Literal Bible Interpretations and Made-up Gods

Seen on Expletive Deleted:

A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a deity whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal understanding of Scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot believe the heart can finally never adore.
Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (1991), p. 24.

Quite true. However, what is the alternative to a literal interpretation, if not a made-up-on-the-spot one?

“God”, like he’s described in the Bible, is evil (Dawkins’ famous “The God of the Old Testament…” quote is right on the money).

However, the moment you say “my god isn’t like that, he’s a loving god”, you’re worshiping a god of your own creation.

The former is evil, and the latter is an intellectually dishonest creation of yours (really, how can you make up something on the spot and then say it created everything and is worthy of worship?!); both are, fortunately for everyone (including theists1), quite fictional.

  1. this may deserve a post in the future []

On “God exists/doesn’t exist” and offensiveness

A few days ago, I asked, as an experiment, which of these two statements was more offensive: “there is a god” and “there is no god”. While most of the replies I got were perfectly reasonable (paraphrasing vjack, neither statement is offensive, but one of them is false), the lack of responses by either “normal” theists – especially of the typical, born-again, Protestant kind –, and “non-militant” atheists (the ones who have no belief themselves, but take special care not to offend believers) prevented this experiment from uncovering the kind of replies I wanted: the ones that say that “there is no god” is offensive, but can’t explain why; they just feel that it is. Having atheists say so would have been particularly interesting.

Which just shows that this blog is no Friendly Atheist. :)

Still, this doesn’t prevent me from answering my own question, in detail. As others said, neither statement by itself is offensive – much like “2+2=4” and “2+2=5” aren’t. One of them is right and the other is not, but a simple claim shouldn’t be offensive to anyone.

However, these statements aren’t said in a vacuum. When you say either of them, you are probably – even if unconsciously – adding something to it. How much, depends on the individual. Similarly, when you hear one of those statements – especially if it’s the one you disagree with –, you tend to add implications to it.

“There is a god”, when said to an atheist, only has no extra meanings when said by either a deist or an incredibly liberal believer (so liberal he couldn’t possibly be called a “Christian” or similar). If said by virtually every other kind of believer, it includes one or more of the following:

  • I’m right and you’re wrong
  • I’m saved and you’re not; you’re going to hell
  • You’re immoral for not believing, and for having no source of morality
  • (if in a Christian community) You’re an outsider; you’re not one of us; you’re not a real American/whatever
  • Your life is incomplete; you can’t possibly be happy
  • Jesus died for you, you ungrateful monster
  • It’s because of people like you that evil exists
  • If you don’t believe, you’re just in denial; God’s existence is obvious
  • You must allow me to convert you, otherwise you’re screwed.

(note that I said “one or more of”. I don’t mean that every theist believes all of those, or means all of those.)

Meanwhile, and to be fair, when an atheist says “there is no god”, here’s what he can mean, or at least what believers hear:

  • I’m right and you’re wrong
  • You’re stupid
  • You were conned
  • You’re brainwashed
  • You’re a sheep
  • You only have those beliefs because you’ve never thought about them
  • You’re irrational
  • Your religion is a crutch, because you can’t cope with the real world
  • You’ve wasted your life. Time, money, effort, hopes, fears: all of it was for nothing.

The last one is particularly poignant, and I love Dan Dennett’s take on it. When you think about it, that is perhaps the worst thing you can tell a person – which doesn’t mean that it’s not true –, and it’s understandable that many people find it utterly offensive, even if that wasn’t the goal. Incredibly, I think it can hurt people’s feelings even more than, for instance, saying “you’re immoral and you’re going to hell”, because a non-believer knows that those are not true, and that the believer is just speaking from ignorance. But “you’ve wasted your life” is a real, actual, present “threat” – one that must be fought at all costs. Because otherwise you feel like an utter failure, an utter waste of a life.

This explains why there were so many complaints about atheist / secular signs during the past months. Now, granted, some can actually be an attack on belief, and offensive to believers, but some the ones they complained about said something as inoffensive as “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone”, or, as Ebonmuse put it, “Atheists exist”. And even these were seen as personal offenses, as attacks on their faith, as “liberal Christian-bashing”, and other absurdities. Perhaps, from this angle, I can understand their otherwise incomprehensible anger: the fact that atheists exist and have a voice is a constant threat on their own perceived self-worth. “If atheists exist (and can speak out, and have normal lives), then perhaps, just perhaps, I’ve wasted my life.”

Which is more “offensive”?

Following the discussions about the FFRF’s atheist sign (see here, for instance), I just want to ask any readers of this blog the following: which of these two fictional signs (imagine them being shown to thousands, in a public place) is more “offensive”?

Sign A:

There is a God.

Sign B:

There is no God.

I’ll expand on this in the next post, naturally, but, first, I’d just like to have your answers, and, if possible, your reasoning for that answer – whether you’re an atheist or not.

PZ Myers on "atheists are fanatics"

Oh. So if you simply think the idea that there is a Great Cosmic Voyeur who wants to control your genitals is absurd, that makes you a fanatic? I can’t be too concerned about the opinions of a deluded true believer who can’t tell a fierce bearded guy with an AK-47 from a tweedy academic with a word processor.

Source: Pharyngula

The “religious freedom” question, again…

Seen on Salad is Slaughter: Catholic bishops will fight Obama on abortion. The best bit:

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

Say that again? “Religious freedom”?

Yes, it’s that distortion again. Do these people even know what “freedom” means? When you’re deciding on something that affects mainly others, it’s not “freedom”, it’s power. The power over others, to dictate on what they can and cannot do.

“Religious freedom” is being able to have the religion you want – even if it’s “none”. It’s being able to act according to those beliefs, as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. It’s not being persecuted (as in “jailed” or “fed to large felines”) for your beliefs. That’s it.

“Religious freedom” has nothing to do with being able to oppress others, force your beliefs on them, or dictate their actions by turning your religious commandments into the law of your country, affecting everyone – even those who don’t share your beliefs. All of those are a matter of power – of having power over other people.

If you don’t have that power – even if, historically, you are used to having it it – your “freedom” is never in question. You can still do what you want. But so can others… and that’s what you can’t accept, isn’t it?

Why these guys are insane

The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.

The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it.

– John McArthur, Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement

California’s Proposition 8: Freedom and Power

Reading the comments on Hemant’s Questions for Anyone Who Voted for Proposition 8, I found, naturally (considering the blog), that most people supported equality, but there were a couple of people who thought that they were acting morally when trying to ban gay marriage. One comment included the following:

I do believe that legalizing gay marriage would directly affect religious freedoms–all in the guise of “equal rights”.

Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right?

I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

However, that person, though possibly unaware of the fact, has a problem with definitions. Because it’s not about (his) freedom at all, but about (his) power.

I think it was Richard Stallman who once wrote that the difference between a freedom and a power is that the former is being able to decide something which affects mostly yourself, and a power is to be able to decide something that affects mainly others. Now, when you, a religious heterosexual, can (and do) decide what others (gays) can and cannot do, which is the case? It takes an especially convulted and twisted mind — not to mention incredibly selfish and egocentric — to claim that whether gays can marry or not affects you more than it does them1. To decide that they can’t marry is not a question of your freedom, but of you having power over their freedoms.

Also, losing a power you once had does not constitute a “loss of your freedom”, because none of the latter was affected. Christians love to claim that their “religious freedom” is being attacked, but no such thing has ever happened (unless, possibly, in Muslim theocracies), because their freedoms are unaffected; what they are losing is the power they’re used to having — and which they always had, through history, unjustly, and often through physical force.

  1. e.g. “not oppressing them hurts my feelings, so whether to oppress them or not is all about me.” []

It’s a day late…

… but I couldn’t resist:

Barack has beaten Mccain!
Wait. Barack is evolving!
Barack evolved into President!

Full version (starting with the Democratic primaries) here.

Yes, You Could

Thank you, America. The rest of the world breathes in relief.

Instead of pointing you to his victory speech, I’ll celebrate with a previous one, which still brings a tear to my eye when I watch it. Especially the second half. You’ve probably heard it before, but…

Please vote.

I can’t, what with not being American and all that. But most of the people reading this can.

Now, if we’re thinking about not voting because “none of the candidates really represent my positions” or “they’re both the same”, I leave you with two quotes for you to consider. Please do so.

 

Let’s say you’ve decided to sit out every election until you finally encounter the candidate who’s a left-handed green-eyed atheist libertarian who will institute the flat tax and can sing classical opera. I can guarantee you that you, my friend, will be sitting out every election of your entire life.

But let’s say a candidate finally comes along who’s a right-handed green-eyed agnostic libertarian who will institute some kinds of tax reforms (not the exact ones you want) and plays the tuba. And let’s say the other guy in the race is, hmmm, Fred Phelps. Are you really telling me that you’re going to sit out on principle because you only like southpaws?

– Kazim, The Atheist Experience

 

and, of course:

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

– David Sedaris, The New Yorker




Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal