More Facebook Bullshit

Like many of you who have Facebook pages, I see a lot of bullshit posted by Christians. Here’s an item that appeared on my wall some time ago:

Philip Yancey is a well-known author in evangelical Christian circles, a favorite of many. The part of this quote that caught my attention was the final sentence, “We must believe in something-the instinct is as strong as thirst or hunger….”

First, I don’t agree that people must believe in something. Second, I don’t agree that people have an instinct to “believe.” Third, I don’t agree that thirst and hunger are instincts in themselves; rather, they are manifestations of the instinct to survive.

The crux of Yancey’s error is the second idea he states, that people have an instinct to believe. The drive that people have to learn and know is tied to our survival instinct: we must learn to control ourselves and our environment in order to survive. The best way to gain such control is to know what the facts of the matter are, not just to believe that we know what they are. The danger in simply believing in “something,” of course, is that mistaken beliefs often lead to costly, even deadly, errors.

The failure to distinguish between “belief” and “knowledge” is common among fundogelicals. Erasing the distinction makes it easier to settle for accepting simple belief rather than having knowledge about matters of faith. If “belief” and “knowledge” are simply points on the same continuum, it doesn’t matter too much where on the continuum their beliefs/knowledge lie. But, if belief and knowledge do not lie on the same continuum (which they don’t), then religious believers have a serious problem. Regardless of all their prattle about the beauty and value of simple faith (a term often used interchangeably with belief), and despite their many attempts to designate their belief claims as knowledge claims, and notwithstanding their attempts to pretend that belief and knowledge are two different points on one continuum, many believers seem to realize that mere belief really is inferior to actual knowledge. After all, there is nothing inherent in “belief” that makes one belief superior to another. This is why many believers search desperately for historical or scientific evidence that appears to bolster their beliefs and seemingly transform them from the realm of fantasy (which is where all those other wrong beliefs belong) to that of knowledge (where they hope their beliefs belong). Unfortunately for believers in superstition, woo, religions, etc., any and all beliefs not genuinely rooted in reality are false. Any apparent evidence to the contrary, any bit of uncorroborated or unconfirmed evidence that seemingly justifies fantastical beliefs, is either mistaken, or worse, manufactured.

I think Philip Yancey is actually a pretty intelligent guy (this is a statement of what I believe, not what I actually claim to know – I may well be wrong) who just happens to be wrong about this matter. Humans don’t have an instinct to believe; rather, we have an instinct to survive. One of the manifestations of that instinct is a drive to know – not believe – stuff about ourselves and our world, because it is knowledge, not mere belief, that will enable us to survive and, if we use our knowledge wisely, thrive well into the future.

– the chaplain

 

Facebook Nonsense #1

Actually, I suppose this is my second Facebook nonsense post, since I could count this one as number one. But I’ll start with number two and call it number one. Why not? Who’s counting?

First up, then (consider the Reagan post a pre-game warm-up), is an excerpt from Dinesh D’Souza’s recent book, Godforsaken:

My goodness, where do I start with this one? I’ll begin by noting D’Souza’s claim that Richard Dawkins isn’t actually an atheist – just an ordinary (brilliant and famous, but otherwise ordinary) guy who doesn’t believe in gods. Instead, according to D’Souza, Dawkins is actually a wounded theist – someone who believes in god(s) but doesn’t like him/her/it/them very much at the moment. Apparently, either Dawkins doesn’t know he’s wounded, or he knows it and isn’t admitting it. D’Souza’s claim raises some questions for me.

1. The first one has to do with rhetorical strategy: what does D’Souza gain strategically/rhetorically by renaming Dawkins (and his unnamed cohorts, a group that may include, for all I know, you and me)?

2. Another question has to do with ethics: what gives D’Souza the right to label Dawkins (or anyone else) as something other than what he claims to be?

3. A third question is evidentiary: how does D’Souza know whether Dawkins (and others) should be classified as “an ordinary atheist” or a “wounded theist?”

I don’t know if any of you are interested in reading D’Souza’s book, but I’ll pause here to make a public service (or perhaps it’s a disservice) announcement and inform you that the book is currently available as a free Kindle download from Amazon.com. I’ve downloaded it and may actually read it. The only things stopping me at the moment are

a. I’m still reading The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (five books in one volume – convenient!), and
b. I’m not sure I’ll be able to stomach D’Souza’s arrogance. Anyone who thinks he has the right to classify nonbelievers into categories he prefers rather than accepting their claims at face value strikes me as someone with an enormous amount of hubris.

Unless it’s actually weakness hidden behind fake hubris. Maybe D’Souza can’t argue effectively against the actual atheistic claims of Dawkins and others, so he has to reconstruct their arguments into positions that he can argue against. Could this be the rhetorical advantage he seeks? If so, then I’ve answered question number one. And that leads to the answer to question number two: is D’Souza behaving underhandedly (i.e., unethically) by recasting his interlocutors and their claims? If I’m right about number one, then the answer to question number two is yes, he is. He has no right to redefine people or their positions; he appears simply to be staking a claim and hoping that no one catches him crossing the boundary. If I’m right about those two issues, then the answer to question number three is a no-brainer: D’Souza has no evidence for his claim that Dawkins (and who knows who else) is a wounded, angry, perhaps even hateful and vengeful theist rather than a straightforward atheist as he claims to be. It’s just easier for D’Souza to argue that Dawkins himself is flawed than it is to address flaws in Dawkins’ (or anyone else’s) actual atheistic claims, which brings us right back to where we started – question number one.

Damn. Now I’ll have to read the fucking book to find out whether I’ve sussed out D’Souza’s game. Wish me luck. And send me a few bottles of French wine; they’ll make the bullshit go down easier.

– the chaplain

 

Drift: A Review of a Critically Important Book

You may know that Rachel Maddow is one of my favorite political commentators. She’s extremely intelligent, extremely funny, one of the best interviewers on American TV today, and – more often than not – fair. In Drift, all of these attributes are displayed clearly. Moreover, the position she takes in this book is decidedly conservative: a call to return to the country’s Constitutional roots; to understand the wisdom behind the founders’ decision to split responsibility for war-making across two branches of government, and to return to their prescribed model for using military force when it is necessary, not merely desirable, to do so.

Maddow’s exquisitely researched book explores the relationships between the American government and its military since the Vietnam War through to its current engagements in Afghanistan and, unofficially but no less deadly for that fact, Pakistan. Maddow also examines the relationship between the legislative (Congressional) and executive (presidential) branches of the American government in using its military. And finally, she notes that, since the end of the Vietnam War, the American public has largely been excluded from discussion of war. What has passed for “discussion” in recent decades has been the slick presentation of spin from those who want to make war (usually presidents) to those whose (at least nominal) support is sought. This spin has typically been presented to both Congress and the public and has largely been unchallenged.

According to Maddow, the USA’s current use and oversight of its military has drifted in at least four significant ways. First, its missions have expanded far beyond waging war to providing a broad range of services normally performed by civil governments, such as building sewer systems in the Middle East. Second, oversight of the American military has diminished so that it rests primarily in the hands of one person: whoever happens to occupy the Oval Office at any given time. Third, many military functions have been taken out of the hands of regular military personnel and contracted to mercenaries. And fourth, the American government has made warfare nearly painless for the vast majority of American citizens. All of these drifts are dangerous for the USA and the world at large. Maddow’s book is primarily a plea for the USA to get a better grip on its military: streamline its functions away from nation building, keep those functions within the boundaries established by the Constitution (i.e., get rid of the mercenaries), spread oversight and control of the military between the executive and legislative branches, so that it is far more difficult for a president to deploy troops without political debate, and make sure to include the public in the debate by passing on the costs of warfare to them (us) via taxation, rationing of goods and whatever other means would be required to fund the ventures. Maddow traces the many steps by which all of these drifts have occurred in the past several decades. These steps have been taken by both Republican and Democratic presidents and Congress people, and Maddow lays the responsibilities squarely on all of their shoulders, regardless of party affiliation.

Two points that I found salient about the current situation are:

a) the USA has a whole bunch of nuclear weapons stockpiled here, there and everywhere, has no idea how to maintain them in working order, and has even lost some of them. Think about that last phrase for a moment! The USA has lost nuclear weapons. If that doesn’t scare the shit out of you, you’re both clueless and hopeless.

b) the recent trend, which has been much used by the Obama administration in recent days, toward using unmanned drone strikes to conduct military raids has made the human costs of warfare nearly invisible to the public. Perhaps even more alarming, these strikes are usually controlled by men in rooms thousands of miles removed from the strike zone. To the outside observer, a drone strike looks eerily like men playing video games on really cool, super-sized video monitors. Again, the physical and psychological distances between those conducting the activities and those paying the prices, whether in economic terms or personal quality of life (or death, as the case may be) terms, is frightening to contemplate. But it needs to be contemplated. And more importantly, discussed, throughout American government and society.

Even though Maddow urges cautious, deliberated action now, she does not paint a doomsday portrait. She believes that the USA can change its military culture and return the country to the position that was advised by the framers of the Constitution: a position that makes it difficult for the country to wage war without engaging in protracted, often contentious, dialog about that decision. Are American politicians and citizens up to the task of behaving responsibly in this matter? I sincerely hope we are.

– the chaplain

N.B. Spanish Inquisitor posted a fine review of this book several weeks ago. Go over and give it a look or two.

 

3 Approaches to Religion – An Illustrated Post

The first illustration shows how the gullible, vulnerable and indoctrinated view their dogma:

The second approach illustrates a pragmatic approach. This is better than the first one, and it’s tempting sometimes, but it can render one vulnerable to hucksterism and manipulation (see first illustration):

The third approach is the one I recommend – read carefully and widely, and think critically about everything you read:

Thus endeth today’s illustrated sermon.

P.S. – the sermon applies to politics too.

– the chaplain

 

Ken Starr Tries to Make a Decent Call

I was pleasantly surprised when I came across this article, written by Baylor University president Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), in the Washington Post today. When I read the article’s title, Can I Vote for a Mormon? I steeled myself to read some religious right wingnuttery about Jesus Candidates and the like. Instead I read things like this:

I strongly encourage Americans who would ask this question of themselves to consider and weigh thoughtfully our nation’s constitutional traditions….

In fashioning this remarkably enduring document, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia made it absolutely clear that no religious test should ever be imposed to hold office.

As I read on, I found this:

According to the American political tradition, there are essential questions by which all office seekers are qualified, regardless of their faith journey or history. The first is: Does the candidate subscribe completely to our constitutional structure, including freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths — or no faith? A second question for the thoughtful voter is related to and flows from the first: Will the candidate subscribe, without any “mental hesitation or purpose of evasion,” to the oath to protect and defend America’s Constitution? If the answers to those closely connected questions are yes, then voters should proceed to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidate’s qualifications, platform and policy positions — not the candidate’s membership (or lack thereof) in a particular faith community.

Did you catch that last bit? A candidate’s membership – or lack thereof – in a faith community is not nearly as important a qualification for public office as that candidate’s willingness to uphold the Constitution and respect citizens’ rights to freedom of conscience.

And then I read a bit further and found this:

In fact, a number of great presidents have come to the White House without membership in any faith community. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and was vigorously attacked for his religious views (or lack thereof). Abraham Lincoln, as a matter of conscience, refused to join any church….

More recently, the great cultural chasm between Catholics and Protestants was politically overcome with the election of John F. Kennedy. Similarly, then-Vice President Al Gore’s choice of Sen. Joe Lieberman, a practicing Jew, as his running mate in 2000 signaled the welcoming openness of America’s democratic experience to individuals who did not share the Christian faith….

…the litmus for our elected leaders must not be the church they attend but the Constitution they defend.

Shortly after this passage, Starr concluded his article with this advice:

Life experience, personal qualities and policy views are the pivotal points to guide Americans as they go to the polls in 2012.

While there’s much I like about Starr’s article, I have a significant problem with it. Starr’s approach would work well in an open-minded marketplace of political ideas. Sad to say, it’s been a very long time since the USA provided such a marketplace (if it ever did).  The fact that Starr felt compelled to answer the question posed in his title is testament to that sad reality. The fact is, in today’s American political climate, many candidates explicitly connect their policies to their religious beliefs. When someone like Rick Santorum, to take just one example, promotes policy positions on such issues as contraception, abortion and gay rights, and supports those beliefs by citing his religious beliefs, I have little choice but to consider how incompatible his beliefs, as well as his policies, are with my policy positions and nonbelief. It is the candidates themselves who compel me to apply religious litmus tests to both their policies and their beliefs. As long as they keep wearing their religions on their sleeves and using their beliefs to try to score votes, I’ll have no choice but to take their religious professions, as well as their policy statements, into consideration when I cast my votes. And I assure you, religiously extreme candidates will have great difficulty gaining any support from me.

– the chaplain