Even though I frequently express impatience and frustration with obstinate religious believers, I do not consider most believers to be stupid. In fact, many of the believers I know are intelligent people. The North Carolina pastor who wrote the newsletter below, appears to be one such Christian. As you read it, you’ll probably agree with much of his reasoning and the general lesson that he took from the experience he describes. Unfortunately, he doesn’t apply that lesson to the area of his life where he most needs to do so: his religious beliefs.
During the weekend that I was away for my last class I had the wonderful opportunity to have lunch at the Whistle Stop Café, in Juliette, GA. That is right, the real Whistle Stop Café, where they served up daily batches of fried green tomatoes in the Movie named after that same southern dish. It was a surreal experience to sit at the very counter that I saw on the big screen, to eat where those wonderfully believable characters ate. I felt like I had stepped back into time, into a real history. Sitting there, eating a sandwich of Bennett’s Barbeque and sipping on sweet tea from a Mason jar, I was content with the way things seemed, the way things were presented.
My sense of connection with any real history was shattered, of course, when I talked with a local peddler of movie memorabilia who explained to me that the Whistle Stop Café was never really a café! Originally it was a grocery store. It later became a small hardware store before it fell into disrepair and became an abandoned building for over a decade or so. In fact, the whole town had become abandoned and overrun with kudzu, before the film industry entered the scene. A place of fabrication, not history, had captivated my senses.
Sometimes we believe the lie because it sounds better than reality. Ask yourself today, what do you believe about yourself, your church, your nation, or your family? Is what you believe the way things really are, or mere fabrication? Sometimes we want to believe something is as sweet as cotton candy so desperately that we ignore all of the facts that stand within clear sight. The truth about our past can hurt. The truth about our national history can be troubling and grim. The truth about our church’s past decisions, deeds, and beliefs could cause us to gasp. Then again, the truth shall set you free.
If we are looking for real connections, we will never find them by believing in fabrications. As painful as truth can be, however, it is the only path to something real—a real experience. Real experiences may not always be as nice and neat as façade experiences, but they always lead to deeper meaning and deeper life. It may hurt, for example, to discover that your church tradition once preached the importance and validity of slavery. However, such knowledge could inspire you to make new connections and deep reconciliation and friendship with African American congregations like Olive Branch Missionary Baptist Church, a daughter church of First Baptist.
Only when we see the sins of our Fathers & Mothers, past congregations, and even our former selves, can we ever hope to be free and faithful people. As easy as it may be to believe in a sinless past, such belief only leads to never-ending cycles of mistakes and repressed pain.
It baffles me how this pastor could have written, “Sometimes we believe the lie because it sounds better than reality…Sometimes we want to believe something is as sweet as cotton candy so desperately that we ignore all of the facts that stand within clear sight,” and not realized how that insight applies to his (and others’) religious beliefs. Has he never considered the possibility that beliefs in heaven, eternal life, reincarnation and the like are all products of wishful thinking?
Or, consider this: If we are looking for real connections, we will never find them by believing in fabrications. As painful as truth can be, however, it is the only path to something real—a real experience. Real experiences may not always be as nice and neat as façade experiences, but they always lead to deeper meaning and deeper life. All of the accumulated evidence of human experience, evidence that has been gained primarily through hard work and, occasionally, sheer dumb luck, points to the idea that this life on earth is the only real experience people will ever have. Squandering this life in the hope of gaining something better in a vague future is wasteful. Squandering this life in pursuit of a relationship with an imaginary being is, in addition to being wasteful, pathetically tragic. People who squander their lives in these ways miss out entirely on the deepest meanings of life, which they have the glorious freedom to determine for themselves. Many miss enjoying rich life experiences and vibrant relationships because their religions prohibit such experiences and relationships. People who have their eyes set on heaven may neglect to treasure every moment of this life for its own worth. Contrary to what many who seek a better life than this one believe, there are no do-overs in either heaven or earth; this life is all we will ever get. Since we only get one chance to do this thing called “life,” we owe it to ourselves and to each other to do the best we can with it. These are real, perhaps painful (to him), truths that this pastor does not grasp.
This pastor said many of the right words. He stated some significant ideas that comport precisely with what humanists have been trying to tell theists for eons. Yet, he failed to realize that the religious doctrine to which he clings is the kind of wishful thinking he eloquently denounced in his missive. He came very close to getting it right. But, he missed it by that much.
– the chaplain






Posted by Orion77 on January 2, 2009 at 9:32 pm
It’s fascinating how god given rights, such as slavery, come to be described by the faithful of followng generations, as “sins”.
Posted by MS Quixote on January 2, 2009 at 9:51 pm
“Has he never considered the possibility that beliefs in heaven, eternal life, reincarnation and the like are all products of wishful thinking?”
Hey Chaplain,
Evidently, you were a Christian once upon a time, so perhaps you know firsthand that these type doubts are common for believers. I can’t rule definitively regarding this particular pastor, but given my own experience and testimony of other Christians I know, it seems allowable that the thought has crossed this man’s mind periodically.
Problem is, the sword of wishful thinking cuts both ways. It’s entirely reasonable to suppose that the concept of the Christian God would produce wishful thinking in the opposite direction as well. To me, then, wishful thinking reduces to de facto considerations regarding the existence of God, or at least the existence of an Abrahamic type god. In the end, whoever is wrong may end up being the wishful thinker, or possibly both of us.
I enjoyed reading your post, as usual. Here was an interesting portion for me:
“Squandering this life in pursuit of a relationship with an imaginary being is, in addition to being wasteful, pathetically tragic.”
Assuming I’m incorrect for a moment with my faith, it seems that some existential philosophy would be an acceptable fallback position. Given such, my actions would be a determinant factor in developing meaning and purpose in my life, and if my chosen actions were the pursuit of an imaginary being, it appears that this would result in a meaningful, existential experience, especially if I were not aware my friend were imaginary. I can’t think of any standard, existentially speaking, that would preclude me from living fulfilled in this manner. After all, my nickname is Quixote. Just a thought….
I was tempted to all sorts of jokes about the potential Molinistic headache, but I don’t know you well enough, though you certainly appear to have a great sense of humor
Thanks for allowing me to post here. I think “chaplain” is one of the cooler names in the blog business.
Posted by DB on January 2, 2009 at 10:02 pm
It’s like he almost…gets it. Too bad that despite this nice letter he would still rather live the lie. But I do maintain that deep down he (and countless others like him) knows it is a lie.
Posted by The Exterminator on January 2, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Just make sure you don’t wind up like Agent 99 in the photo: still tied to religion.
Posted by the chaplain on January 2, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Orion:
I agree that it’s interesting how successive generations revise their values, which, according to many religionists, are supposed to be unchanging.
MSQuixote:
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I understand the process of doubting, then retreating from the edge of the precipice for fear of what that last step would entail. As for your existentialist argument, that actually occurred to me as I was writing. My preference is to go for enlightenment rather than illusion. Of course, that’s not everyone’s cup of tea, which wouldn’t bother me much as long as they’d keep their tea to themselves and stop trying to force me to drink it with them.
DB:
You have to dig really deeply to get to the place where many believers suspect that their beliefs are lies.
Ex:
I have no intention of getting entangled in religion again. I’ve had more than enough of it for this lifetime.
Posted by gruntled atheist on January 2, 2009 at 11:43 pm
You really consider this person intelligent?
Posted by seantheblogonaut on January 3, 2009 at 6:38 am
Yes so close yet miles away. Or perhaps he is one of those pastors living a lie because they know nothing else ad this is a away of expressing himself.
But my money is that he has many miles to go.
Posted by Vinny on January 3, 2009 at 7:15 am
I once heard a Rabbi say that the sports pages may record things that actually happened but be completely irrelevant to what is really important in a person’s life while a great novel can contain a great deal of truth about the human condition even if the people and events are fictional.
The pastor’s mistake with respect to the Whistlestop Café was the notion that the emotional impact of Fried Green Tomatoes was the product of specific historical events that happened to specific people at that specific location rather than its ability to capture the truth of the human condition. I think he makes a similar mistake with respect to religion. Mythology is a way that man comes to understand his place within reality, it is not reality itself.
Posted by the chaplain on January 3, 2009 at 7:57 am
Gruntled atheist:
Since I can’t judge a lot on the basis of one newsletter item, I think it’s fair to give the benefit of the doubt that he has a few brain cells functioning pretty well. Also, his writing is more intelligible than what I’ve seen in many Christian newsletters. He’s obviously no Tillich or Bonhoeffer, but, neither am I.
Sean: He may be putting on a good front. My money is with yours, though. I think he really believes what he’s peddling.
Vinny:
Good point. Good stories convey the essence of their subjects even when the settings and characters are completely fictional.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 3, 2009 at 10:40 am
You’re not gay, I take it. If you’re “chosen actions were the pursuit of an imaginary being” like the Abrahamic god, then you have to wrestle with the fact that your god damns what you are. If you act upon your nature, you’re gonna roast in hell. I don’t see how this leads to a “meaningful existential experience”. Also, lets add abortion, contraceptives, stem cell research, evolution, and a host of other things into the mix and lets see how, when that being you’re pursuing makes such outrageous demands upon your life and compels you to make them imposed on everyone else, how that all contributes to a “meaningful existential experience”. Maybe if you find being an obediently yoked dog a “meaningful existential experience”. Of course that’s entirely possible, and is of course your right to pursue, but it’s always that bit about being compelled to impose that meaning on others which infuriates atheists and other non-believers of your particular brand of religion.
Vinny: There’s much to learn from great works of fiction, but then everyone knows and accepts that they are indeed fiction (although I’m not so sure about some of those Star Wars and Star Trek fans).
Posted by MS Quixote on January 3, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“when that being you’re pursuing makes such outrageous demands upon your life and compels you to make them imposed on everyone else, how that all contributes to a “meaningful existential experience”.”
Of course, I agree with you that orthodox Christians are not overly, if at all, existential, except perhaps where they follow Kierkegaard into some form of faith over reason model. It also is fairly intuitive that some folk, for instance gay, as you put it, might be less likely to accept Christianity based on its doctrine. I’ve never looked at any raw data in this regard, but it’s plausible to me.
But this misses the point, namely, that there doesn’t seem to be a standard within existentialism itself that would preclude a meaningful existential Christian experience given that God does not exist. It appears true by definition.
“it’s always that bit about being compelled to impose that meaning on others which infuriates atheists and other non-believers of your particular brand of religion.”
I understand. For what it’s worth, I’m represent the minority Christian position that believes in the separation of church and state, that Christians should not promote legislation of any kind, that we should not attempt to force our will or ideas politically, etc., across the board. Apply it to any specific issue you care to.
Naturally, I’d share the gospel with you, or discuss the existence of God, but only if you wanted to talk about it, and I don’t see any harm in inserting such concepts into the marketplace of ideas. I don’t think this is an infuriating position, or involves any form of compulsion, but feel free to correct me if you see it another way.
On a personal note, I began engaging atheists online in order to gather genuine thoughts for an atheist character in a work of fiction (some good thoughts on fiction and myth above, BTW). It’s been a great experience for me such that I have continued visiting sites like this one; however, if my presence here offends anyone, I’m certainly not required to be here.
“Maybe if you find being an obediently yoked dog a “meaningful existential experience””
Curiously, I suspect my Great Dane has a wonderful life
Posted by the chaplain on January 3, 2009 at 1:37 pm
MSQuixote:
You are always welcome to comment here. I’m sure you realize, though, that believers are in the minority in these parts and their/your comments are likely to draw some fire. I’m confident that you’ll hold your own in the discussions.
Posted by MS Quixote on January 3, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Thanks. I got that feeling immediately, and I actually enjoy friendly banter/argumentation, so fire away. No one need pull punches or treat me with kid gloves. I only wanted Philly to know that we apparently share some deep-rooted convictions.
With that said, the theist appearing on an atheist site should always be mindful not to drive the conversation too much. If we’re all agreed then, I’ll make this a regular stop.
Cheers.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm
My Elkhound has a wonderful life as well, but she’s a dog.
Certainly if you subscribe to existentialism via Sartre, Nietzsche or his translator, Walter Kaufman, you can’t simply accept any pre-existing belief system. You can, in whole or in part, through critical examination of course, but Christianity, like any theistic belief, is predicated upon deity existence. With that existence not demonstrable, the belief system collapses and therefore, acceptance isn’t warranted. If it’s unwarranted, then it can’t be a source of meaningful existence. The only way it can be for you is if you ignore or reject the lack of demonstrable evidence for the deity which the belief system is predicated upon.
Now I don’t see any existential position, theistic or atheistic, requiring imposition of meaning upon others. If you somehow manage a Christian existentialism, then I’m not surprised that you are for the separation of church and state and for not imposing belief upon others. Also, Nietzsche too would not object to anyone’s opinions being offered in the proverbial marketplace of ideas and would see imposition of ideas rather than those ideas winning out on their own merits as wrong.
As for gays objecting to Christianity, I think many rationalize how they can be gay and Christian. Sadly for many others, they repress and deny their sexuality in order to follow what they believe their god expects of them.
Posted by Vinny on January 3, 2009 at 4:11 pm
There’s much to learn from great works of fiction, but then everyone knows and accepts that they are indeed fiction.
PhillyChief,
The problem is that many people like the pastor insist on some sort of strict duality of truth and lies. They cannot seem to process the idea that fiction and mythology can communicate truths without being factually true. As a result, they insist upon elevating their own myths to the level of historical fact and dismissing all contrary understandings as lies. It is not just a question of religious myths though.
You have works of fiction like Gone with the Wind, which may be a ripping good yarn, but perpetuates all sorts of myths about the antebellum south and Reconstruction that most historians embraced for a 100 years. If you want to see how many people are still in the grip of these myths, I can highly recommend Tony Horwitz’s 1999 book,Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War. For a wider look at all the myths about their past that Americans embrace, there’s Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James W. Loewen.
I find it interesting that Richard Dawkins sees fantasy literature like Harry Potter as a threat to children’s ability to understand the world around them. He seems to be caught up in the same strict duality.
Posted by MS Quixote on January 3, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“If it’s unwarranted, then it can’t be a source of meaningful existence.”
If you have the technical meaning of warrant in mind here, this is a conflation of existential and non-existential elements, if not an outright non-existential claim. Existentialism affords one the ability, some might say even duty, of creating independent meaning without warrant–or not necessarily dependent on warrant–through and only by their actions; hence, my original statement that by definition I would be leading an existential life of meaning given the non-existence of God. Nonetheless, I’m sure Sartre and Nietszche would be uncomfortable with this conclusion as you indicate, but that’s the point, right?
With regard to the analytical notion of warrant, I might still dispute the statement with further reflection. A lack of warrant would indicate a state of affairs whereby I lacked true knowledge and belief, not a source of meaningful existence. I’m not one of those type believers; I only mention it as a point of fact. Actually, that holds for this entire discussion. I hadn’t thought of these implications prior the Chaplain’s post and wanted to thank her for it.
“If you somehow manage a Christian existentialism,”
I don’t. I’m thoroughly orthodox, yet for separation, etc.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 4, 2009 at 12:49 am
Existentialism isn’t a make up whatever you want magic card. Meaning must be warranted. How else do you assign or acknowledge it? You just spread it willy-nilly like a hand full of seeds, leaving their landings to chance? Create meaning without warrant? That is meaningless.
Deity existence is a claim. The claim is unwarranted because it’s not demonstrable. Assigning meaning to that claim is indeed creating meaning without a warrant, or shall we say a leap of faith? I’d say that rather than creating meaning, you’re really creating warrants. You have what you want to base meaning on but lack a warrant, so you create one. Call it the infamous magic sense the religious claim they have where they feel their god(s), call it fear of death, hell, call it wishful thinking for all I care.
——–
Dawkins is against Harry Potter? Since when? I had no idea. How silly if true.
Posted by Digital Dame on January 4, 2009 at 9:16 am
Philly, check this out:
Richard Dawkins hates The Mentalist and Harry Potter
Posted by Digital Dame on January 4, 2009 at 9:40 am
Oops, meant to put this one up as well:
Harry Potter fails to cast spell over Professor Richard Dawkins>
The thing that puzzles me is he loves Philip Pullman’s book (His Dark Materials). I’m not sure why those are ok with witches flying through the air, talking bears, shape-shifting animals as exterior souls, and so on, and Harry Potter is “pernicious”.
Posted by the chaplain on January 4, 2009 at 9:48 am
Digital Dame:
Thanks for the links. This quote puts Dawkins in a very bad light: He told the Telegraph this fall that he’s never read Harry Potter, but wants to investigate whether it has a “pernicious” effect on children to read stories that are “anti-scientific.”
My advice to Dr. Dawkins:
1. The first step of your investigation should be to read the books – all seven of them. Don’t read what others say about the books until you’ve read them. Don’t try to design an experiment to measure the book’s effects until you’ve read them.
2. Give kids credit for some measure of intelligence. Unlike what happens with religious indoctrination, kids know from the start that the Harry Potter universe is fictional. That knowledge gives them all the tools they need to deal with the unscientific nature of the stories.
3. Sometimes people, especially kids, read for entertainment. I take it you, Dr. Dawkins, haven’t done so in a very long time. I pity you, because you’re cutting yourself off from a wonderful experience. Sometimes, it’s the “entertaining” literature that enables readers to consider moral issues in a safe environment. Think of it as a way to engage in thought experiments. The Harry Potter novels are full of moral lessons: loyalty to one’s friends; handling intense scrutiny and unwanted fame; setting aside one’s own ambitions to help others; the costs of greed; dealing with social prejudices and oppression….
Are the books unscientific? Yeah. So what? Firstly, unscientific does not equal anti-scientific. Secondly, the books are rich with characters and life lessons that can’t be gained in scientific treatises. Those lessons can be taught through other means, but a captivating series of fiction books is a memorable, enjoyable way to engage thinking about important moral issues. Let’s not deny kids the opportunity to have some fun. A life without fun is not a life worth living, no matter how scientifically correct it may be.
Posted by the chaplain on January 4, 2009 at 9:49 am
@ Digital in #19:
I’ll bet the difference is that he’s read Pullman’s books.
Posted by Digital Dame on January 4, 2009 at 10:54 am
No doubt, Chappy. That, and I believe Pullman is himself an avowed atheist and the books are seen as a condemnation of religion (specifically an anti-Christian bias), although Pullman has denied that.
Posted by bitchspot on January 4, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Honestly, I do consider religious people “stupid” at least with regards to their religious beliefs. Certainly people can compartmentalize their beliefs, the most brilliant scientist can be an incredible genius on one side of that compartment, yet a complete dipwad on the other when they toss out their rational thinking skills and embrace religion.
Just saying theists are fools doesn’t mean they are complete morons, just stupid in their irrational beliefs.
Posted by Memo to Richard Dawkins « An Apostate’s Chapel on January 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm
[...] to Digital Dame for [...]
Posted by MS Quixote on January 5, 2009 at 1:23 am
“Existentialism isn’t a make up whatever you want magic card.”
This statement presents nothing more than a pejorative rendering of existentialism. All you appear to be expressing in addition is that you disagree with existential philosophy, apparently from an analytic philosophic framework. I’m not sure how this confronts me. I’m not an existentialist. I’m a Christian who utilized the OP as a springboard for a thought experiment, considering my own worldview from within an atheistic philosophy.
“The claim is unwarranted because it’s not demonstrable.”
Whose opinion is this?