O lieber gott sei doch nicht so böse.
-P.D.Q. Bach-
It seems to be that Tamerlan Tsarnaev underwent some sort of epiphany not long ago, after which he became withdrawn, dressed more modestly, began to talk about his deep faith and started assembling bombs.
“Isn’t the takeaway here,” asked Bill Maher, talking about the Boston Marathon bombing, “that there are many bad things that can happen in the world, for many bad reasons, but the winner and still champ is religion?”It's an old and often asked question and defenders of belief in the abstract and defenders of specific beliefs all have a well developed defense and a lot of practice using it -- but still. In my experience it boils down to: it feels good, it comforts people, it offers hope. So do lies, palliative fictions Ponzi schemes, dating services and of course drugs. Don't get me wrong, this isn't an attack on religion or religions as tools for making life easier, for promoting good behavior, it's an attack on the human species and its innate ability to lie and rationalize and use most anything as a tool for justifying whatever purpose or desire it needs to defend, no matter how heinous, hideous, horrifying. Religion is no better and no worse than those who use it, defend it, promote it. It's just a powerful and an unstable tool whether handled by professionals or tried at home.
Perhaps it's true that good people espouse good beliefs, envision good gods who manifest love and compassion and at worst have good reasons for allowing the pain, sorrow, suffering, misery, grief and random horrors of life. It's different for the children of angry Gods; the gods who drown worlds, advocate the extermination of whole peoples, condone slavery and conquest and oppression and sometimes play games with people's lives for their own amusement. It's different for Gods who promise eternal punishments of unendurable pain simply for disobeying arbitrary rules, having stray thoughts -- unimaginable horrors of destruction for people who simply don't believe impossible, absurd and demonstrably untrue assertions about reality and the universe.
I'm not talking about Kali or Isis, Krishna or Asherach or Enpu or Jesus Christ alone. I'm talking about your god, whether you call him El Shadai or Yaveh, the Holy Trinity or any of the 99 names of Allah, the merciful and compassionate. He's no better than you are when it comes to what you do in his or her or their names. Angry people have angry gods and people with angry gods are prone to violence and the mental illnesses found in violent people.
A scientific study published in the April edition of Journal of Religion & Health finds, according to the author, that:
". . for those who think God is angry and preparing punishments for sinners, “ that belief seems to be very much related to these negative symptoms.”Symptoms like like social dysfunction, paranoia, obsession and compulsion -- and perhaps I might suggest misogyny, homophobia, bigotry and racism as well as the desire to be God's instrument of punishment on innocent bystanders on a Boston street. Is it a paradox that the Gods most desirous of acting our their wrath need the most help from mortals in doing it? Not if you perceive that angry people need angry Gods to justify their angry and injust acts.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wrote 150 years ago that
"The first duty of man, on becoming intelligent and free, is to continually hunt the idea of God out of his mind and conscience. For God, if he exists, is essentially hostile to our nature, and we do not depend at all upon his authority. We arrive at knowledge in spite of him, at comfort in spite of him, at society in spite of him; every step we take in advance is a victory in which we crush Divinity."The hostility of God, I take to be self-evident, both from the confected selection of descriptions in artifacts we call the 'Scriptures' wherein whole populations are exterminated for things that history assures us are no more often punished than random chance would provide for and for the endless unpunished horrors human life has always endured.
Yahveh famously mocks the humble, respectful piety of Job, expressing nothing whatever resembling compassion for the family he murdered just to provoke him. "God is evil" concluded Proudhon and if it weren't that God was a human creation, I would have to agree. Is there any way to hunt the idea of God the Avenger out of religion without hunting him out entirely? Gods who punish evil, gods who punish thoughts about sex, gods who punish ham and cheese sandwiches or cotton threads in linen shirts. They outnumber secular teachers like the Guanyin or Shakyamuni the Buddha. The Bible is replete with horrible aspects of that supposedly loving God. Perhaps we can't handle Gods as much as we love or even need them.
Man is evil. That's what I take from Proudhon, what I take from history. Nothing else apparent in existence but Man is capable of evil, nor even able to comprehend the meaning. God is a weapon. I see this as equally self-evident. Do we allow anyone to have such weapons without background checks? Angry, insane, tortured, alienated even sociopathic people? We do. In fact we prescribe it, advocate it even demand it. We can't help it, gods are in our nature and have been since we were able to communicate; able to form words in our heads to attribute to them. Perhaps they will always be there tempting us, threatening us, making us guilty and afraid and unworthy --- unless. . .
" For God is stupidity and cowardice; God is hypocrisy and falsehood; God is tyranny and misery; God is evil" says Proudhon.There is no God but God in man, I answer
A short and absolutely unprovable assertion.
ReplyDeleteThere is no GOD, if GOD existed, religions would be unnecessary.
As I say, the assertion is not provable, nor is any assertion about the existence of any god, including the GOD of the various stripes of fundies that are out there.
Not having GOD to guide me, I have somehow avoided becoming a complete piece of shit who takes what he wants, fucks anyone who gives him an opening and preys on weakminded yokels.
I quite agree with all the above. I would conjecture that any proof of god you could come up with by twisting the word god into a 11 dimensional manifold would still leave you short of a specific god but would rather make an infinite number possible, with an infinite set of characteristics that would all cancel each other out in full Feynman fashion. But nobody really is interested in proving even the possibility of a deity, they want to prove that his name is Ralph and he hates people who disobey the priests of Ralph. that's much harder to prove, and impossible in fact. I'm venturing to guess that any specific attribute can be disproved and of course god is not necessary to prove any observable phenomenon. Hawking got into big trouble with the god addicts with that statement, remember?
DeleteAnd yes, the most insidious proposition espoused by many believers is that without fear of divine punishment not only would nobody be moral, but no moral judgement would be possible -- which is hilarious for a number of reasons including the story of Adam and Eve gaining moral judgement against God's will.
I was liking you till you said you avoided preying on weak minded yokels and fucking anyone who gives you an opening democommie.
ReplyDeletemy Granddad always said if there's a yokel or an opening, fuck it. Of course Granddad was a Christian although he never went to church. His cooler always had plenty of beer. Now he was my kind of guy.
"With or without religion, evil people will continue to do evil and good people will continue to do good. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion." --Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics
ReplyDeletePretty much, particularly if you extend the definition of religion to include worship of mortals and their allegedly immortal ideas. But people are very good at finding justification for being bad.
Delete"He's no better than you are"
ReplyDeleteCould you ask for any better proof that he doesn't exist at all?
I don't try to disprove God since he/she/it is only a voice in our heads or an attribute of ourselves. As such he exists as much as my conscience exists or in a completely metaphorical way, but he is just a function of the way the human works and without us, he doesn't have any independent existence. If you want to call your conscience God, or your humanitarian feelings or even your feeling of worthlessness, your innate biological need to grovel and submit and tremble, fine, but it leads nowhere and isn't helpful, in my opinion. To paraphrase Hillel, it's better to do good for no reason at all than for fear of God.
DeleteBasically, it isn't worth disproving anything for which there is no evidence. That's the bottom line for me and for what it's worth all the purported evidence fails miserably, being almost universally solipsistic or ad ignorentiam.
Captain, I agree with you completely. I'm just saying that, if you were looking for a proof that God doesn't exist, the best one that I can think of is that every person who believes in God is convinced that he is just like them.
DeleteThe idea that God is us isn't new, even if it sounds like a toy store.
DeleteThe conscience is the "soul" of a person. In as much as the mind controls ones conscience the mind is in essence the true soul on the human entity.
ReplyDeleteShaw, could it be atheism has become a religion for some? Just saying...
ReplyDeleteAs much as some atheists may seem zealous about it, there is no atheist code and by definition no credo: no atheist set of rules or taboos, no special relationship with supernatural or natural powers for that matter. There is no commonality between someone who doesn't believe in Zeus and someone who doesn't think a Gallilean revolutionary was the son of a Jewish God. Two people who don't think there are invisible, body-free personalities that live forever and two people who think the universe just happened without some sentient entity behind it don't have to have anything else in common any more than two people who think the sum of the integrals is the integral of the sums.
DeleteThere's nothing to belong to that's peculiarly atheist any more than there's some cult of not liking broccoli.
Secular Humanism or at least a group calling themselves secular humanists are in fact a religion and many are atheists, but that's not required or even suggested.
Of course there are clubs of atheists and you might accuse some of being quasi religious, but I do think it's a stretch and mostly a defense of religion to make the comparison between belief in gods and a disbelief in gods as being both beliefs. I believe in arithmetic, but it can be demonstrated reliably and I'm saying that belief in things that can be demonstrated is not religious belief. I think the randomness of everything can be demonstrated, therefore I'm not indulging in religion by crediting quantum mechanics.
Delete