Religious Bullshit

The Case for God--Minus the Case

A few weeks ago, Terry Gross of NPR's "Fresh Air" interviewed Karen Armstrong about her new book, The Case for God.  Armstrong is a former nun who left the convent, estranged from her faith.  She ended up returning to spirituality, but in a much less "faith-specific," or denominational form.  She's written a bunch of books on religion, and this is the latest (and full disclosure, I haven't read it; I've only listened to the Terry Gross interview and read a few excerpts from the book.)  What struck me is that I never heard a case for God.

Or certainly not in the way I inferred from the title of the book, which is to say, some kind of logical argument. 

I did, however, hear a clearly intelligent woman argue several points with vigor and passion.  Among them:

• For most of history, no one took the Bible literally, the way fundamentalist Christians do today.  Religion and faith were inherently about myth (or "mythos").  Parable, in other words.  Logic--or logos--is something entirely separate.  (more on this in a minute).
• God isn't a "he," or a "she," or in any way an ultimate expression of humanity.  We just can't really even conceive God's being. 
• The brahmins in India were way ahead, thinking of God as a part of everything (I have to say at this point I expected Armstrong to start talking in that pinched-up Yoda voice about the Force....)
• We need a more expansive and sophisticated view of religion.  As Armstrong writes in the first chapter of the book, "Religion is hard work. Its insights are not self-evident and have to be cultivated in the same way an appreciation of art, music, or poetry must be developed."

But again, what I never heard was "a case for God."  She tells us all about "mythos" and "logos," how they exist in separate realms, how mythos teaches us about how to deal with the pain of this world and how it serves a different function than logos.  On and on.  It's the same old, "God is outside of the world and science" argument--though she sure makes it sound smarter.  (I'd also like to note that I can "cultivate an appreciation of art," for example; but learning from and appreciating Ulysses does not mean a man named Leopold Bloom ever walked the streets of Dublin.)

This kind of broad, "love is all you need," non-denominational faith is meant to give the "spiritual types"--i.e., the "religious" people who don't go to church, who just want everyone to get along, who feel kinda tingly during a pretty sunset--an argument for that "Surely There Must Be Something Bigger Than Us Out There" feeling.

In the end, thought, it's the same old "dragon in the garage" psychosis.  But I don't see your dragon.  I don't feel it.  I don't sense it in any way, nor can I measure it or detect with any of the instruments available to modern science.  So go ahead and believe if it makes you feel good. 

 Just don't ask me to, 'k?

Leaving Things in Context

In reading Bart Ehrman's God's Problem, it struck me how hollow are the arguments of many Christian apologists who claim that agnostics or atheists (1) don't know much about Christian beliefs and/or (2) take things out of context.  This post doesn't concern itself with point number one (and only the most irrational of religious fanatics would argue with Ehrman's personal experiences of the Christian faith or his credentials in regards to his knowledge of Christian scriptures). 

But regarding context: it is abundantly clear that the only way one can hold religious beliefs is to take things out of context.  When you keep things in context, Christianity (and all other religions) are revealed for what they really are: fantastical myths that hold a mirror up to their irrational and flawed creators--i.e., men.

A few examples.  When you take various pieces and snippets of the Christian Bible out of context, you can support pretty much any belief, however silly, baseless, hate-filled or dreamily optimistic.  God loves us all.  Fags go to hell.  The Earth is only 4,000 years old.  Jesus rose from the dead.  Etcetera.

When you consider religion in context--by which I mean when you consider the bigger picture--you rationally conclude:

- big picture (to quote Ehrman), "the Bible contains many and varied answers to the problem of why there is so much suffering in the world; many of these answers are at odds with one another, and at odds with what most people seems to think today."

- bigger picture, that the Bible--full as it is of contradictions, differing tones and styles, stories of impossible "miracles" and the like--is a collection of myths written by men over centuries

- bigger still, that Christianity itself is one of countless religions and belief systems that have sprung up over the millenia, and its supposedly sacred and unique beliefs--e.g., virgin births--have been recycled through many other religions ardently believed in by their long-dead followers. (As Sagan put it in his brilliant and moving Reflections on a Mote of Dust, this tiny planet in an incomprehensibly vast universe has been home to "thousands of confident religions."  And yet so many so fervently believe their religion is the true one.)

- bigger still, that considering whatever (if any) evidence that might support any of the claims of any of these confident religions, against the evidence that might support any of the claims and assertions of science over just a few hundreds years, the claims of science are supportable while religious beliefs require the suspension of rational thought.

So, let us not argue any further about agnostics or atheists taking things out of context.  The word context comes from the Latin, contexere, meaning "weave together."  Ehrman--together with other intelligent and thoughtful rationalists--is weaving together a vast and accurate picture of religion while the apologists are spinning silly tales out of single threads of their own liking.

Pearls of wisdom, pearls of God?

Some anonymous traveler had abandoned Eat, Pray, Love in a boarding area at SFO, and with a 17-hour journey ahead of me, I picked it up, figuring at the very least it would lead to a good post or two.

I'd never heard of the book, or author Elizabeth Gilbert, and it was a good find.  I thoroughly enjoyed the story.  It's a memoir of the author's psychological journey through divorce and depression and her corresponding geographical travels through Italy (that's the "eat" part), India ("pray") and Bali ("love").  The New York Times got it right in describing her prose as "fueled by a mix of intelligence, wit and colloquial exuberance that is close to irresistible."

It's also a religious book (though "spiritual" might capture it better) in that Gilbert finds God (ditching Welbutrin in the process) through deep meditation at an Ashram outside of Mumbai.  Of course, it's religious bullshit, but it's a type of religious bullshit that I can generally tolerate in that Buddhist dogma seems, to me anyway, to focus on individual introspection and doesn't bother itself with telling the rest of us how to think or live.

Also, though I've never done it, I find meditation fascinating.  For some time now, science has been running brain scans on yogis and conducting various research into the positive health benefits of meditation. 

But Gilbert takes all of this one step too far when she cites a supposed New York Times article about a team of neurologists who wired up a Tibetan monk and found that "during meditation...(he) was able to quiet his mind so completely that no red or yellow flashes could be seen.  In fact, all of the neurological energy of this gentleman pooled and collected at last into the center of his brain--you could see it happening right there on the monitor--into a small, cool, blue pearl of light.  Just like the Yogis have always described."

OK, Liz.  First, I can't find your NYT article anywhere.  I find one that comes close ("Is Buddhism Good for Your Health?") but it does not mention a literal confirmation of "the blue pearl."  (In fact, it documents increased activity in the prefrontal cortex--which is not the center of the brain, for the record.  So just where is this article you write about?). 

But let's just suppose for the sake of argument that "the blue pearl" is a verifiable phenomena (there are web sites where people write about their blue pearl experiences with all the fervor of people who claim to speak in tongues or to see Mother Mary in grilled cheese sandwiches).  What then? 

The implication is clear: the blue pearl is the ultimate meditative state...when it happens you realize you're one with God...now science proves the blue dot exists...so, wa-lah!  Proof of God!

Sigh.  It's no better than Creationist or Intelligent Design bullshit.  It would be like someone who's never seen lightning reading about Greek mythology, then running across a scientific paper on lightning, and somehow inferring in the process that the existence of Zeus is thereby confirmed. 

It's pretty clear that people can alter their brainwaves with meditation.  And in the process, they can kick anti-depressants, lower their stress levels, even see pretty blue pearls and write best-sellers. 

But please, let's not then jump to conclusions.  Eat, Meditate, Love?  Sure.  Pray?  Sorry, but you lose me there.