The thing about monotheistic religion is that it isn't real. It is a false system. It makes claims that are palpably untrue, even in its most milquetoast, dessicated, anodyne, neoliberal, "progressive" format. The claim that the universe was created by an ineffible anthropic intelligence whose diktat makes morality is false. The idea that this deity impregnated a human woman, and that the son of this union was some sort of transubstantiation of that immaterial being into actual flesh, which was then subject to human sacrifice in order to cleanse, but not rid, the world of violations of this imaginary moral order, is just as ridiculous and phony as any other near-eastern cult, circa the early Roman Empire. The notion of the imperishable human soul is pure bosh. You were nothing before you were born, and you will be nothing after you die. The Old and New Testaments are fiction. At their best, they make lovely poetry. At their average, they make lousy science fiction. The Biblical patriarchs were not actual historical figures. Jesus was not an actual figure. It is all totally, patently, indisuputably false. Fellows, there is no God any more than there is a river spirit inhabiting the Monongahela or a demon misbalancing my current humours and causing this damnable winter cold. People are perfectly free to believe whatever old crap they like, but the persistent insistence that it is somehow unforgiveably impolitic to tell people that there are no ghosts, goblins, or invisible Angry Dads in the Sky is absurd. "Pluralism" in the service of falsehood is vice.
26 comments:
"Pluralism in the service of falsehood is vice?" Hmmmm. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Who knew you and Barry were such stalwart brethren in your doughty defense of the absolute Truth? I'm sure you exist on a much higher moral plane than the rest of us woeful, pluralist, live-and-let-live types. Hint: Self-righteousness doesn't suit you, dude. I like much better the amusing, world-weary IOZ than the scold.
Sweetie, that was world-weary. It isn't the tone that you dislike; it's the sentiment.
I love how in talking about religion, which is supposedly the end-all be-all of important issues -- eternal bliss if you do it right, eternal damnation if not -- his primary complaint with atheism is that it potentially could be politically harmful to Democrats.
So....
1) Potential to sway good people away from religion, which would cause their souls to burn in eternal agony instead of reaching heaven -- not a huge concern
2) Potential to cause less democrats to be elected -- SOUND THE ALARM!!!
That, in itself, says everything that needs to be said about religion. If Jesus really died for your sins, and this life is senseless except as some kind of Heaven-Aptitude-Test -- shouldn't you be in a fucking monastery?
So, Iozy, is that what you really believe?
At least it's an ethos.
"I like my Democratic politicians proud and agressive because I have clear, concrete, reasons to want them do what they can to win."
That pretty much sums up the pwoggie attitude towards everything. "I just wanna wiiiiiiiin!"
Does "pluralism" only apply to those with Beliefs suited to evangelism?
Unless there is no such thing as free will, in which case my concern is moot; all of the invisible sky fairy's most violent and exploitive instructions seem to come by way of the most psychotic, bat-shit insane, power-seeking intermediaries.
Surely it is not wrong to argue against 'taking them at their word.'
I'm surprised at how cathartic this post was to read.
I was right with you until you blasphemed the river spirits.
How illiberal of you, IOZ.
A buddy and I were talking just the other night about starting a faggot anarchist hip-hop collective called The Ill Iberal.
"but the persistent insistence that it is somehow unforgiveably impolitic to tell people that there are no ghosts, goblins, or invisible Angry Dads in the Sky is absurd.
No, It's just something some of us stopped doing when we graduated from college. I mean who gives a shit if Joe Blow thinks or does not think there's an Angry Papa in the sky or ghosts in his attic. It's a dead horse that's been beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten. As my god Homer would say, "Boring!"
You probably stopped smoking pot and doing blow when you graduated, too. Mistakes numbers 2 and 3, bubbaloo.
wrong. but good guess. I referenced the Simpsons for christ sake. How could you think I stopped smoking weed? Now get working on that Gay Hop record you little love bunny.
Dude, I only bother to say this because I've read you a bit, and I know you already know it:
Yes, of course, the whole Christ story is a crock of shit. Yes, it's false from start to finish.
Isn't that enough already?
The story notwithstanding, you know and I know that the fundamental Christian values are pretty good. The Christians are a bunch of harmless squares.
Hooray for them!
If they derive their values from a patent falsehood - what of it?!
As long as there's no chance that the whole edifice of modern government is going to start making hard choices based on some goddam nonexistent sky-god - and right now, I'd have to say there isn't any - do we have to care so much if people do the right thing for the wrong reason?
I like the historical Jesus imagined in Psychology of Prophetism. Seems more believable to me.
The Christians are a bunch of harmless squares.
Hooray for them!
If they derive their values from a patent falsehood - what of it?!
Because the ones you and I would get along with aren't really all that religious when you get down to it. They've allowed secular society and good old materialism to define most of their lives. The ones who do derive their values from Iron Age mythology are the crazy fucks who do damage. Besides, mocking people for being stupid is fun! (Why do I have to remind a bunch of IOZ readers of that?)
I especially like this, erm, sentence in DJW's post: "I'll try and explain why I think the Dawkins approach to atheism in a few upcoming posts (a series, if you will)." Your health, welfare, insecurity will be guaranteed by the Department of Redundancy Department and the Natural Guard.
keifus, there was nothing illiberal in IOZ's post. To quote the late great liberal anarchist Paul Feyerabend, as he tore Ernest Gellner a new asshole, "Nor does one become illiberal when denying truth to a Puritan. Liberalism, as Gellner ought to know, is a doctrine about institutions and not about individual beliefs. It does not regulate individual beliefs, it says that nothing may be excluded from the debate. A liberal is not a mealymouthed wishy-washy nobody who understands nothing and forgives everything, he is a man or a woman with occasionally quite strong and dogmatic beliefs among them the belief that ideas must not be removed by institutional means. Thus, being a liberal, I do not have to admit that Puritans have a chance of finding truth. All I am required to do is to let them have their say and not to stop them by institutional means. But of course I may write pamphlets against them and ridicule them for their strange opinions."
Robert: "The story notwithstanding, you know and I know that the fundamental Christian values are pretty good. The Christians are a bunch of harmless squares." First, you're assuming that "the Christians" are a monolithic, homogeneous group; they aren't.
More important,what are "the fundamental Christian values"? What the historical Jesus (I don't agree that he was totally imaginary -- more of a character in historical fiction like Marion Zimmer Bradley's Arthur) actually taught is impossible to recover, though we can be fairly sure that "Let him who is without sin be first to cast a stone" is not authentic; it was added to the NT by the Church in the 4th or 5th century. "Love your neighbor" is Jewish (Leviticus 19.18, to be exact); the Golden Rule is common to numerous ancient teachers, from Confucius to Hillel and back to JHC. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his mother and his father and his brother and his sister and his own life" (I'm quoting from memory, so I may have some of the targets mixed up) "he cannot be my disciple" is more specifically Christian, as is "There are those are born eunuchs, and those who are made eunuchs by men, and some become eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven." So is "I come to bring not peace, but a sword" and "It is not fitting to take the children's food, and give it to the dogs." And "If anyone in that town will not listen to you, shake the dust off your feet as you leave, as a witness against them. I tell you, it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town."
One tiny quibble, though, IOZ: of course monotheistic religion is real, as is polytheistic religion or any other human institution. It exists in the world, it has effects and consequences.
I think what you meant is that monotheistic religion isn't true. I'm not sure it was originally meant to be, any more than (say) the Magna Carta or the US Constitution are true.
I'm just sayin', darlin'. I've often said that Christianity isn't true, but then I usually feel a qualm because "true" isn't quite le mot juste. I still haven't decided what would be.
Isn't "Christianity" pretty much Paulism, hijacked by the 1st century's equivalent of L. Ron or Joseph Smith? The Gosp[els were pretty much written post-Paul by Paulists. Earlier conceptions of the historical Jesus were squashed.
Not removing ideas by institutional means sounds pretty cool to me. I'd tell you that mine was a reaction to certain actors doing their best to institutionalize untestable beliefs, but after reading that monster comments thread, I was pretty sure being called "illiberal" just meant you weren't one of the cool kids.
brian: No. In fact it looks as if some of the gospel material is written in opposition to Paul. What were the "earlier conceptions of the historical Jesus," and how do you know about them if they were "squashed"?
I liked the OP in this thread. In addition to being bang-on correct, it doesn't suffer from the usual fault I see on this blog of self-aggrandizing word overuse.
howard treesong
But I do like getting presents!
And this year, I got Super Happy Lucky Cat. Good luck here I come.
Oh, and one other li'l quibble, IOZ:
"'Pluralism' in the service is falsehood is vice."
Well, maybe so. But who gets to decide what is false? The whole basis of religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc., is that people have the right to cling to (what others think is) error. That's why Noam Chomsky defended Faurisson's right to research, declare, and publish falsehood: because he didn't want the State to be in the business of deciding what is true and what is false, and punishing the false. (And not only the State, but then, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.) So your closing statement, at least, does appear to be illiberal.
I may disagree with what you say, IOZ, but I'll defend to the death my right to drop cluster bombs and white phosphorus on you until you come around to The Truth.
Post a Comment