Saturday, September 28, 2013

Let's be controversial: Religion (Part Two: Religious Choice)

Hello again friends (those of you who haven't been scared away by my heresy, anyway) Today I'm going to be discussing yet another of the things I disagree with about organised religion: the choice aspect. Yaaaay! But, for me to talk about this I'm going to need to disassemble religious thinking and such first. And I'm also going to further cover my ass for what I said last time. (Last time is here, if you missed it.)

I do not hate religious people. Some religious people are pretty cool, in the same way some people who legitimately like Twilight can be cool. I dislike the machine, the organisation behind the beliefs, in the same way I dislike the zealous scariness of the Twilight fan base. And I do question the lack of examination. I ask myself how it happened that a person can accept an idea without question, and will defend them despite lack of critical thought regarding it. Because here's the thing; nothing is exempt from critical thought. Not some book you like, not some belief you have.

Now to the main topic of discussion: Religious Choice. First, let's talk about how religion probably came to be.

So one day some guy goes "Hey guys, wouldn't it be awesome if when you died you went somewhere way nicer than this shitty, hot, sanitation lacking desert we live in right now?" The other guys all nod their heads and go "Yeah, that sounds pretty good." One guy pipes up, "I bet we'd have water and food whenever we wanted." "Yeah," goes another, "and we wouldn't have to worry about anything." "And all our dead friends would be there!" And... and... and... So these guys decide this all sounds pretty great and they figure, well we have no clue what happens when you die, it could be that. And this makes them happy. And because they all think this sounds awesome and they all came up with it, they form a like minded group. And everything is fine. If someone dies, they take solace in the fact that they'll be somewhre nice and safe and they'll be happy there. They have parties for their group once a week because they're friends and eventually other people decide they like the sound of this group and they join up.

But, oh no, one day one of the guys finds out that Mark (one of them was called Mark) slept with his wife and he's all "Bro, not cool, you can't be in our awesome afterlife club if you do that!" And Mark is like, "Really?" and the other dude (his name was probably Alan) goes, "Yup, you have to be nice to people (mostly me) cos there's this guy who rules the afterlife and he won't let you in if you're mean to me- I mean, um, mean to anyone." And Mark is all "Who the heck's this dude all of a sudden?" and Alan's like "Well, you wouldn't know him, he lives in the sky and he told me that we were right about all the afterlife stuff but he doesn't like you cos you slept with my wife and that's totally not cool with him. He said you have to follow rules if you want to get into the afterlife and rule number one is No sleeping with Alan's wife. That's what the guy said, man." So Mark is like, "Ok, dude, if you say so."

That's probably how it happened. Here's Patton Oswald's theory, it's pretty similar:


Basically, that's how religion started out. Every now and then someone would go "Wait a second, how come the sky dude only talks to you, Alan?" And Alan would yell at them for a bit about how he was special and that guy would get kicked out of the group for questioning the sky dude. After a while everyone just accepted that what Alan said was probably right, because after all, it rained that one time after John had said a mean thing about Alan. Then their children were brought up believing what their parents believed, and their children the same, and theirs the same. They were taught not question it because then they'd get kicked out of the group so they didn't. So everyone ends up believing things they only half believe, really. Repeat until the present day, with very minor deviations. 

People tend not to question things they're brought up with. This is present everywhere. I know people who still say they don't like cheese because they tried it when they were five and thought it was icky and haven't questioned it. It's the same reason we don't question the existence of Santa Claus: we want to believe the lie. And the media's everywhere, there are pictures of him all over the place, there are his representatives in public, ringing bells and talking to people who'd probably rather just go home, there are little shrines where you can go and and confess- I mean ask for stuff from the representatives. There wouldn't be this much effort into something that so many people know, be it deep down or in the forefront of their minds, doesn't exist, right? When I was eight years old, I decided to test the myth. I told no one what I wanted for Christmas. I wrote a note and sent it, without the knowledge of my parents. This would be the true test as to whether or not the fat man in the sky- oops, I mean North Pole (y'know, that place you'll probably never go) was in fact, real. But, as Christmas drew nearer and nearer, I began to worry. What if I was right? What if there was no Santa Claus to receive my letter and send that present I so dearly wanted? What if the telling smirk on my mother's face when I'd refused to inform her of my wish list wasn't a bluff? I wasn't ready to risk that much for the sake of truth. I wrote a second Santa letter and left it conspicuously on the kitchen counter where my parents would find it. I did get my present (for the life of me I can't remember what it was) and for the next two years I lived a lie. When I was ten my parents said to me, "Rachel, we know you already know this, but Santa's not real." And I nodded and said "Yeah, I know." "Don't tell your brothers and sisters." "Okay." 

Here's an article about believing in Santa. Substitute some words and ask questions. Please.

I'm really rather proud of past me for questioning and almost taking the ultimate (at the time) risk to discover the truth I wasn't sure I really wanted to know. And that's good. If people didn't question governments were would we be? Or if we didn't question ourselves? Why is it that people willingly accept a man in the sky who supposedly grants wishes late into their lives, when they've stopped believing in magic and monsters under the bed long ago. Part of it is to do with up-bringing, the Santa Claus complex of  "If adults say so, it must be true". But that should wear off, surely? 

When people find out I'm an atheist one of the two most common questions I get asked (next to "Why?". Yeah, question that) is some strain of "Don't you worry about being wrong?" or "Wouldn't you rather have some peace of mind?". Short answer, no. Because 8 year old me learned something from her Santa hunting adventure, that being "Peace of mind is not better when you know you're betraying the critical part of your mind." I was (and like to think I still am) an intelligent kid. And part of me hated having to shut down my reasoning centre for the sake of presents. Hell, that's why I kept up the religion facade for three years longer than I should've: I knew there was a bribe at the end of it. I grinned and bared it to the tune of about 500 bucks and, while feeling ever so slightly dirty, took joy in cheating the system that would bribe kids. 

To further answer the peace of mind question, I think it's a little backwards. Yes, I know that many people have relied on their faith when they were in dark places and they are thankful for that. But honestly? I see it as a crutch. If there were some way of proving the non-existence or existence of a god and it turned out there wasn't a god and you'd gotten through a though patch with the help of... positive thinking and your own strength of character, surely this would be encouraging, not discouraging. I see faith (and that's quite a different thing to religion) as Dumbo's magic feather: it might give you the confidence to start off but when you realise it was just you the whole time, that's hella empowering, thrice as empowering as knowing you need to rely on a fickle deity for your successes and achievments. 
Please keep your arms and legs inside the elephant's hat at all times...
what the hell were they smoking over at Disney?
Similarly, I don't put much stock in the "what if you die and go to hell for being an atheist?" thing. I find it a little silly. I'm not insulting you, hypothetical believer, I just think it's silly that the idea that you keep living when you're dead (in any way other than in memory) is so accepted in such as advanced a society as ours. When one dies, the body shuts down completely. "You" cease to be. And, because all we've ever known and all we can know is being, we cannot possibly imagine not being. We learn from experience, therefore we cannot fathom the unexperienceable. Can't do it. So we don't. We invent a soul and say that that is the us that we are so familiar with and that goes somewhere when we die. Personally, I'm not worried about what happens when I die, because I'll be dead. I worry about consequences I'll have to deal with when I'm alive, that worry keeps me busy enough, thanks. 

Now, what was I taking about? Oh, yeah, choice! Basically, my major problem with organised religion is two fold: 1. It encourages people not to think, which is never good. and 2. It ceases to be a choice. I should probably address this one.

When I was younger, my  parents sent me to the local Catholic school. There we were not taught about any religions except for Catholicism. We weren't given other options, so we didn't question what we had. And, of course, at home my Catholic parents didn't talk about other religions, either because they didn't want to interfere with the brainwashing process or (slightly more likely) they didn't know much about other religions. I used to wonder what the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism were. All I knew was what our fairly biased sounding history book told us about the Catholic oppression after the Irish plantations of the 16th Century. They were them and we were us and we didn't question that. Every no and then I'd kinda wish I believed in reincarnation. Phrasing it like that, it's really quite clear where the flaw laid. Reincarnation seemed like fun. I wanted a chance to be a bug or a puppy when I died instead of going to a stupid boring cloud place. And it kinda made sense, because organic matter decomposes and becomes food for plants,which are food for animals, which are food for other animals. The circle of life. It made sense. I used to think, "Just my luck, I got stuck with the boring religion with the boring afterlife and the boring gods. Goddammit, I want a six armed elephant god, or a hammer-wielding thunder god- something cool!"

Stuck with. This is what religion is nowadays, people. And it is far from the way it should be, if you're into that sort of thing. Because what is faith, if you buy into it? It's insurance. Soul insurance. And tell me, when you buy house insurance or car insurance, you don't just stick with the first company and policy you see or the one your parents have, do you? That's silly, you have different insurance needs to your parents. What if you only like half the aspects of their policy? That's just bad planning. I suppose you could just stay with it, take the good with the bad. But wouldn't you rather shop around before you buy? This is important, after all. What if you crashed your soul and you realised that your soul insurance wasn't comprehensive enough for your needs? What if your soul was desperately in need of meatballs but your insurance company didn't provide them. How foolish you were not to shop around, not to take a second look at that Flying Spaghetti Monster pamphlet that came through your door. Oh, what a fool were you for not shopping around! 

Or so I suppose it would go, if you were into that sort of thing.

I'll wrap this section up here, friends. All I ask of you is this:

Believe what you want, but not without first rationalising to yourself why it is you believe that. Question what you have been taught not to question, because if it were not flawed why would it have any fear of scrutiny? Question not your faith, but what you place your faith in.

This has been your devil's advocate, asking you why the tree of knowledge is so bad, and why the machine doesn't want you to eat from it.

Embrace the Madess

2 comments:

  1. First thing I'll say is that challenging your readers to reassess the beliefs they take for granted is commendable, because it's something that merits being done on several subjects, not just religion.

    As for everything else, my main concern is I can't tell if you're trying to be humorous or informative. If you're trying to be both at the same time, I think you should try concentrating primarily on one and dip into the other when it's apropriate, otherwise you lack focus in your writing.

    Regarding the "how religion came to be" bit, I can't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure the question of what happens when you die wasn't really a part of it. Unless I'm mistaken, initially it was an attempt to explain the world around them. Take Mesopotamia, for example. You've got a bunch of arable land clustered in an area capable of supporting human life, but the side effect of frequent, irregularly occurring and home-destroying floods. The question eventually asked is, "why does this keep happening?" The answer they come up with is, "maybe there's something bigger than us out there that just hates us for some reason." Since there's not a better explanation around, the next question that comes up is, "then how do we get it to stop hating us?" thus leading into the development of religious ceremony, like prayer, offerings, etc. Or Egypt, where there's flooding, but it's not as destructive as in Mespotamia since they're easier to plan around. However, if the flood doesn't happen, then the land isn't as farmable that year and there's less food to go around, again raising the question, "Why didn't the flood happen this year?" "Maybe there's something bigger than us out there doing the flooding, and we pissed it off somehow." "Then how do we stop it from getting pissed off?" etc.

    This is also where law systems come in. The head of a civilization needs to keep everyone in line so they can keep things running smoothly, and what better way to do that than to tell people, "Hey, do this stuff or the things-that-are-bigger-than-we-are will get mad and do that thing that'll kill us all!" The common folk say, "Why did they on;y tell you?" "Because I'm the most important person around, and you're lowly peasants." "Fair enough."

    Might've gotten some (or several) parts wrong, but my point is that I'm reasonably sure that initially religion wasn't about the afterlife. How religion got to the state it is now, well, that's a longer and more complicated story that I'm absolutely sure I'd be unable to explain. It's probably safe to say that every group involved is partially to blame, though.

    As for the "not being a choice" bit, I disagree. I think there's nothing really stopping one from learning about other religions on one's own. I've also known some people who have said that the religious groups (particularly Islam, if I'm recalling correctly) that they grew up with educated them about other religions and gave them opportunities to learn more about them so they could make their own choice. So while I understand where you're coming from, I'm pretty sure it's not universal.

    I could be wrong on all counts though. It would not surprise me if I had no clue what I was saying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your very eloquent points. Regarding the humour aspect, I generally try to be humourous while being somewhat informative and getting my opinions across. This came to be, primarily from the countless conversations I've had with people who take my questioning and call to scrutinise as taking an aggressive stand against their beliefs. I think the humour and sarcasm is a semi-conscious attempt at making my opinions seem less offensive, though I can see how it may come across as unfocused (mostly because it's just that, I'm not great at organising my thoughts, even when I do have a chance to plan them out).

    Regarding the origin story, I actually wrote an extended essay a couple years ago about why we believe in gods (it wasn't great but it got me an A) wherein I split the reasons for god belief into three categories: Fear of Death, Desire to Explain the Universe and Selfishness (my explanation above being a form of the first, yours a form of the second. Patton Oswalt's is a combination of 1 and 3). Honestly, I reckon that there was a lot of all three in different parts of the world simultaneously which would explain why there are so many religions with all these different theories etc. I decided to go for number one because it seemed to have the most comedic potential but you're completely right, inability to scientifically explain nature is definitely a big factor in the religion building thing.

    I agree that there aren't any obstacles to learning about other religions, most of my discussion about the choice aspect is steeped in my own personal experience because my Catholic school upbringing was not at all conducive to learning about other religions, or to taking them seriously. I fully accept that there will be exceptions to that and I think it's great that people do go out and question things in general. Complacent acceptance of something that can shape one's life ain't good. Mostly I'm targeting that kind of thinking, prominent in Western Christian society because that's what I'm most familiar with and it is one of the big ones.

    I hope I've answered your questions sufficiently, if not feel free to disregard me as having no idea what I'm talking about (hell, that's what I do half the time and I AM me)

    Embrace the Madness

    ReplyDelete