Oct 12 2008
Politicizing God, & That Whole Evolution Thing
This seems to be a running theme, religion in politics, and fits neatly within the confines of my current career path. We had a lively discussion yesterday about people who regard their particular supernatural belief system as better than someone else’s, and I promised I’d address my own personal outlook sometime soon. So here it is:
Rhino’s View on Religion
1) I don’t have a problem with you if you like bedtime stories. But to claim that you know, absolutely know, that the Bible is absolute truth shows a rigidity of thought that has no place in the modern world. There are those out there that regard the Bible, as well as the Qu’ran, and the Bhagavad Gita as allegories, lessons to be learned and practiced, but not under any circumstances to be taken literally. Which is fine, as long as they regard every morality tale equally. This, we know, doesn’t always happen.
2) From multiple gods and goddesses, to animal or nature worship, to monotheism, all supernatural belief systems were created as a means to answer questions. Where does the sun go? Why does it rain? Where did we come from? What happens when we die? The only one we haven’t been able to prove is the last, but at least those of us that don’t know, aren’t so arrogantly presumptuous to pretend that we do.
3) Evolution v. Creationism: Ready, kids? In the scientific community, the word theory can be substituted for the word fact. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural works that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validization changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the “theory of evolution”- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity- they are not expressing reservations about its truth. You can safely substitute fact for theory because scientific fact is “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical reasons is defined as true.¹” The same cannot be said for creationist myths of any faith. I have heard the argument that because a day is an eternity to humans in the eyes of god, that proves the radio-carbon dating analysis of Earth’s age. This theory comes from more realistic Christians, who, unlike the majority of the members of the religion, refuse to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. However, when it comes to the finer points of evolution, they fall back on the “faith” argument, turning their backs on proven science.
4) Religion should not be a determining factor in the political sphere: This is a Rhino-sized pipe dream, because we live in a country where in 2008, 68% of Americans believe in angels. So unless you live in Vermont, you have to be (or at least appear) devout in order to be elected. It is my opinion that the issue of religion distracts from the progress of a nation because it creates ideological distractions and conflicts of interest when dealing with a) social issues, b) foreign relations, and c) furthering scientific research. If a political leader is constricted by his/her tenets of faith, issues like reproductive rights, the legalization of marijuana, privacy rights, and (ironically enough) the treatment of prisoners hinder his/her ability to view these issues in an unbiased, professional light. It (religious beliefs) create a conflict of interest when dealing with nations that hold different constructs of faith (see: Global War on Terror). Further, it hinders necessary research in life saving medicinal sciences ( see: stem cell research), and effectively slows the ability for those in that community to make timely and beneficial advances.
If you look at countries and nation-states that still operate under theocracies, you find a populace under extreme social, financial, and political duress. That we insist on dragging God along with us on the campaign trail in election after election shows to me how little we have ourselves advanced as the “most powerful country in the world”. Religion has been the historical basis for more deaths on and off the battlefield than any other cause in humanity’s existence. Without a clear distance from supernatural belief systems, our country will be forever spinning its wheels and closing the door on progress.
Rhino out.
¹Rennie, John Physical Anthropology, article 4, Answers to Creationist Nonsense. 2008 McGraw-Hill Publishing
Stumble It!
Wow.
That’s all you got? Wow? Surely you of all people have more than a one word response…
Speechless.
Seriously…speechless why?
I welcome the discussion, however fervent it may become.
My personal view is that the Bible is basically a story book. And I agree it should not be taken literally. I also believe that when you are in office, your religious beliefs should not come into play. What ever happened to separation of church and state?
Great post.
http://apoetsview.today.com
http://insanfrancisco.today.com
Not sure if I can do this but I’ll give it a try point by point. I do have two questions that I’ll lead with just in case I lose you further down the road…what career path (curiosity, it is a bitch) and do you believe in any kind of higher being/purpose beyond life on earth?
1. You are being condescending. I hope you don’t mean to be but you are. “bedtime stories” “no place in the modern world” are phrases intended to shut people up and make them feel inferior. You are starting out by letting your reader know that you think people who believe such things are your intellectual inferior and trying to intimidate them into agreeing with you. I don’t think you would intentionally try to discourage discourse (and it wouldn’t work on me) but a person of faith reading that would tend to do one of two things. They would either get pissed off and become inarticulate and not focus on your points but rather on proving you wrong which they could never do to your satisfaction because you would use logic and they would use faith OR they would shut up and not want to say anything because they don’t want to be ridiculed.
2.I agree that religion is a construct of man created to answer questions. I believe science is the same thing and that science has become a type of religion for people. I don’t think that either of these things means there is not a God.
3.I’m with you in that a theory is the closest thing we have to truth. .. I’ll give you that something may be true even if we don’t understand exactly how it works (gravity is an excellent example as there were a number of scientific theories prior to the one now accepted….gravity exists science just had to figure out how it worked). I even think that eventually humans will be able to understand potentially everything through science (long way off). I don’t think, however, that it is creationism v evolution. I don’t think anyone understands how evolution works (yes we have documentation that it has happened but why did it start? Did science tell you that?) The way I understand creationism is that it tries to explain the how while evolution explains the what. There are scientific theories/hypothesis as to why it happened but none that I’m aware of that are definitive (I’m sure you’ll tell me if I’m wrong).
4.I think it would be fantastic if the tenants/ideal form of just about any religion were the basis of politics/government. Unfortunately, most people bend their religion to suit them and not themselves to suit their religion. I know that it isn’t possible for people and it certainly isn’t what this country is about. Because of that I don’t think religion (any of them) should be a part of politics. As far as I’m concerned our country should be run in accordance to the Constitution. The problem with bringing religion or parties or sex or race or anything into a conversation about politics is that it creates a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’. It is something that creates animosity and ideally should be left out of a logical conversation. That being said I don’t think the government has the right to legislate what people believe and I think if the majority of people want to vote people into office or vote to approve laws then those laws should be obeyed.
You use religion and supernatural belief systems interchangeably and they are not. Religion is a set code created by man to understand God/the other/that which is not us. There is a difference and it is your failure to articulate this difference that upsets me. I think what this country, what this world, needs is more of an understanding of the supernatural. Not less. With true understanding I think differences would fall away and peace would be possible.
@jodapoet - nothing in the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.
Birdie
I am currently in the process of writing a book on entertaining the concept that the Judeo-Christian God is solely an aggressor deity, that followers of that religion are victims of an abusive parent/lover, and the role that relationship has played in American politics.
I believe that energy is matter, and that matter cannot be created or destroyed; that all that there is is all that there was and all that there will ever be. I believe that because of that, we are all a part of everything, and that when we pass, our matter/energy will become part of someone/something that we left behind.
I do not expect any or everyone to agree with my views, but I reserve the right to share them in any manner I deem fit.
It’s not that someone can’t prove me wrong to my satisfaction; it’s that they can’t prove anything, end of story. Again, I am completely willing to admit that I don’t know, and the true condescension lies with those who are without a doubt, 100% convinced that I am wrong for not knowing.
I don’t believe that science is a religion. I believe that science is a practical approach to discovering the truth without having to resort to “Jeebus said so” as an answer.
I think you are confusing the concept of intelligent design with creationism. Both are incorrect, but creationism says that the Judeo-Christian God created everything that we know in six days, 6,000 years ago. That woman was made from the rib of man, and that the devil, in the form of a snake, introduced sin into the world by tempting Eve with an apple.
I am not out of place in interchanging the terms “religion” and “supernatural belief system”. It is not a failure on my part to recognize a distinction, but a lack of inclusion on your part to claim the two are separate things. The existence of any deity is in and of itself a belief in the supernatural. To set a code of ethics based on the belief in a supernatural being inherently and accurately describes a supernatural belief system.
Lastly, your closing statement would be conditional to every human being recognizing the underlying similar morality lessons evident in nearly every belief system. While that would most likely create an ideal situation of universal understanding, we are living in an era where we are still indoctrinated that one religion is right, the others wrong. Until we can move beyond that conceit, our consciousness will remain clouded by theocratic arrogance.
Lemme know when you finish the book, I’d love to read it.
Religion and me is an ongoing thing. I pretty much have accepted the fact that I do not know, and don’t have the capabilities to understand, so therefore I’m open to a lot of theories/facts. Don’t necessarily believe them, but don’t condone people for having faith in something either. Sometimes faith, even if misplaced, is the best support system for someone in an irrational world. Even if it is false, it’s not my place to take that away from them. Kind of like telling your 3 year old that santa doesn’t exist… it may be true, but is it really worth it? Oh the bliss of ignorance lol.
Here’s my whole problem with that:
Instead of using the here and now to better themselves and the world around them, many, many people are resigned to the belief that there is a better life awaiting them in “heaven”, so they are complacent and inactive. Or, to quote the Boondock Saints, “We must all fear evil men…but there is an evil we must fear more, and that is the indifference of good men.”
Santa is a helpful myth. It teaches kids that grownups are liars…
I have come to believe The Enlightenment never made it to the shores of the United States of America. Oh, some of us found it through school and scholarship, but the movement itself was already well underway before we became a nation. The founding fathers were blessed by education in the European tradition. That tradition is vilified today as “elite” and we see “founding fathers” conflated with Puritans and the Mayflower Compact. Historic fact has little meaning. “Supernatural belief systems” are the socio-political constructs of man; and their inherent function within society can be directly traced to political and economic systems-at-work. Questions of power and control lie at the heart of all fundamentalist theologies. That was true thousands of years ago, as it is true today. The concurrent rise of Evangelicalism within the U.S. along with the Neoconservative movement has not gone un-noticed. It is being examined and deconstructed to illuminate who has most benefited from this new political force. Who gains control of whom, and how does that play out in the life of “the-citizen”.
Any reason-abled person can see that evolution does not have to be counter-intuitive with God. The case becomes problematic when one projects their own human-ness, onto their ‘God image’; therefore delimiting the infinite possibilities for what God might actually be. Some of us view this to be blasphemy; e.g. how dare we mere mortals presume to know the mind and heart of God. Furthermore, how dare mere mortals presume the place of God to take action against fellow-man? To answer fundamentalism with fundamentalism is nothing more than barbaric.
I need to apologize for this being so long; but today, I had to “print Rhino” and sit with it a while. Re your book: see the 2002 Baehr-Wells Trans. of Max Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism”…you might find some seriously good stuff.~k
@k- I think I love you
If you finish this book, it would be a great read.
I quoted your comment (to one of my posts) on my blog today, trying to get a few answers for myself. If this is a problem, let me know. I wouldn’t mind a few answers myself.
Intelligent design is a form of creationism. Here is a brief explanation of the different forms. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
The code of ethics you are talking about is religion. Belief without a code would be belief in the supernatural.
I apologize if I made you think you don’t have the right to express your beliefs.
A supernatural belief system is a code of ethics adherent to the ideals that your supernatural being of choice professes. You’re confusing “a belief in the supernatural” with a “supernatural belief system”. I’m not trying to be a dick, I’m just clarifying.
Belief without a code would be a credo.
Point to you. You are right I mean a belief in the supernatural. Also, credo…good word. So do you have a problem with belief in general?
Wait…I said belief in the supernatural. Hmm maybe I’m still confused
I toss around the phrase “I believe” like a Thai hooker at a business convention, so…no, I don’t. It’s when beliefs become absolutes, and the mind closes to other possibilities, no matter how rational, that I begin to become all the more surly.
Do you think my mind is closed or was that a general statement?
I was watching an interview with Jon Stewart and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Stewart asked him why religion is not as big of an issue there as it is in the U.S. Blair said that religion is something that is a private matter for the citizens of the U.K. Wow, what an amazing concept!
Another issue that I thought of while reading eclecticbird’s comments was that I continually get comments from religious people about my lack of religion. I get the “Oh, that’s just too bad” looks from people when I say that I am not religious or comments like “I hope that you find that kind of peace someday.” This pisses me off beyond words because if you are not religious in our society, you are seen as someone who is deficient in some way or not at peace. I am positive that I would be much more at peace without religion being such an ever-present force in my life (and government). The reason that I thought of this was because of eclecticbird’s offense at rhino calling religion ‘bed time’ stories. I am not saying that eclecticbird is someone who thinks or says things like this to non-religious people, but there is definitely a double standard that exists there. Disrespecting the right and relevance to having a lack of belief is just as offensive as saying that religion is a bunch of malarkey.
By the way I just saw Religulous the other day and it was awesome!
Ok, so I have some more to say….
I completely support everyone’s right to believe whatever malarkey they should want to believe. The problem comes from religious people who think that they have the right to force their beliefs into public policies. Yet another problem is the lack of critical thinking (or in fact just lazy thinking) that religion often promotes. I work with a Mormon woman and the other day someone asked her why she can drink a Coke but not tea and she responded with “I don’t really know.” Yet she continues to refuse to drink tea without questioning this contradiction. This is obviously a simple example of how religion can create drones that merely nod their heads to their religious doctrines and unquestioningly commit their lives to them. However, it is still something that I see everyday (especially within the Mormon population, which I am surrounded by).
Alrighty…enough freebirdie writing. I’ll move this over to my blog
Hey, great post on the rec list at the KOS today!
I like this post too. You should check out a site I did for a friend of mine:
http://satanwrotethebible.com
I think you’ll get a kick out of it.
Rhino, I think I love you.
First let me just say before everyone gets confused that there are two of us bluesisters (as the title of our blog implies) and while my sister and I agree on most everything one sticking point is that one of us believes in God (the one writing now)and the other doesn’t (the one that professed her love).
I understand why after reading this very concise blog it is easy for you to equate the Bible to a bedtime story. That comment doesn’t sit well with me because as you mentioned people kill and die for their religion. I have yet to hear of a single life being lost defending the principles of Goodnight Moon. Secondly let me say that I disagree with anyone killing in the name of Christianity. It is a contradiction that I have yet to understand. I do however understand the principle of dying for your faith (I don’t mean sucicide bombing here because that again would be killing). Remembering Danny Pearl, or Rachel Scott both died for admitting their faith (although Danny was not practicing his). I think that it is important to add that I believe in God and not in the people cherry picking (to borrow a favorite term of yours) through his message to further their own agendas. I am unwilling to throw the baby (Christ’s message) out with the bathwater (the state of Chrisitanity today).
I used to work with a girl called Rachel Scott. She wasn’t the sharpest monkey in the barrel. I know it’s not the same one you’re talking about, the name just triggered the memory.
If we addressed Bible stories the same way we addressed Fairy Tales, then no one would have been killed by either, and I’m sure you remember the massacre that took place in Southern France over an argument about the true meaning of “Rumpelstiltskin”. Anyhoo, the underlying message in most religions is the same, but due to whatever reason, people are wrapped in sociological or geographical arrogance over which version of the Fairy Tale they like the best, and which is better.
Rachel Scott was one of the victims from Columbine Highschool.
My ultimate dream is that religion will exit the political/legislative stage.