The 80-20 rule states that for many events 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. The rule applies to everything from 80% of income's going to 20% of a population, to 80% of sales' coming from 20% of clients, to our wearing 20% of our most favored clothes 80% of the time, to our spending 80% of our time with 20% of our acquaintances, to 80% of a company's resources' typically being used by 20% of its operations, to....[Source for examples: Wikipedia]
But 90-10 might be the rule for religion. For example, 90% of the general population of the United States (which of course includes those who believe that the fall of the Twin Towers was divine retribution for homosexuality and other "sins") claim to believe in god, whereas only 10% of leading scientists (the ones whose findings about global warming are finally being acknowledged) admit to it. [Source: Scientific American Magazine, September 1999]
Religion is so polarizing and rancorous that polite company usually honors the unspoken rule not to raise the topic—so as not to occasion some people's going for other people's throats.
Maybe that's why I'm ill suited to "polite company." Why can't religion be fair game for intellectual challenge like any other interesting topic?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in middle school, I got a little freaked out by all the kids around me who were so utterly convinced that because I wasn't sure that there was a god, that I must be going to hell. I talked to my dad (an Episcopal priest) about it, and asked him if he thought that God - should s/he exist - would really be mad at me for questioning such an empirically ludicrous concept. He answered me in a way that I still think makes sense. He said: "PM, you know that corn grows in Afghanistan, right?" and I said, "well I didn't, but okay." He said "you believe me?" "Sure, if you say so" I replied. "Why?" he asked. "Because I don't care." He said "exactly. Even if there is a god, would that god reasonably want you to just accept without questioning? After all, the only things you don't question are the things you don't care about. By my estimation, there's something a great deal more admirable in questioning agnosticism than in blind, careless acceptance."
Shouldn't grown-ups be just as welcome to question? To wonder? To even grow through respectful communication with eachother? I guess there's something too scary about that when it comes to religion. But, in my very humble opinion, a person whose faith is not able to withstand respectful dialogue is probably not really a person of faith. That person probably has a greater psychological need to believe than they have actual, intuitive faith.
I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with these people - I just think it's kind of a shame because I think these people are being pretty dishonest with themselves. Again, I wouldn't care about that, but it does seem to me that if one is intuitively an atheist while outwardly trying to convince one's self of something that seems implausible, it would be very hard to handle those big events that people turn to their belief systems to handle. E.g., a person with such fragile faith must really freak out when it comes time to die, time to let a loved one go through surgery, major life transitions and hardships. I am not an atheist, but I have great respect for atheists, because at least they are able to be honest with themselves about what they can really believe in.
Punkiemommie, Thank you for your great comment. I wish my blog had more visitors than it does, so that more people could read what you wrote!
ReplyDeleteWell it's just my opinion, but I'm glad you think it's a useful perspective. Fondly, PM
ReplyDeleteDear Punkiemommie, I want to admire your modesty, but I am so sure of the intelligence and rightness of your comment that I am loathe to characterize it as "just your opinion"!
ReplyDeleteWell presented as usual, Morristotle. Bob Dylan would approve, I'm sure. (inside joke, edit it out if you like) Also, it's good to see you back in the blog saddle.
ReplyDeleteBut I have trouble with your underlying assumption that it is intelligence which will save us all. The world, by and large, is not run by stupid people, or at least not uneducated ones. Yet it's hardly a place to be proud of.
It's a shame that institutions of higher learning stress intelligence almost to the exclusion on anything else. There is somehow an assumption that such intelligence will be put to good use, an assumption which history shows is dubious. Would that there were equal emphasis on humility, unselfishness, love of fellow man, ethical behaviour. Who teaches those things?
Thanks for your kind remarks, Tom. From my vantage point in the administration of a major university system, I don't think it's true "that institutions of higher learning stress intelligence almost to the exclusion on anything else."
ReplyDeleteNor do I assume "that it is intelligence which will save us all." I doubt that we'll be saved, actually.
The behaviors you mention are taught by some people by rote, I suppose, but also by others who are intelligent enough to value them for their effectiveness in promoting creature happiness on the planet.
I also definitely agree with PM. My family was raised Catholic, & we were all sent to Catholic school for at least 6-8 years. I'm glad I at least had SOME upbringing in *a* religion. I think it was my dad who said OK to my mom sending us to Catholic school. (He is & was primarily agnostic, despite similar upbringing--Catholic school & church.) But after we grew up & my parents had already divorced, my mom gained new perspective. Fortunately, she had already always had a very different way of thinking from others. So, while she had originally been raised Catholic & wanted Catholic upbringing for us, she herself had never been a strong or strict Catholic. Having been excommunicated (divorce does that), she could no longer take communion & she eventually stopped going to church but still had me drive my younger sisters there each week. Naturally, we were older then, bordering on adulthood, & seeing that she didn't go (& not yet understanding why), asked why we still had to go. That's roughly when she'd instead occasionally take us to various OTHER services--mostly Protestant--& had no objections if/when we accompanied a school buddy to synagogue or whatever else. We learned a LOT about other religions that way, plus whatever we picked up in subsequent college courses.
ReplyDeleteThanks to Mom, we learned independence, assertiveness, to think for ourselves, & to question anything--but obviously also with kindness, respect, consideration & sensitivity to others, & regardless of race, creed, or nationality.
To this day Mom is agnostic…or more accurately, really isn't in favor of organized religion, exactly because she feels it limits & restricts people's viewpoints, objectivity & "stunts" their lives. (I'm sure most religious people would vehemently disagree & say it's quite the contrary!) ;-)
I'm married to a Slovak whose family of origin was Catholic but never strongly religious. We're also agnostic, only attending church while visiting family in his country--such as for Easter or Christmas.
Of my three younger sisters:
• One married a Greek man. They attend Greek Orthodox church, raised their kids Greek Orthodox, & the kids attended Greek (language) classes. As a family, they're extremely aware of & able to handle differences, & they don't push their own views or values on others.
• Another married a wonderful Jewish man. They honor both Jewish & Catholic holidays & traditions, but also don't steep themselves & their son in either.
• The last married an American of Swiss descent whose family WAS strongly religious. Both of them went to a strongly Baptist college in the South & have raised their kids as strong Baptists. They go to church twice weekly, tithe, restrict/filter what books & TV shows/videos their kids can or can't watch, etc. My brother-in-law has always wanted to be a Baptist minister & he recently got his wish. However, I think he's going to find a huge difference between Southern Baptists & those in the NE. (I certainly could be wrong!)
The strong religious beliefs & parenting of this last sister have caused some friction at times within & among our family. I say "sometimes" because we live at least 1-12 hours' drive from each other. Fortunately, however, they seem to have toned things down some over the years. Also, our family doesn't seem to experince the same levels of friction & problems that others do or can. Because we'll all gather at their new home for Turkey Day, however, I'm sure there might be some very interesting moments. :-)
I also agree with Tom S&G. In addition to the proverbial "many bad deeds done in the name of religion," I've learned my own lessons about "intelligence" vs. simplicity or not thinking ENOUGH. We can think TOO much about anything, including religion. I've honestly seen that get in the way of a lot of emotional, mental, & physical goals & progress, including maturity. I've also seen that thinking too little or not at all can also cause problems. TOO much faith or too LITTLE faith--in anything or anyone, not just religion--can be a problem.
I've also learned a lot of GOOD things about simplicity & NOT always thinking so hard about anything. Some examples:
• The older brother of a friend of mine is "mentally challenged." Despite the label, he's extremely smart, attentive, considerate, interested in, & interacts so well, kindly, politely, & charmingly with so many people. He's a true delight to all who know him. My friend & I often aspire to be more like him & wish more people were like him. He delights in the little & truly important things in life instead of focusing on what the rest of us all seem to think ARE important.
• Another "mentally challenged" man is employed where I work. He has various & sundry little but important tasks in one of company's cafés. He possesses a most wonderful "affliction," however: At any given point in time, often for no apparent reason, & with no provocation, he can start to giggle & then laugh loudly…even in the midst of lunch in our very large & crowded café. I've learned that sometimes he CAN be provoked, however: On occasion I have purposely tried to catch his eye & flash him a big grin, which nearly always starts one of his laugh "fits." Those new to our company & that café might at first think he's a bit odd, but laughter is infectious & they soon forget themselves in his unabated humor.
OK, so I've gotten off on a BIT of a tangent. Lemme get back on track… ;-)
Bottom line: It never hurts to question. If you're afraid of learning OR you don't care, you don't ask. And I'd rather be accused of indifference or apathy then of being too zealous of something I never want challenged. At least with apathy, many times I've initially chosen for or against something. And when I haven't, at some point I can find myself with an opportunity to STOP being indifferent & maybe learn enough to make a different choice.
PS - Tom's "sheepandgoats" moniker always makes me smile. Though I don't know whether Tom HAS sheep & goats, I remember his moniker nearly every weekday en route to work: I take a back way through many fields that contain cattle, sheep, & goats. While I do like seeing the cattle, I really LOVE seeing those sheep & goats! And that was true even before I heard Tom's moniker. :-)
Sunkat! At 1,090 words, yours is the longest comment ever posted on my blog! Longer even than any Tom Sheepandgoats has ever posted.
ReplyDeleteTom says that "Sheepandgoats" is a joke he has going with some of his friends (or maybe it's some fellow Jehovah's Witnesses, some of whom have similar names, like Wheatandchaff, which, like Sheepandgoats, is a Biblical reference to the separation of the good people from the bad people. The JW's seem to believe that god is going to sort us all out when this life is over and done with. And they are VERY SURE about it. It's in the Bible, you know).
The parable of the sheep and the goats appears in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel According to Matthew (in case you want to read up on it). I really like the interpretation of the parable that David Lodge's main character gives in his novel Paradise News. I quoted the passage in a post (dedicated to Tom) a couple of months ago.
Thanks for your comment. Have a happy Thanksgiving get-together with your family!
Wow, 1090 words--who'd'a thunk it? Long, but nearly 1/3 short of of the daily 1,667 due daily if one participates in National Novel Writing Month ("nanowrimo" - http://www.nanowrimo.org). ;-) Nonetheless, thanks for the statistic, as I really wouldn't've guessed I wrote that much. Thanks too for the pointer to Matthew's S&G (sheep & goats) passage. I had forgotten that from childhood...guess that makes me a (duck, duck--)GOAT! ;-)
ReplyDeleteHappy Thanksgiving to Moristotle & everyone/anyone else who follows his blog...& for anyone travelling--have a safe trip!
I agree, Sunkat. It's possible to think too much and I usually do. That gets me in way more trouble than the things I don't think about.
ReplyDeleteThere's a neat "children's book" - clearly not for children - called "Good Goats" by Dennis Linn, Sheila Fabricant Linn, and Matthew Linn. It turns that whole sheep/goat thing on its head and now appears to be available for free online at http://books.google.com/books?id=r1ao2DMhpm0C&dq=%22good+goats%22&pg=PP1&ots=Bka4NJR68V&sig=Asa45Mt7NhYAUBksh5BBefYy7aE&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fsource%3Dig%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D%26q%3D%2522good%2Bgoats%2522%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP6,M1 I enjoyed it some years ago. If anyone is ever sitting up nights worrying about the sheep/goats story (which I wouldn't recommend, but apparently some people get really worried about it), I recommend the book. It posits that we are all goats, but that we are good goats.
Sunkat and Punkiemommie, I want you both to know that two of my dear friends are in communication with one another! You are obviously muy sympatico. And, since I know that you are both planning to be on the road today with your spouses, I wish you all four a safe drive and a happy Thanksgiving with family and friends.
ReplyDeleteI really, really appreciate the gloss on sheep and goats. I couldn't believe that URL you provided, Punkiemommie, but it works!
As much as I love Tom Sheepandgoats, I of course cannot get on board with the Jehovah's Witnesses, any more than either of you can (or anyone else I know, quite frankly).
Your comments, Punkiemommie, remind me of a novel I read recently, The Master and Margarita, by the Stalin-suppressed Russian Mikhail Bulgakov, in which "the master" character has written a novel about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, who is portrayed as answering Pilate's questions about whether this or that person is good—all of them chosen by Pilate precisely because he thought they were not good—"Yes, he is good."
Sunkat, I didn't count words in order to gauge that your comment was the longest ever. It just felt to me to be the longest, so then I counted words to see how long it "really" was. If it were important, I might now count words for potential rivals and see how long they "really" were. Tom Sheepandgoats has possibly written one or even two that were longer, especially back when he was still trying to win me over to the Jehovah's Witness view of things.
And, Sunkat, I take it that you are not participating in Nanowrimo?