Maya Bohnhoff
One of the elements of the current public dialogue between theists and anti-theists that I find the most fascinating (when I’m in my Vulcan persona) and frustrating (when I’m in Klingon mode) is the number of times I have had someone reduce my commitment to the principles of my faith to a pathology and suggest that there is a “religious mindset” that is weak, suggestible, lazy, emotional, irrational, and safety-seeking.
It goes without saying, I suppose, that non-believers have none of these questionable attributes. (But that’s a different blog.)
In one such dialogue, my correspondent voiced another idea I have often heard advanced: believers are incapable of changing in fundamental ways.
I was raised in a Christian family, had been taught to question human interpretations of religion, and had ultimately rejected church dogma and even the binary exclusivity it bestowed on Christ for the Bahá’í Faith’s doctrine of human and religious unity. Because of this life trajectory, I knew I had changed in very fundamental ways. I explained as much to my correspondent (if in somewhat more detail).
What ensued was a discussion of the word “fundamental” and all the ways it did not apply to me and the changes in my world view—regardless of how fundamentally different and wrenching they seemed to me. The discussion—which had started with the question of whether there were good elements of faith and religion that we might wish to preserve while peeling away the destructive manmade dogma—became about my psychological profile as a believer. The discussion wasn’t about religion from then on, but about my pathology—what was wrong with me as an individual and what was wrong with “religious people” as a category.
This patently false idea—that all “religious people” have the same particular psychology—has a negative impact on any discourse. It becomes a conversation of unequals. One party plays the psychologist, the other is forced into the role of patient. Every word the religious person says is passed through this “category filter” so, in the end, the believer ceases to be a person, but rather just a religious “type.”
And this is why I think my atheist friend felt the need to define “fundamental” so narrowly that it could not apply to my experience as a religious person. Religious types don’t change their minds in the face of evidence that challenges their deeply held beliefs, and they don’t approach their faith rationally, therefore, we must redefine “fundamental change” (among other terms) so this person’s experience fits neatly into the category.
This is a terrible thing to do to another human being. Even one we perceive as being “less than” we are in some way (less rational, less capable of independent thought, less intelligent, etc.)
Whatever the subject and however strongly held our own beliefs about it, we do no one a service when we attempt to reduce their position to a pathology so we don’t have to grapple with the ideas they raise. Grappling with these ideas honestly and consciously is how we learn and grow as individuals and as a species. These are ideas we should be eager to think deeply about, not simply affix a label to and file away.
Next time: More on the pathology of faith.
16 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Martijn Rep
October 24, 2012 at 12:14 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Important lesson, thank you Maya
Mark H.
October 24, 2012 at 12:57 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The unavoidable crux of atheism is that religion is at heart delusion.
Koinotely
October 24, 2012 at 9:54 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think how we define terms is important, if someone uses the word God as a reference to a man with flesh and bone (as Mormons do), another uses that word to refer to something undefinable yet which defines everything, etc…there is going to be confusion.
In my (sometimes traumatic) Christian upbringing, either you believed in God and his only son Jesus, or you spent eternity in hell…after a while faith became about the absence of knowledge rather than its presence of knowledge and its expression in deeds rather than words.
I think faith is something which cannot always be described, but there are examples of it, and it involves believing in something, but it’s also about challenging one’s beliefs in search of greater confirmations, and most importantly it’s about putting those beliefs into practice, which is the ultimate expression of belief or knowledge.
“The human spirit which distinguishes man from the animal is the rational soul, and these two names—the human spirit and the rational soul—designate one thing. This spirit, which in the terminology of the philosophers is the rational soul, embraces all beings, and as far as human ability permits discovers the realities of things and becomes cognizant of their peculiarities and effects, and of the qualities and properties of beings. But the human spirit, unless assisted by the spirit of faith, does not become acquainted with the divine secrets and the heavenly realities. It is like a mirror which, although clear, polished and brilliant, is still in need of light. Until a ray of the sun reflects upon it, it cannot discover the heavenly secrets.”
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-55.html#pg208
“…every great Cause in this world of existence findeth visible expression through three means: first, intention; second, confirmation; third, action.”
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/CP/cp-24.html
“The station of assurance[3] is greater in degree than that of mere faith.[4] It is the station denoted by “that they should add faith upon faith.”[5] Even though His holiness Abraham was in the highest station of assurance,[6] the divine perfections have no end. The grades of existence are finite but the perfections in each grade of existence are endless. Thus when He [Abraham] sayeth, “that my heart may have assurance”[7] this is the station of the Knowledge of Certainty.[8] This is a certainty that will be achieved with reflection and rational proofs. The Station of the Vision of Certainty[9] is the station of beholding the lights of certainty.[10] The station of the Reality of Certainty[11] is the full realization of that certainty. The similitude and example of this is this: that with reflection and rational proof, certainty about the existence of fire can be achieved, but when one seeth fire itself, that is then the station of the Vision of Certainty. When a human being gets ignited with that same fire or when one senses fully the heat of that fire, that is the station of the Reality of Certainty. Thus when his holiness Abraham, the Friend of God, was eager to attain the infinite perfections of the All Merciful One, He, therefore, sought the increased realization of all Lordly conditions. In particular, He sought the raising of the dead. His purpose in wishing the raising of the dead was the acquisition of eternal life, not this elemental earthly life. His intention was the appearance of all the conditions and grades of existence in His Own blessed Self so that by the breath of the Holy Spirit He might be living eternally even after His evanescence and end.
Upon thee be the Glory of God!”
http://bahaistudies.net/kf/khayyat.html
Stephen Friberg
October 25, 2012 at 1:25 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Maya, I love the blog and it really captures the reality out there on the internet.
There seems to be something interesting going on with the new atheism – it feels almost as if the “true believers” have switched sides.
Before, I would get all these posts suggesting that I really needed to accept Jesus or I wouldn’t be saved. Now, I get all these posts with hate-filled rants against religion and belief.
In many ways, its the same mentality except that the religious people want to save you from hell and the born-again atheists believe you to be from hell. They act – and I think your description is so apt – as if one is pathologically sick for having the audacity to think that that there might be something good about religion. So, I’m guessing that a lot of folks just switched sides.
What’s going on?
One of the things I see over and over again is a mindless belief in science – people endlessly and uncomprehendingly repeating claims to the effect that evolution this proves religion to be false, or cosmology that proves religion to be false, all claims that are complete nonsense!
What strikes me is that so many people making these claims clearly have no grasp of the real science involved. They are simply repeating phrases as a kind of magical incantation – probably they read them somewhere and believe that repeating them shows enlightenment and advanced thought.
Back in the old days we used to call it “holier than thou.” Now it seems “more scientific than thou”. People seem intent on building up their self-esteem by viewing their disbelief in god – through acceptance of “scientific reasoning” as dispensed by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and others – as making them advanced, cutting-edge thinkers. Those who don’t believe as they do are, well, pathological cases!
Absolutely fascinating. I hope it doesn’t become dangerous.
HAL 9000
October 26, 2012 at 10:08 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Stephen,
I noted often, that religious fundamentalism and stridently-expressed atheism share the same underlying reasoning.
Katharine Key
October 30, 2012 at 12:30 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Upon learning that I had become a Baha’i, one of my atheist friends said, “I just can’t believe in something that I don’t understand.” I bit my tongue and did not reply, “Do you understand quantum mechanics?”
Maya Bohnhoff
October 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
LOL. I’ve had that same “what?” moment with a number of correspondents. There’s some idea that science offers us direct knowledge of the most important concepts, when the truth is that—as mathematician William Hatcher expressed it—most of the most important statements and concepts in modern science are highly theoretical and not empirical. Our understanding is based on inference (given two more or less directly observable realities, we can infer a third reality) but it is also second hand.
When someone takes exception to my acceptance of the statements of Baha’u'llah or Buddha or Christ, I often will ask if they have personally proven that neutrinos exist. They invariably say either they can’t but could if they had the special knowledge and tools required or that they trust Alan Guth or Stephen Hawking on the subject—in other words, a SMEE.
I have observed that I do the same thing when it comes to neutrinos, and that I trust that Guth and others have the special knowledge necessary to understand what I cannot. Personally, I’m far more able to ascertain the credentials of Baha’u'llah than I am Alan Guth.
I find that more often than not my point about how we know what we think we know is missed. One woman asked me what I would produce as evidence for the reality of God. I cited the volumes of scripture that have been penned and compiled since we figured out how to make symbolic representations of ideas. That was not evidence, she told me. She wanted to know this stuff directly. She insisted I prove God to her in a paragraph or two. I asked her to prove evolution to me in the same manner (first being careful to say that I accepted evolutionary theory as the mechanics of life). She said she couldn’t and without the least trace of irony, directed me to books by Charles Darwin and others on evolutionary theory.
Koinotely
October 25, 2012 at 3:00 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think what science and religion are both missing is a general theory of reality, and this will require both sides to look for answers beyond what either can provide on their own.
Maya Bohnhoff
October 30, 2012 at 11:21 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The problem with coming up with a general theory of reality is that it all too often ends in dogmatism. My observation is that some of our more harmful dogmatic trends have arisen out of the attempt to extend religious principles into theory of reality.
The Manifestations of God state their own theory of reality, I think. And though we may attempt to articulate it, we err when we try to extrapolate “rules” from it. Too often when we try to cobble theories of reality from principle, we end up with something that conflicts with the original principle. It is this theorizing that can result in the specter of white “Christians” burning black Christian churches.
The principle that clearly lies at the foundation of Christ’s faith is lost in a theory of reality that maintains there are different “kinds” of people to whom those principles do not apply.
Alan James
October 30, 2012 at 4:51 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Playing A & Q:
A: God created the universe.
Q: Why’d He do that?
A: Because He loved it.
Q: What? Do you really expect me to believe that?
A: Well, that’s what the holy books say, ya know. He did it for the sheer love of it. And they say that’s what He created us to do too– to love.
Q: How am I supposed to believe that kind of a theory of reality?
A: You weren’t created to believe some theory. You were created to love. (Believe it or not.
Q: Can you prove it?
A: Rofl. The reason for your being is because your parents made love, not because they made reason. And if we don’t go on making love, we’ll die off, ya know. Poof. Gone– reasons and all. Does that help?
Maya Bohnhoff
October 30, 2012 at 5:11 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Alan, you’re a genius.
And I note that in Hawking and Mlodinov’s latest book on the evolution of the universe, they posit that the Universe came about because of gravity. Of course, Abdu’l-Baha advances the idea that the laws of physics operate on every level of existence so what we call gravity (or magnetic attraction) exists in “higher” levels of existence as cellular cohesion, sexual attraction, “romantic” attraction, and love. So, in essence, these two physicists concur with Abdu’l-Baha—the Universe exists because of love.
But that, I suppose, is the subject of another blog.
Albert E+
October 30, 2012 at 5:16 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I really like this latest blog of yours, Maya. I’m sorry to say, however, that it illustrates perfectly why I always seem to be in “Klingon mode” when it comes to the new atheists’ insistent need to label people of faith as “irrational” or “delusional,” based upon their own life experiences. My own contention is that they carry their own psychological need to express a superiority complex against anyone who disagrees with their atheism, and cannot handle any thoughtful and evidence-based counterarguments put upon them.
To be clear, I personally welcome and respect the right of all theists, atheists, agnostics, etc. to disagree with me when it comes to my personal beliefs in God and the Baha’i Faith, provided they respect the fact that it’s my constitutional right as a free individual to also disagree with them, that I’m not duty-bound to accept their arguments at face-value, and that they have the moral courage to welcome a respectful challenge of their own atheistic belief systems. As you quite rightly point out, the trouble starts when many of the new atheists decide to change the definitions of discourse midstream and systematically throw roadblocks to protect their own worldviews while trying to deny you the capacity to maintain your own, hence the need to create “a conversation of unequals.” For myself, I don’t really care if they ever tried to label me in these terms, distasteful, inappropriate, and inaccurate as it may be to me personally. It’s when they start going after people who may not have their educational, cultural, or economic status (i.e. the vulnerable in this world) that I really take on a “Klingon mode” against their imperative to make themselves feel superior over others.
John McL
October 31, 2012 at 6:37 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Are you reading my mind, Albert E+? You really nailed it, especially your final point. Thanks for stating so articulately what I’m feeling and thinking! Grrrrrrr! (great blog Maya!)
Albert E+
November 1, 2012 at 4:48 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You’re welcome. It’s a real shame that such people are very quick to raise objections to anyone countering their convictions about atheism, but very slow to exercise any sense of humility to ask themselves if they may be wrong in what they believe at any level. To be fair, there are some atheists that I’ve come across who are willing to respectfully listen to my perspective. Unfortunately, the likes of Richard Dawkins and several others like him in the public eye seem unable or unwilling to step outside of themselves and do the same thing.
Alejandro Rodríguez
November 5, 2012 at 4:44 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Antitheism itself is a faith that does provide confort and security. It’s not just that they assert that God doesn’t exist, is that they want God to not exist. After all, argue they, who would like a tribal God that is arbitrary in his punishments, has all the power of the universe and could use it however he wanted to, like send you to hell for an eternity of suffering for very minor things or even destroying your soul? Surely anyone wouldn’t like a God like that to exist.
Maya Bohnhoff
November 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I wouldn’t want that sort of God to exist either, nor do I believe He does. And this is one of my perplexities with anti theism that stems from a disgust with certain forms of religion. New atheist writer Chris Hitchens commented in “God is Not Great” that his atheism is “a Protestant atheism”. In other words, the God he is rejecting is a “Protestant God”. Which completely overlooks the idea that 1) there are other conceptions of God besides the one he is rejecting and 2) even within Protestantism, different believers have different ideas about God.
Which begs the question of why instead of rejecting all conceptions of God, one would not seek a conception that was not arbitrary, cruel, and irrational.
What I find most interesting about Chris Hitchens’ rejection of all conceptions of God based on is childhood experiences with a particularly unpleasant teacher and a divided household (one parent was Jewish and the other Christian, I believe) is that I had similar childhood experiences which had an almost inverse effect. I became determined to find God, rather than determined to lose Him. I note that Hitchens’ brother also reacted differently to the same family dynamic. He is a devout Christian who even wrote a book rebutting his brother’s ideas.
There is a difference, too, I think between atheism (simply not believing God) and anti-theism (stridently insisting that others should not believe either). One point of view is capable of tolerance, the other views tolerance of religious ideas as —well, intolerable.
I agree that anti-theism is, in many ways, a faith and a dogmatic one at that.