The Theistic Me vs. the Atheistic Me

Before I present the meat of this post, please indulge me while I make a brief announcement. If you scroll down my sidebar (Not now! Later, after you’ve read the post!), you’ll see a big link for Another Goddamned Podcast. The podcast, which features a fine group of intelligent, articulate atheists, is posted every Tuesday. If you haven’t listened to any of their discussions yet, you may want to take some time to do so this weekend. If you can’t do that, you will certainly want to listen to this Tuesday’s (April 29) podcast, which will feature an extraordinary guest: Me, the chaplain, owner and host of An Apostate’s Chapel and relatively recent de-convert from Christianity, or convert to atheism, depending on how you choose to look at it. I recently joined the regular cast for a discussion of my de-conversion experience. I haven’t heard the rough cut yet, so I can’t predict exactly what you will hear. What I can tell you is that I had a great time chatting with the AGDP gang.

Okay. That’s this week’s plug for Another Goddamned Podcast: presented by a fine group of intelligent, articulate atheists, plus one. Check it out.

**********

Spanish Inquisitor recently wrote a post in which he shared some interesting emails he’s received. An interesting question that arrived in my emailbox last week was this one:

What does the atheistic you miss, if anything, about the theistic you?

My initial, knee-jerk reaction to this question was, “Absolutely nothing.” Upon further reflection, however, I realized that one thing I do miss about my former, believing self is my idealism. When I was a theist, I sincerely believed in such Christian ideals as unconditional love, humility, sacrifice and so on. I can’t say how well I did with the humility thing. After all, bragging about one’s humility negates the claim, doesn’t it? I can, however, recall a number of times when I sacrificed, to the point of enduring really difficult circumstances, in efforts to live up to my unrealistic ideals (a sacrificial spirit is crucial to living a holy, Christ-like life), or to advance the Kingdom of God (another ideal that I took very seriously).

Right now, my understanding of those ideals is changing drastically and I’m much more skeptical than idealistic. For one thing, I’m not sure that Unconditional Love actually exists. The closest thing to it, in my experience, may be parental love, but I wouldn’t bet my life savings on that proposition. Maybe I’d bet a few pennies or nickels on it. Maybe I wouldn’t bet anything at all.

With regard to humility and sacrifice, I think there is value in both of these ideals, on the condition that they are not compelled. Healthy humility is learned via the school of experience. Every child wants to be the best at everything he or she does. Children quickly learn that wishing doesn’t make it so: they’re good at some things, sucky at others and fair-to-middling at most. As for sacrifice, people learn that it is often better for their group if individual members distribute goods equitably and give to others what they could otherwise appropriate forcefully. But this may be, ultimately, self-serving. The individual’s greater, long-term interest may lie in the realities of safety in numbers or interdependency. Individuals often gain a lot more by maintaining good relations with other group members than they do by going it along. Humility and sacrifice, understood in terms like these, are simply ways of dealing intelligently with human limitations and realities in a harsh, uncaring world.

On the other hand, common Christian teachings regarding humility and sacrifice are often used to administer “spiritual discipline” and keep people in their places. Greta Christina wrote a post recently in which she objected to the idea that “Everything Happens for a Reason.” Ordinary Girl also wrote a good response to Greta Christina’s post.

Some points Greta Christina raised are her objections to the notion that God Has a Plan for Your Life (check out the infamous Four Spiritual Laws, if you’re not already familiar with them; the tracts used to have really fugly covers in a color marketed as goldenrod)

and the facts that this notion readily allows people to evade responsibility for the things that happen to them (or that they do to themselves) and to avoid learning from their mistakes (or the mistakes of others that have ill effects on them). Ordinary Girl noted that, when good things happen to Christians, they often interpret these events as signs that God is blessing them and that they must somehow be deserving of those blessings. On the other hand, when bad things happen to Christians, they are told that God is teaching them patience or humility or selflessness or obedience or something else along those lines. Shit never just happens. To the contrary, Paul taught that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28). It doesn’t matter if we can figure out what the hell that purpose may be. It exists. Accept it humbly and unquestioningly.

When Paul wrote that God works in all situations, he was basically telling Christians to suck it up and live with whatever circumstances they were enduring. For instance, he commanded them to be submissive to their religious and political leaders. (Romans 13:1 – “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”) Are your leaders corrupt or incompetent? Too bad, tough luck. God put them in positions of power, even though they know jackshit about governing. Live with it, “my country, right or wrong.” Are you a slave? Then be the best damned slave in the world; you’re a slave because God willed or allowed it. (Ephesians 6:5, our favorite NT author again – “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”) Are you poor? Then be grateful for whatever charity others give to you. Jesus himself allegedly taught that the world will always have lots of poor people (Matthew 26:11 – “The poor you will always have with you”). Live with it. The world is the way it is because God made it so, or (if one buys Original Sin and Free Will) allowed imperfect, corrupt human beings to make it so.

Conservative Christian leaders often tell their followers that they shouldn’t rock the boat, they shouldn’t make waves, they shouldn’t disrupt the status quo, they shouldn’t question their leaders too deeply, they shouldn’t doubt what they’ve been taught, etc. (to their credit, more liberal Christian leaders encourage their followers to fight for social justice, to ask lots of questions and so on). The conservative teachings I’ve noted are dehumanizing and patronizing to those who are wronged, and self-serving for those who want to retain power with as little opposition as possible. Thus, the Pope is infallible when he (and he is always a he) speaks ex cathedra. Thus, the general of The Salvation Army is God’s Man (or Woman – 2 of the 18 generals (an *ahem* impressive 11%) have been women) of the Hour for His Army; lower-ranking officers and foot soldiers should heed his commands and obey without complaint or protest. (That last bit is somewhat exaggerated, as leadership styles across the international Salvation Army run the gamut from extremely authoritarian to rather openly consensus-oriented, albeit within the constraints imposed by a hierarchical structure rivaling that of the RC Church.)

Some Christians – not all, by any means – believe that when your child is born with a horrible congenital defect, it’s God’s will. Accept it and cope with it. He’s teaching you perfect love, patience, dependence on Him…. When ministers are assigned to parishes for which they are ill-suited, they are assured that God always works through the ecclesiastical system to place them just where He needs them. He’s teaching them wisdom, patience, obedience…. Such tenets are shallow and stupid, at least, frequently manipulative and, at their worst, abusive.

Given my current thoughts about some of the ideals I held as a theist, you may find it strange that I miss my old idealism. The thing I liked about my idealistic self was that I was willing to look outside of my own interests and believe in something bigger and more significant than myself. I’m not a thoroughly selfish person now, but I sometimes miss – just a little bit – having something to believe in, or having a greater purpose than reproduction and survival. Rationalism and humanism just haven’t, to this point, given me the same sense of mission that I had as a Christian. A sense of mission, of participating in something Big, is intoxicating. Surrendering that may be one of the most difficult parts of shedding religion.

Would I revert to theism if it were possible to do so? No. Although I sometimes miss my idealism, I absolutely cherish my current freedom of inquiry. As an atheist, there are no boundaries to the questions I may ask and the areas that I may explore. My curiosity is insatiable. I love feeding it and would never again surrender the freedom to do so to superstition, dogma and pat answers. I love learning new things too much to return to a state in which I believed I had the answers to what I mistakenly thought were life’s most important questions. I’ve traded in my poorly founded idealism for vast intellectual freedom. In my view, that’s not a bad trade at all.

– the chaplain

 

Foto Friday #2

I apologize for posting so little this month. I recently received a promotion at work and have been really busy training for the new position. On top of that, I’ve been hard at work on a couple of high school committees with several big projects that must be completed within the next 6-8 weeks. In other words, there is life outside of the Internet.

Having made my lame excuses, I hope you’ll enjoy this photo that I took in San Diego earlier this month.

 

Sermonette #4: Sense and Sensuality

“We are in Sodom and Gomorrah,” a business acquaintance commented as he, another acquaintance and I strolled down Bourbon Street to the hotel where we were attending a business conference. The famous New Orleans boulevard was filled with party goers carrying drinks, dancing in the street and having a grand, old time. My acquaintance made his comment after we saw a dancer, clothed with little more than two one-inch vertical strings covering her breasts and bottom, standing outside the door of a men’s club talking to a couple.

Though these acquaintances are not fundamentalists, their beliefs are conservative and evangelical. I understood what lay behind the comment, as it is part of the family heritage and religious baggage the chaplain and I inherited. It was one of those awkward moments: being tempted to express a contrary view, but knowing that doing so would be reckless. Speaking out would have created a hornet’s nest that could have repercussions within my wider family (both sides) and even professionally.

Having intentionally arrived two days early, I had previously explored the city a bit without being encumbered by business acquaintances and friends. What I saw that night, and on the previous two nights on Bourbon Street, was different from what my acquaintances saw. Our eyes and ears recorded the same information but our filters and values interpreted the data differently. Where they saw decadence, I saw adults enjoying themselves in a defined, and, for the most part, safe area. I saw couples strolling along, enjoying the jazz and blues clubs, the erotic night clubs and the party atmosphere, while they saw eighteen and nineteen old “kids” drinking. They saw abuse and pornography where I saw consenting people and sensuality. Through their filter, they saw women being used and abused, whereas I saw women who were comfortable with their sexuality, willing to tease and perform for an audience.

One’s perspective influences not only one’s interpretation, it also colors what one will focus upon in various environments. Discussing the parameters of appropriate behavior can be healthy if it helps us to define what is acceptable in particular environments, and even in the public square versus what takes place in the privacy of people’s homes.

In a different conversation, an acquaintance of mine once commented that some of the conduct manifested in gay pride parades was inappropriate. He felt that being gay and participating in a gay pride parade down a public street and celebrating the lifestyle should not be an excuse for lewd behavior. He noted that lewd behavior in the public square, regardless of its source, should be addressed. This man, who is gay, noted that society is not doing itself any good by having two standards regarding public conduct. As time has passed, I have come to see the wisdom in his words.

That said, I have come to the view that it is appropriate for larger communities to have areas like Bourbon Street. Having places where adults can go, unaccompanied by minors, and enjoy life is appropriate. Free speech and liberty can be encouraged and expressed openly in places like Bourbon Street. Even though, as a society, we must be watch for signs of exploitation and abuse, we also must allow freedom of expression in appropriate venues.

The chaplain reported, in an earlier post, about our trip to Las Vegas and our visits to Thunder From Down Under and a men’s club. The environments were significantly different and I concur that men’s clubs still have a seedy reputation. If a group of men in a strip club hooted and screamed at one quarter of the volume the women did at the men’s review, they would be tossed out of the club.

The women at the men’s review clearly enjoyed themselves. Moreover, they were encouraged and permitted to enjoy themselves. One of the things I found interesting was how many of the women were dressed to entice attention. If some of their husbands or boyfriends had been with them rather than a group of women friends, I suspect that many of them would have been less vocal and demonstrative. If the chaplain had been with a group of friends rather than with me, I suspect she would have shouted and laughed a little harder. Even though I would not have been offended by comments and shouting from my wife, I recognize that the baggage created in cultural and family circles can stimulate reservation.

I enjoyed both aspects of the men’s review, the performance by the men and the audience’s reaction. I watched the men, wishing I could dance and move like them. Admittedly, I wish I was half as toned as they. I was pleased to be with my wife as she enjoyed the show and eye candy. I would not begrudge her going on her own or with her friends to such a show or to a male strip club. I would also be willing join her again.

Life is to be enjoyed and embraced, which includes our sensual and sexual nature. Too often people are so serious about life that they rarely relax to enjoy it. There are others who take little in life seriously and treat it as if it were one ongoing party. The appropriate balance is between these two extremes. I hope to continue cultivating the wisdom to discern the things in life that must be taken seriously, while never taking either myself or life in general too seriously and missing the many pleasures life offers to the living.

– the deacon

 

Foto Friday #1

– the chaplain

 

Strip Shows, Strippers, Sexuality

Regular readers know that the deacon and I recently spent a week in southern California and Las Vegas, with a side trip to the Grand Canyon. While we were in Las Vegas, we took in three shows. One of these featured the amazing Blue Man Group, who performed at the Venetian.

The second performance featured the Australian male stripping troupe, Thunder from Down Under, who played at the Excalibur.

The final performance took place at a nondescript “gentleman’s” club. Since I can’t even recall the name of the place, it seems strangely appropriate that I have neither publicity photos nor tickets to post here.

As you’ve probably guessed from this post’s title, I am not writing about the Blue Man Group’s show, other than to encourage you to see them if you’ve never done so. Their show is excellent and well worth the price of admission. It was especially worthwhile for us, because our seats were upgraded!

Last week, I came across an interesting post by Aphrodite, who wrote about differences she’s observed between male and female strip shows and their audiences. Since, less than a week before her post, the deacon and I had traveled directly from the Thunder Down Under show to the nondescript strip club and discussed our reactions to both, I found Aphrodite’s post timely as well as interesting.

I’ll take things chronologically and begin with the Thunder show. This show is energetic, boisterous and downright fun. The audience consisted of around 300 women, most of whom shrieked throughout the show and about 5 men (including the deacon) who sat back and quietly watched the show, which consisted of well-choreographed musical and comedy routines. The performers, all of whom were good-looking and well-built, flirted outrageously with the audience and the show included lots of audience participation in which women were brought on stage to do various tasks. The funniest of these was a contest, judged by the audience, to determine which of three women was most skilled at faking an orgasm. The deacon found the audience as entertaining as the performers and laughed heartily throughout the show. The women in the audience enjoyed celebrating their sexuality and the performers seemed to enjoy giving them the opportunity to enjoy themselves.

After Thunder’s show, we headed down the road to a gentleman’s club, which was basically a run-of-the-mill strip joint. The audience consisted primarily of men and a handful of heterosexual couples. I hesitate to describe what the performers, with varying degrees of physical and sexual appeal, did at this club as “dancing,” especially after seeing the skillful performance of Thunder. The deacon and I stayed for approximately an hour and saw about a dozen strippers. Only one of these exuded any personality at all; she made eye contact with and smiled at audience members throughout her performance. The rest of the strippers looked thoroughly bored as they slithered up and down poles and across the stage, gradually removing the few articles of clothing with which they began their routines and wagging their clean-shaven, exposed genitals into the faces of any who happened to be sitting at the tip rail. The audience was quiet, although one could see lust in their eyes, and most of the interaction between performers and audience members took place as the strippers moved through the crowd to drum up some private couch-dancing business (and the additional income such business brings).

The contrast between the two shows was startling and sad. The male strip show was fun and exhilarating. The female strip show was mind-numbingly boring. Whereas the male strip show gave women an opportunity to openly enjoy thinking, talking and joking about sex, the female strip show simply gave men a venue in which to stealthily feed their fantasies and desires, but not to thoroughly enjoy them. The deacon and I were pleased that the women at the Thunder show were encouraged to enjoy their sexuality openly, but we could only shake our heads in sorrow that the men at the small club did not appear to have a chance to do the same.

It may be that the comparisons I’ve made here are unfair. After all, we did not see Fantasy, the Luxor’s adult entertainment show that may be more comparable to Chippendale’s or Thunder. Nevertheless, sexy shows like Fantasy and the others I’ve mentioned are exceptions to the norms. Most gentlemen’s shows are more like the nondescript one I’ve described herein than the slick, professional performances of Fantasy or Thunder.

Another thing to question is why shows are geared primarily toward men or women separately. Why aren’t shows designed to appeal to couples jointly? I suspect the answer to that question is that sexuality is still considered by many to be dirty, disgusting and dangerous. Men’s strong urges are catered to, minimally, in boring strip joints that exploit men more than they serve them. Women’s drives are catered to playfully, but far less frequently than men’s needs. Heterosexual couples’ sexual needs for shared enjoyment are barely acknowledged at all and I haven’t got a clue what entertainment options are available to homosexuals. I suspect that they’re the rarest of all. In the meantime, we continue to live in a society filled with sexually confused and frustrated people.

– the chaplain