Welcome statement


Parting Words from Moristotle (07/31/2023)
tells how to access our archives
of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues,
essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….

Monday, December 18, 2006

Some demographics relative to religion

I like to read a thoughful book slowly. I've been reading Sam Harris's thin Letter to a Christian Nation for several days but am only halfway through it. I just came across this passage, with some demographics relative to religion:
While you [the committed Christian whom the "letter" addresses] believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France's jails, for instance, are Muslim. The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest in terms of the United Nations' human development index are unwaveringly religious.

Other analyses paint the same picture: the United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its levels of religious adherence; it is also uniquely beleagured by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious literalism, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms.

While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the "red states" are primarily red because of the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in "blue" states and 38 percent are in "red" states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, 24 percent in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red...

Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable in terms both of the percentage of their wealth they devote to social welfare programs and of the percentage they give in aid to the developing world. The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is belied by other indices of social equality. Consider the ratio of salaries paid to top-tier CEOs and those paid to the same firms' average employees: in Britain it is 24:1; in France, 15:1; in Sweden, 13:1; in the United States, where 80 percent of the population expects to be called before God on Judgment Day, it is 475:1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to pass easily through the eye of a needle.

Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality—belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, however, these statistics prove that atheism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that widespread belief in God does not ensure a society's health.

21 comments:

  1. Isn’t Mr. Harris arguing for the privilege of being cheated at cards?

    The trouble with atheism is you must view yourself as a deluxe machine with an 80 year warranty. Once you’ve burned through your 8 or 9 decades, you’ve reached the absolute and irrevocable end of anything that is, in any way, you. Can we expect large quantities of people to adopt this thinking? Young people, maybe, because the end is far off, but older folks? Yet anything short of that outlook is not atheism. Does Mr. Harris address these points?

    I’d be very surprised if the populations of the counties mentioned are atheistic. What they have done is conclude that organized religion carries more baggage then benefit, and so they’ve tossed it aside. That doesn’t necessarily make them atheists. More likely they revert to agnostics, or persons with spiritually that does not find a home in churches or mosques.

    Mr. Harris arguments should be put into two categories. One, that God does not exist. Two, that organized religion, the bulk of it anyway, is bogus. I can easily argue the first point. But I would not touch the second.

    The post alluded to before is: http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/11/religion_is_a_s.html from when Mr. Harris visited our town.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I too, Tom, cannot accept Harris's argument for atheism. I currently think of myself as an agnostic, having been convinced by Harris that I have no objective basis for continuing to try to believe whatever I had been believing about God or Jesus or whatever.

    Harris does not, however (at least as I read "The End of Faith"), deny spirituality. In fact, he describes a scientifically based approach to it that I find quite appealing. It's through the practice of meditative or other examination of one's own consciousness. Have you not read the pertinent chapter of that book? (Not that I don't need to read it again.)

    I'm having difficulty understanding your statement, "I can easily argue the first point. But I would not touch the second," unless I assume that you reversed "first" and "second." ???

    Also, what do you mean by asking whether Harris is "arguing for the privilege of being cheated at cards"? Sounds nice, but rings empty (either that or maybe I'm dense).

    I agree, by the way, that in the passage I quoted from Harris, he does seem to equate "least religious societies on earth" with "countries with high levels of atheism," but maybe the least religious societies he cites do, in fact, have at least high[er] levels of atheism than others? I'd expect so, if only because there'd be a lot less pressure in such societies to keep people in line religiously.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It doesn't quite make sense the way I wrote it, does it? As I say to my wife: don't pay attention to what I say, pay attention to what I mean.

    First comment should have read: I can easily argue with (or against) the first point. But I will not touch the second. That is, I believe strongly in God. But, no question, organized religion does a wretched job representing him.

    Interestingly, if you are inclined, 2 Tim 3:1-5 recites a list of horrible qualities which are said to afflict people in "the last days." The casual reader might assume scripture is pointing the finger at atheists or agnostics. Not so. Vs 5: "having a form of godly devotion, but proving false to its power." Exactly what we see among religious people today.

    As to "Harris is "arguing for the privilege of being cheated at cards"? Sounds nice, but rings empty..." Yes! You are right. It does, and it does. What I meant was that a true atheist argues to be satisfied with our 8 or 9 decades and envisions nothing more. The person of faith has some concept of existence after this life, be it another realm (th eview of most religions) or eventual resurrection. (the JW view)

    Since our time on this earth is short and the time after is long, I don't think it's at all foolish to be concerned, even preoccupied about the longer period. And one must look beyond science, for science has nothing to offer in this regard. That's why people like Isaac Newton, I'm sure you've heard, wrote far more about spiritual things than he did math and science combined...an awkward embarrassment to the science types of today, but I think it makes perfect sense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tom, I'm replying immediately to acknowledge your comment and thank you for it. But I feel that I need to muse on this for a while to be able to comment in any way useful to you, me, or anyone else.

    I have consulted the passage from 2 Tim, just so you can know now that I could be so inclined.

    By the way, I'm pleasantly surprised that my shorter version of this post on my Democratic Party blog has been on that blog's list of "most highly rated posts" ever since I put it up there. You might be interested to see the comments that other Democratic bloggers have made on it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did find the comments interesting. I left one of my own. This is as close to political affiliation as I have ever come!

    The third comment was from a member of the Unitarian Church. We are different, he stated. We are a liberal church. Alas, that is not good enough for Mr. Harris. He doesn’t like the liberal churches any more (well…maybe a little more) than the conservative ones. The reason is that the liberal churches include the conservative ones as part of the rich mosaic of diversity, pursuing a different path leading to God, admire their zeal but not their methods, etc, etc. They must call a spade a spade, Sam says, and condemn their belligerent co-religionists as an abomination, a cancer to society, an absolute crock of you-know-what.

    Indeed, we (Jehovah’s Witnesses) would appear to be the least objectionable to Mr. Harris, judging from his interview with City! Newspaper when he came to our town.
    http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A4895
    Yes, we feel that God has definite moral standards, even laws, which ordinarily would send up the reddest of the red flags with Mr. Harris. But we, unlike the “Christian conservatives,” make no effort to force our mode of living on others. We declare, to the best of our ability, a message we believe to be true. Some people find it so attractive that they join us and adopt our style of living. But we have no desire to force others to live according to our ways. Our arena is that of ideas. We fancy ourselves neither judges nor enforcers. God can sort it all out. We don’t do holy wars, we don’t block clinics, we don’t pressure school boards, we don’t even pursue legitimate methods (the ballot box) for imposing our views on others.

    So maybe we would meet with Mr. Harris’ semi-approval.

    I haven’t read his books and probably will not because I suspect I agree with most of it already…all but his conclusion! If his conclusion is that God does not exist (atheism), well…I think that conclusion is ill-supported by the facts he presents. If his conclusion is that religion does far more harm than good, I have no beef with that. Of course, I maintain, as does that Unitarian fellow, and probably many others, that our religion is different, but I’m sure Mr. Harris doesn’t address ours specifically. I think that’s part of what would exasperate me about his book….he makes no attempt to distinguish between any faith, but instead lumps them all together.

    Of course, I am only extrapolating based on his City! interview, which I did read.

    Incidentally, you read a lot. Maigret’s Pipe has already fallen off the list! Not sure if you are familiar with Simenon’s Maigret series. The Pipe short story is a poor representation of it, IMO. But the best of his Maigret novels are a curious combination of spellbinding and joyous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In a comment on my political blog, a blogger identified as "Democrat in Rush, NY" yesterday commented (under the heading, "which is cause and which is effect?"): "Mr. Harris implies that conservative religion somehow leads to increased rates of crime. Maybe it's not that way at all. Maybe dangerous living conditions cause people to turn more religious. And when conditions improve, they forget all about God.

    "No, I don't really believe that either. But my point is that Mr. Harris reports an actual correlation, then puts a spin on it that only reflects his own prejudices."

    I might have included in my excerpt from Harris's book, the next paragraph: "In the next paragraph Harris writes: "Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality—belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, however, these statistics prove that atheism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that widespread belief in God does not ensure a society's health."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tom, I assume that you are "Democrat in Rush, NY," since his comment was the only new one I saw.

    Once again, I'm going to plead the need to go away and muse before trying to comment responsibly on the religious questions your comment(s) raise. Thanks for your patience. I may end up writing a new essay for separate posting. And it should indeed be a "try" at self-exploration.

    As for Simenon, indeed I've read virtually every Maigret he wrote, as well as scores of his "psychological novels." Also his autobiographical novel Pedigree and his Intimate Memoirs. You're the first to comment on Simenon, and I'm glad to have discovered another fan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I had no idea how easy it was to become a Democrat! I didn't say yes to anything. All I did was register to leave a comment under the name Sheepandgoats, which perhaps they thought was frivilous.

    As to Sam's 2nd paragraph, I find myself positively liking this guy for his thoroughness & reason, albeit I don't think he proves the atheist position.

    Please do not feel oblgated to answer this. I understand your desire to ponder. My wife taught me always to get in the last word and if your wife has taught you the same, these comments could go on and on until Blogger bans us both.

    Maigret is my all time favorite fictional character, all the more intriging because his home life with Mme Maigret is textbook domestic tranquility. His creator Simenon, on the other hand, estimates matter of factly that he has slept with 10,000 women in his lifetime, which, even the most libertine among us will acknowledge, is a lot. One wonders if writing Maigrets (so different from his other pschological novels) wasn't a form of therapy for him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tom, I suspect that Simenon didn't actually sleep with all of the maids, for example, whom he had by hoisting their skirts while they were bent over putting a hospital tuck into the corner of his bed linens or whatever <wink>.

    I've got an idea for some remarks on my problem of trying to skip Christmas, relative to the "ethos of Christmas" and my having begun to feel like Camus's existential stranger....

    Also a doubt about how religious dogma can have any practical effect in furthering a person's natural desire to survive death....

    And I assume that you've already seen my general critique (essentially the same as that of Thomas Paine) of the Bible and other revelatory literature as being merely hearsay so far as any third party is concerned (and certainly as far as we thousands of years later are concerned).

    I'm just mentioning these last two points in case you'd like to say anything else for me to consider in my upcoming essay.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for the head’s up. Here are some points which strike me as relevant.

    Sam points to atrocities and societal dysfunction associated with religion, and from there he deduces, or perhaps only reinforces, his atheistic position. But his data only validates scriptures written ages before he was around:

    Such scriptures as Titus 1:6, 2 Pet 2:1-2, 1 Tim 4:1-3, Matt 7: 21-23 indicate that Bible writers realized there would be rebelling from “the cramped and narrow way” in favor of the “broad and spacious way,” but it would happen so gradually that Christianity itself would be redefined with the “broad and spacious way” with all the hypocrisies and vile conduct that the new “way” would lead to. Consequently, “the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively,“ says Paul. In other words, Mr. Harris and the Bible writers account for the same phenomenon, but in markedly different ways. However Sam would have us believe that the Bible does not account for it at all….in fact, it itself is a large part of the problem!

    There was a book written in the 1970‘s: The 100, by Michael Hart. The author rates the most influential persons of all time and gives explanatory comments. Of course, all we JWs might suppose that Jesus would top the list. But he was number 3! Mohammed was on top. The reason: Both men were founders of great religions. But Muslims follow Mohammed. Christians do not follow Jesus. So striking is the latter’s disobedience that Isaac Newton, who typifies the scientific line of thought, also ranked ahead of Jesus, nailing down the #2 spot. (the book was written well before present religious terrorism, which might alter the ratings)

    In a nutshell, my position is that the Bible gives the true path. Straying from it brings chaos. But none have strayed from it more than those who most vocally claim to represent it! Therefore Christianity becomes associated with vileness, giving Mr. Harris an easy target.

    A Sam Harris corollary seems to be: if you must be spiritual, keep it personal; individual spirituality is good, organized religion is bad. This distrust of organization is hardly confined to religion. It is the reason many sigh with relief when branches or houses of government are divided….that way they are less likely to screw things up! But if you actually could find an organization which patterned itself after 1rst century Christianity and Jesus teachings (of course, we claim to be such) then organization, with all of its inherent strengths, would be a great plus.

    As to your second “Thomas Paine” line of thought, perhaps it is relevant that the Bible contains accurate information unheard of when it was written. For example: the earth is round and it is suspended in space. (Job 26:7,10) This, written at a time when learned ones thought the earth was flat and rested upon a giant turtle which rested upon huge elephants which….you’ve heard it, I’m sure.

    If that’s the case with the earth, then why is the Bible associated with astronomical ignorance, the Church persecuting Galileo and his chums? Because then, as now, religionists misrepresent it. They take obvious metaphors literally, such as “the four corners of the earth,” and “the pillars of earth.” Indeed, today mainstream Christian dogma, such as the Trinity and hellfire, is arrived at through the same technique: taking obvious figures of speech literally. Neither doctrine is actually taught in the Bible.

    For example: http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/10/spurious_words_.html

    This is a longer comment than I envisioned. But if you are about to write your essay, and you have graciously asked my input, here it is.

    Merry unChristmas, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tom, I was, sincerely, opening the door to some points that might be useful for me to consider, and you don't seem to have let me down! In fact, I feel even more need now to "go away and muse"...and read at least the passages from the Bible that you site.

    Unfortunately, I didn't anticipate that you'd come back with such a strong statement about the Bible's being "the true path." Strangely, I don't feel inclined to dismiss this out of hand as absurd (on the basis, for example, of the Bible's being riddled with contradictions, etc.—at least, as portrayed by Harris and who knows how many "Bible scholars"?). In other words, I feel duty-bound, both to myself and to a worthy interlocutor (you), to think on these things seriously.

    Having hoped to dispatch my upcoming essay quickly and be able to use most of my time for some urgent editorial work I must do, I now think that the announced essay may not appear anytime real soon. But this will be no great loss to anyone, so I don't feel too bad about it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, me too. Can't spend all my time blogging. Life makes many demands. I'm content to wait for your essay, as must everyone else. Get that urgent paperwork done.

    I appreciate your intention to look into all corners. Of course, I'm not blind that statements about the true path and God's word, etc, etc, do seem absurd in today's intellectual climate. The fundamentalists have confiscated that ground, (Bible literalism) and they have thoroughly sullied it by most of what they do and say. Few church teachings are actually found in the Bible.

    The more liberal churches, however, have succumbed to intellectual bullying, partly out of revulsion of the fundamentalists, partly because of a desire to fit in with cutting edge intelligensia. It is possible to mount a valiant defence of scripture, but they have no interest in doing so. We hear all the time that the Bible is rife with contradictions. Nobody seriously counters those claims, and so the average person concludes it must be so.

    Interesting, Christianity was originally a working class religion. Most adherants came from somewhat humble backgrounds and only a minority had advanced education. The movement was little understood among that day's upper classes, a fact that was observed by Jesus, Paul, and Luke. (Matt 11:25, 1 Cor 1:26,27, Acts 4:13) It even seems to be intentional.

    It's not that Christianity is anti-knowledge, an arena where one discards reason so as to wallow in emotion. No. It fully complies with reason.

    The more educated classes may have the upper hand in reason, but they also tend to have the upper hand in arrogance, self-importance, even greed...qualities that comport little with Jesus' teachings. (though they are found abundantly in with today religions)

    The upper classes eventually hijacked Christianity. People found a way to make a good living at it. But in the process, the new faith lost its core.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tom, I addressed the "Christmas ethos" point a little while ago in today's post, which was genuinely an "essay" in my sense of self-discovery, for I surprised myself by the final sentence. I had absolutely no idea I would end that way when I began writing it.

    I'm going to try to respond to some of your points here, or in following comments, since they have to do specifically with JW and I don't want to "take on" JW in the sort of official way a post would entail.

    You wrote: "[W]e don’t even pursue legitimate methods (the ballot box) for imposing our views on others." I think this is a very good thing, for there's merit in Harris's contention that an apocalyptic political leader (or a political leader, that is, who believes in Biblical prophecy of Armageddon—and George W. Bush may be one) might act to try to bring it about. Melting ice caps? Bring 'em on!

    I'll accept your implication that when JWs bring Watchtowers to my door they aren't trying "to force [their] mode of living on others," but only "declare, to the best of [their] ability, a message [they] believe to be true."

    I can understand that they believe certain Biblical prophecies to be true, for, as I wrote on April 8 to Yale President Richard C. Levin apropos Yale's conferring the honorary degree on Bush, people who "believe that the Bible—by men inscribed, selected, edited and translated—is nevertheless in its entirety and exclusivity The Inspired Word of God" are "able to apply carefully crafted hermeneutic principles to explain away any apparent contradiction in it, either of internal inconsistency or of disagreement with what [they want] to discover God to have said."

    Your contention that Harris's "data only validate scriptures written ages before he was around" (citing as examples Titus 1:6, 2 Pet 2:1-2, 1 Tim 4:1-3, Matt 7: 21-23) way overstates the scriptures' supposed ability to "predict" the future. That is, if JWs believe that, they are, I think, reading into the scriptures no more than what they want to find there. While the authors of the cited verses seem to have been astute and insightful men, I think that at most they are describing moral truths whose relevance may continue, rather than "predicting" anything whatsoever.

    You say that "the Bible gives the true path." I concede that carefully selected verses may prescribe a worthy, rewarding path. Maybe even aspects of the most worthy and rewarding path. But if the Bible is The Inspired Word of God, what about the passages well documented by Harris, especially in Letter to a Christian Nation, that are utterly barbaric to enlightened folks today?

    While I do not believe that Jesus died to save me or anyone else, I do "follow Christ" in the sense of taking to heart his teachings—the ones that I agree with, that is. And, since I argee with them, I need only to follow them, not continually go to church to hear them read to me.

    I'm not sure that it is "relevant that the Bible contains accurate information unheard of when it was written." Harris asks, for example, why, if God inspired the Bible and he was all-knowing, etc., the Bible doesn't predict very precise things, including dates and the names of people and places. And why it contains so much twaddle.

    I so agree with you about the humility of the early believers and Christianity's having been hijacked. The edited, selected Bible that has come down to us testifies to this. I've read Elaine Pagels's book, The Gnostic Gospels, and have read portions of The Nag Hammadi Library. What do you make of the Gnostics?

    Tom, have you commented on my "doubt about how religious dogma can have any practical effect in furthering a person's natural desire to survive death"? In other words, does religious belief do any more than give people a sense of comfort (in the expectation that they will continue to exist in some sense, be rewarded for their good deeds, see evildoers punished, injustices righted, etc.)?

    I hope that you find me to have written this with the courtesy and respect you deserve, while at the same time I have not failed to make my own, contrary opinions clear.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ah. Now it is my turn to plead for some time. You have raised some open ended questions and in some cases, ones without detail. I want my answer to be, not just me spouting off what I believe, but material that is most likely to be useful to you. This will take a few days, for like you, I must sandwich this in between other duties. But over the weekend I should have something, possibly before.

    As to your last paragraph, you succeeded on both counts. Not to worry on that score.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here is a response to some of the points you raised, not necessarily in order.

    You mentioned prophesy, as did Sam. There are some extraordinarily detailed prophesies in the Bible. Most of them, though, require some effort, some digging and sifting, as they are rooted in history. Here is an example, and I’d be very curious to know how it strikes you.

    http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/12/zedekiah_nebuch.html

    But Mr. Harris doesn’t want complicated prophesies that require digging and sifting. He wants whiz-bang ones. He wants to know how the Iraq war will turn out. He wants to know who will win the lottery next week. He wants “dates and the names of people and places.” But, I submit, if scriptures provided that sort of detail, Harris would view it only as entertainment. It would not reach his heart. (Note, however, that the prophesy I have linked to provides a “date.”)

    Why, in a college course, does the professor not simply “give the answers?” Wouldn’t that make life simpler for both he and the students? It would indeed, but it would also defeat the purpose of the course. Such a policy would draw every bit of riff-raff on campus, students whose only desire is to take, not give, students who would get nothing whatsoever out of the course except a passing grade, which suits them fine since that’s all they care about in the first place. And don’t think the tidal wave of unmotivated students won’t spoil the academic environment, demoralizing both professor and students who truly are searching and working.

    As with an academic class, the JW congregation has a purpose, a goal. People associate with it because they desire to learn about God, align themselves with his will, and imitate his attributes. In the process, they become safer, more pleasant, less unruly people. Yes, I know, Sam presents evidence to the contrary, but he doesn’t break it down by religion. He just assumes all religions are alike because that view fits in with his overall picture of things. But the abundance of counterfeit money does not prove there is no such thing as real money. Because our congregations are modeled after Christ’s teachings and peopled by those serious about following those teachings, they are oasis’ from national hatreds, racism, class divisions, materialism, immorality that destroys families, and so forth. They provide an atmosphere of love and united brotherhood. Not perfect, of course, though newcomers sometimes think so, so different is the atmosphere from the world in general.

    What is the purpose of Bible prophesies? It is to provide a basis to establish a book’s trustworthiness. The Bible claims to be a vehicle through which God communicates to humans. A tall claim. A reasonable person might well require some evidence on that count before taking the book too seriously. Therein lies the relevance of the Bible’s “accurate information unheard of when it was written." Also, some prophesies such as the one I’ve linked to. But load the book up with the cheap “sound bite” prophesies that Sam wants, and in come the freeloading students, who will gladly eat up all your prophesies, but who, on no account, will change what they are so as to meet God’s requirements. As regards the congregation, spiritually speaking, there goes the neighborhood.

    You were unimpressed with the scriptures that foretold defection from the Christian path. I’m not sure why. Sam declares that religions produce rotten fruitage and he is hailed as a visionary. The Bible makes that same point, centuries before such fruitage becomes manifest, and is met with yawns. Paul said because of contamination within Christianity, “the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.” Isn’t that exactly what Sam is doing? Isn’t that precise enough for a line written 2000 years ago? Should we expect scripture to mention Mr. Harris by name? So we have two versions which address the same phenomenon: the Bible’s and Sam’s. I submit that Sam’s version is popular because it implies that we are all above having anyone tell us what to do. It accords well with society’s dearth of humility. The Bible’s version is unpopular because it implies that, just possibly, we are in need of instruction and standards from a source greater than us. Popularity aside, history, and especially recent history, favors the latter view.

    A little vagueness on your part, I thought, regarding “twaddle.” I’m not sure what you put in that category, there are many possibilities, and so in an effort to cover all bases, I could write a reply that is long and boring. Better that you should give me some examples. Then my reply will be short and less boring. Same point with “contradictions.” I can guess, of course, but I might be wrong, and waste pixels on a point that never occurred to you. Give me an example or two. We’ll then see if I hit it out of the park, strike out, or (always possible) say ‘I don’t know.’

    Similar point with Harris’s citing of “barbaric” scriptures. You don’t cite what those scriptures are and so you force me to read Harris’ book. I am not opposed to this on any principle other than time management; speaking practically, I don’t know when I’d get to it. But if you give me examples, then I don’t have to read it. I’ve already stated why, though not without merit, the book would not be high on my must-read list. Also, I may be able forestall a few barbarisms by pointing out that much in the Bible is unvarnished history. People expect that every verse should be a sermon. No one ever said that was so.

    Your comment to Yale’s Mr. Levin is not the way I would phrase things. It is condescending. Not intentionally, perhaps, and I won’t say that I have never made similar comments, (maybe some of my remarks about Sam venture in that direction) but it is condescending nonetheless. Its clear implication is that JWs (I will apply it only to JWs, for I don’t wish to be a spokesman for fundamentalists, with whom I disagree on almost all counts) are misguided fools; nevertheless, we learned ones have discovered psychological principles which account for their absurd conclusions.

    In fact, we approach most things in life in the same suspect manner you describe to Mr. Levin. Be it goals, or career paths, or relationships, or hobbies, we first consider and are attracted to the “payoff.” Only then do we address drawbacks and perceived difficulties, and when we do, we find many of these are readily resolved. But the disinterested or disapproving person sees only the drawbacks and difficulties. He makes no examination and promptly gives credence to any negative report that comes down the pipe. To him, it seems that we have proved “able to apply carefully craft hermeneutic principles to explain away any [difficulty]” so as to pursue the unendorsed course we have chosen. No, I think that remark, similar to one I once made that you correctly called me on, is less profound than it at first appears.

    That’s enough for now. I haven’t addressed every point you raised, I know, but if you make a comment too long peoples’ eyes glaze over. It’s a trait we acquired from Sesame Street. And, as you indicated you would not shoot your whole wad at once, but might speak over several comments, same here.

    Always a pleasure to speak with someone who is both thoughtful and open, as yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey, Tom, thanks for your comment, sorry not to have acknowledged it immediately. I only just now read it entirely, but not as well as I'm sure it deserves to be read. I also read the post you linked to. Pretty amazing job of interpretation, going from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. I'm reminded that Carl Jung, in his memoir Memories, Dreams, Reflections described a remarkable dream he had, in 1913, I believe, about rivers of blood coming to engulf Europe. Scary stuff, does make one wonder about the spirit hovering on the face of the deep. And that reminds me that Harold Bloom, the renowned literary critic and author of Jesus and Yahweh, said in a radio interview, sometime in the last year or so, that he has nightmares about Yahweh.

    Part of my problem citing examples from Harris is that I don't possess a copy of either of his books. (I borrowed them from a library.) And I'd much prefer to give examples of "twaddle" that he provides than to consult the original texts. Despite the fascinating interpretation you cite, I am so profoundly skeptical of such interpretations that I don't want to have anything to do with them. In fact, my personal reaction to the 1914 prophecy is: So what?

    In my April 8 letter to Mr. Levin, my matter-of-fact description of how people believe what they want to believe applied to myself as well, although I didn't quote the entire passage:

    "I admit that I already despised Bush so thoroughly that I was not open to any evidence that he might be any good at all. I could interpret anything I might hear as evidence to the contrary. Rather like someone who, say, believes that the Bible—by men inscribed, selected, edited and translated—is nevertheless in its entirety and exclusivity The Inspired Word of God and who is able to apply carefully crafted hermeneutic principles to explain away any apparent contradiction in it, either of internal inconsistency or of disagreement with what the believer wants to discover God to have said."

    I am happy to except you from the characterization if you feel strongly that you deserve to be excepted. I even accept that Harris's critique of religion may, somehow, not apply to Jehovah's Witnesses. You know far more about that than I do, even though you haven't read his books.

    My admission that I too "believe what I want to believe" doesn't mean than my beliefs won't change. For I would like to believe what is true. I'm not sure, though, that I'm capable of believing Biblical prophecy, even if it is true. I strongly resist the recommendation of a number of theologians to "believe that ye may believe," which I regard as a snare as insidious as praying to God that we might believe in God. In fact, it just now occurs to me that doing either is perhaps the very best example I could possibly give of "believing what we want to believe."

    And I find that personally ironic, for just yesterday, in a note to a friend, I admitted that I'd rather believe in God than not.

    Hey, am I messed up, or what! But I feel good, I feel blessed, and, despite all, I feel that it'll all work itself out. For I do believe that if God exists, He, She, or It doesn't care all that much what I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wow. That’s twice! Two times you have provided generous excerpts of writing, once from Sam’s book and once from your own letter, and two times I have rendered an opinion, only to have you zoom out a bit to embrace more context, and thus render my comments not quite on the mark! Communication is tricky, isn’t it? How many screw-up occur due to exactly that glitch?

    But now….what is this? The spiritual bombshell that you drop is not on this post, but on another!

    “I harbor a deep suspicion that the main source of religious belief is its use as a crutch to remove the unbearable sadness of a person's anticipated demise.”

    Yes, that is at the crux of many things, isn’t it? Should I attempt to address it? Twice before you have raised this point and twice I have dodged it. [Tom, have you commented on my "doubt about how religious dogma can have any practical effect in furthering a person's natural desire to survive death"?] (And if I reply, should I reply on this post or the other?)

    In part, my dodging is because the Bible contradicts the way the question is usually framed, that is, the assumption that the earth is essentially a launching pad from which people depart to something more permanent. Most religions teach some variation of this. The Bible does not.

    Instead, the Bible teaches that humans were not created to die at all. They were created to live indefinitely. This explains a lot, and I have already commented on some aspects in previous posts of my own blog. For many years, the main teaching vehicle of Jehovah’s Witnesses was the publication, now out of print, You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth.

    http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/06/genesis_oldtime.html

    http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/07/every_decade_or.html

    So I didn’t really dodge addressing the issue, but I did postpone it.

    Best regards. Hope another year packs good things for you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ha, when I first read your "only to have you zoom out a bit to embrace," I misinterpreted that as "eluding your embrace"! I respect Freud enough to suppose that I did indeed "embrace more context" to achieve that very thing!

    I felt a bit sheepish about doing that and even considered redoing the comment, or adding a second one by way of apology.

    Finding incredible your statement that "the Bible teaches that humans...were created to live indefinitely," I'm going to have to check into that, hoping that I won't have to squirm too hard to elude your grasp yet again!

    Sorry that my "spiritual bombshell" appeared elswhere, but I guess I didn't consider it such a bombshell. Also, that opinion of mine was, I thought, implicit in some of the things I'd already said.

    By the way, I meant my admiring characterization of the 607 BCE connection to 1914 CE. That's very much the sort of thing I'd like to have come up with myself. Like Robert Graves's conjectures about "The White Goddess" in his book of that title. I consider such creations works of subjective art, even if I can't endorse them as works of objective knowledge.

    Thanks for your good wishes, Tom, which I return to you shaken up and copiously multiplied.

    Hey, do you and your wife have a llama farm? (Anyway, that animal in your blog photo looks to me like a llama.) An old friend of mine has gone into alpaca ranching up in Ohio.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tom, shades of Freud prompt me to ask you: is anything riding for you on whether or not you succeed in getting me to agree with you?

    ReplyDelete
  20. A probing question indeed. If I am “a worthy interlocutor” to you, well…you are the same for me.

    I am, at heart, a communicator. And when I became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I soon noticed that there is no quicker way to establish a connection with someone than to speak spiritual things. You may have observed the same. One can be with someone for years, work shoulder to shoulder with them, yet never really come to know them, because conversation is always on superficial things…sports, hobbies, current events, politics, business, all potentially engrossing subjects, I guess, but they don’t reach the heart as do spiritual things.

    People today don’t speak “religion.” It is too personal, private, they say. Usually, I think the reason is that religion is in the realm of feeling, not thought, and so it is too vague to discuss, especially with a stranger. But JW beliefs, you may have noticed, are rooted in thought. All our beliefs have reasons which can be clearly communicated. To be sure, that does not necessarily mean they are correct, but they are nonetheless based on reason, not vague and shifting feeling, and certainly not “I see the light!” moments.

    I have only blogged since May, yet blogging has proved to be a most satisfying hobby personally. When I write on something, I can search to see who else has written about it. I find people who have, within hours, written on the same subject and, if I comment on their blog, I sometimes get a thread going, though none have been as long as this thread. It’s a good deal if you’re a communicator. It helps if I like the person I’m writing to, and on no account do I get drawn into arguments.

    So that’s personal. That’s “what’s in it for me.”

    At the same time, it is well known that Jehovah’s Witnesses are encouraged to speak with people. They consider themselves to have a ministry. And so, with me, where does the “personal” and the “ministry” meet? I don’t think I know, I have done this for a long time.

    I will tell you a few things about the ministry of Jehovah’s Witnesses, since that may be implied (though I’m not sure) in your question. Do I think of you in that way, as the recipient of a “ministry?” Well, I don’t think ‘yes.’ I don’ t think ‘no.’ I am a communicator, and in JW beliefs, I find something worth communicating. You said, for example, “Finding incredible your statement that "the Bible teaches that humans...were created to live indefinitely," I'm going to have to check into that,” By all means. Go check it out. And when you do, you may not agree. But you will acknowledge that these ideas are not found just anywhere. They are unique to JWs

    And are my communications based on a noble exchange of views or some deep-seated, (even sick) need to be “right?” There, too, I guess, I don’t know, though I like to think it is the former. There is no other subject I would pursue as I do spiritual things, as there is no other subject that I am as passionate about. Perhaps, to a degree, Sam feels that way about atheism (though I don‘t quite know how someone could). He certainly has proven a worthy spokesman for it.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses have devised a course of home Bible study. It is free. It is one on one. Can’t one just study the Bible in his own church, or even in some college course, if he wants to? Yes, I suppose you can but, in our view, you will not be learning what the Bible really teaches. Again, humans designed to live indefinitely is a case in point. That seemed to strike you as a brand new idea, in spite of the fact that your formal education, I suspect, surpasses my own.

    It is to offer such a Bible study that Jehovah’s Witnesses visit people, not to distribute Watchtowers…that is only a means to an end….and not to "to force [their] mode of living on others," on people who have never claimed to adhere to Bible viewpoints. It is not even to seek converts, though to be sure, we imagine and prefer that a person, upon studying, will come to agree with us and want to join us. But we don’t hold our breath, and we don’t stomp off in a huff if that doesn’t happen. And it usually doesn’t. Most of those who study with us do not join our faith.

    As for seeking converts, if you (or someone) were to declare you wanted to join right away, you would not be able to. You would still be directed to the program of home Bible study. The “come down and be saved” technique is for the fundamentalists, not us. Faith, to us, is rooted in knowledge and knowledge takes time to accumulate. And, as stated, we think we are the only source of such knowledge. The 607-1914 “prophesy” is another example. You will not find it anywhere other than Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most people react to what we say is in the Bible by observing that, while Bible promises sound good, they weren’t born yesterday and it seems too good to be true. So if the cost were thousands of dollars or the time requirement was steep, one might reasonably pass on the offer to study. But the cost is zero and the time required is one hour a week. What’s to lose?

    http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2006/09/understand_the_.html

    Should a person take us up on our Bible study offer? After all, he has his own religion, doesn’t intend to change, and certainly doesn’t plan to engage in any public ministry. Well, do what Sydney Carton advised Charles Darnay. Wait until JWs ask you to do this or that, and then say no.

    What is the motive for all this? Of course, it’s not money. No one on any level of Jehovah’s Witnesses draws a salary. But we are “believers.” “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations…..“ Matt 24:14 Who is going to do it other than those who believe it?

    There. Does that answer your question “is anything riding for you on whether or not you succeed in getting me to agree with you?” (invoking Freud, no less)

    Regards

    No. No llama farm. It’s just a picture taken when we visited someone walking his pet llamas [!]

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Tom, your note just provides more evidence that you are, indeed, a most worthy interlocutor. I'm glad I asked my rather intrusive question about what your motives might be for engaging me. I like what you say, even if I am not only not inclined to engage in "Bible study" but am positively put off by the very idea.

    That from a guy who studied my Sunday School lessons assiduously as a child attending Assembly of God services, memorized fairly long passages of the bible during Summer Bible Schools, engaged in "Bible quizzes" with gusto (and some success in terms of my contribution to the win-loss ratio of my Baptist Youth for Christ's team), delivered a "sermon" to a Baptist congregation as a 15-year-old (part of a theatrical funeral the youth group put on), and participated for a while in an Episcopal men's group in Chapel Hill (until I got so tired of the close-mindedness of the other old farts that I couldn't stomach the meetings any longer and left in disgust).

    That's all for now. Just didn't want your comment to sit here unacknowledged for long.

    ReplyDelete