies to be mouthed in turn.

A wise bride will make it the goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness….Once the bride has donned her gown and turned off all the lights she should lie quietly upon the bed and await her groom. When he comes groping into the room she should make no sound to guide him in her direction, lest he take this as a sign of encouragement. She should let him grope in the dark. There is always hope he will stumble and incur some slight injury, which she can use as an excuse to deny him sexual access.

When he finds her, the wife should lie as still as possible. Bodily motion on her part could be interpreted as sexual excitement by the optimistic husband.

If he attempts to kiss her on the lips she should turn her head slightly so that the kiss falls harmlessly on her cheek instead. If he attempts to kiss her hand, she should make a fist….

If the husband attempts to seduce her with lascivious talk, the wise wife will suddenly remember some trivial non-sexual question to ask him. Once he answers she should keep the conversation going, no matter how frivolous it may seem at the time….She will be absolutely silent or babble about her housework while he is huffing and puffing away. Above all she will lie perfectly still…

The wise wife….relentlessly pursues her goal first to limit, later to annihilate completely her husband’s desire for sexual expression.

For most of its history the church has viewed sex as evil, so evil that it must be managed carefully and firmly. Just over a century ago, wives were encouraged to keep strict control of sex within their marriages. A couple’s sex life was not something for them to discuss or come to a mutual understanding about. Women were cautioned not to allow themselves or their husbands to enjoy sex lest they be consumed by evil. The implication of the instruction is that sex is for procreation rather than pleasure.

Even today, within the church and outside of it, unmarried women who become pregnant frequently carry a disproportionate share of the blame for getting pregnant in the first place, and the subsequent responsibility for rearing, with little or no assistance or financial support from the fathers, the children they conceive. It’s still the case in western societies that sexually active women are often regarded, negatively, as sluts, and sexually active men are regarded, positively, as studs. The implication continues to be, within our current supposedly liberated, enlightened culture, that women should restrain their own sexual appetites, and those of their male partners who, after all, are just being men and can’t be expected to control themselves.

This attitude is not limited to western, predominantly Christian, cultures. One need only consider Muslim honor killings, the recent well publicized judgment of a rape victim’s guilt for her own rape and strict requirements that Islamic women keep themselves covered from head to toe, lest men be rendered unable to control their own sexual impulses. In Islamic societies, even more than in Christian ones, women are held responsible for ensuring that sex is confined to appropriate parameters. In both Christian and Islamic cases, the attitude toward men is negative. Men are animals who crave sex so much that if women do not exercise appropriate control, men’s animal instincts will bring about the ruination of both women and men. In Christian societies, women were taught to be the moral exemplars in their homes, on matters of sex as well as in other areas. The church and society as a whole expected women to be the moral centers for their families and society at large, a view that does not speak highly of men. Within many churches, females are still charged, more strongly than men, to maintain high moral and sexual standards.

There are groups within Christian circles, and some church teachers, who are teaching a more balanced view of sex and sexuality. While a range of their more progressive and balanced teachings are found on the Internet, many pastors and teachers do not speak to the issues in their congregations for fear of being viewed as heretical.

Though most Christians have long since repudiated in private the extreme views of their great-grandparents, the underlying view of sex and sexuality as being evil remains. For evidence of this one only has to look at laws that remain on the books in many communities. Though the laws have been long disregarded, no politician will request that they be removed least he or she be viewed by the electorate as a sexual pervert. One such law is the Nevada law that says sex without a condom is illegal. In hotels in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, every room is required to have twin beds that are a minimum of two feet apart when a couple rents a room for only one night. Also in Sioux Falls, it is illegal to make love on the floor between the beds!

Many of our horrific views of sex and sexuality go back to both Augustine and the early mystics of the second and third century mystics, and possibly the apostle Paul, whose writings on such matters sometimes seem to be contradictory and undoubtedly were taken out of context. The mystics secluded themselves from society by living in caves, in the woods and on poles with the hopes that they would thereby be free from temptation and sin. These forerunners of the monastic movement shaped their Church’s definitions of sin and righteousness. The playboy Augustine, when he became a Christian, held that sex was the devil’s tool to lead people away from God. He argued that, to be holy, one must cease participating in sex. Hence, he put down the foundation for priests to be celibate and for sex’s only godly value being in procreation. To its shame such archaic, unhealthy thinking continues to pervade North American society.

– the deacon

 

Yay! Another Carnival Is Running!

Yes, dear readers, it’s time for another Carnival of the Godless! Tangled Up in Blue Guy has taken a cue from one of the paragons of Internet publication, Answers in Genesis, which recently launched a peer-reviewed journal that it promises will “encourage Christians with powerful results of the latest creationist research.” Not to be outdone by any creationists, no matter how cutting-edge their scholarship, Tangled Up has launched what I believe is the first peer-reviewed edition of the Carnival of the Godless! I am pleased to announce that my Boxes post made the cut! I’ve scanned the abstracts and the appendix, and I’m looking forward to reading all of this week’s peer-reviewed entries. Make yourself a pot of coffee (or tea, in my case), get comfortable and enjoy some stimulating reading at today’s carnival. Thank you, Tangled Up in Blue Guy, for being this week’s host.

– the chaplain