Attempting to Argue Responsibly - Holding Atheists and Theists to the Same Standard
I support Bill Jager's defense of his right to believe (or disbelieve) differently and his belief in the need for separation of Church and State. I deplore how people calling themselves Christians engaged in hateful behavior.
However, Mr. Jager weakens his argument for separation by focusing only on the specific abuses he has encountered and by demonizing all religion. I argue that by displaying intolerance and lack of understanding - he duplicates the mistakes of those he criticizes.
The first mistake is a simple exaggeration:
"Unchecked terrorist tactics used by the religious right make it a necessity for maintaining a strong separation of State and Church."
The "terrorist tactics" are illegal and unacceptable and should not require strict separation of Church and State to enforce. I'd agree that letting church/state boundaries blur contributes to the problem - but one can envision a quasi-Christian state with great tolerance for religious differences and intolerance for "terrorist tactics". The problem with exaggeration here is that one can find lots of people who would deplore the tactics that Mr. Jager encountered but still believe that our schools would benefit from some inclusion of religion. They need additional information to be convinced of the "necessity". There are many, many reasons for desiring separation - my favorite is to keep my relationship with God personal. (Putting "In God We Trust" on money seems awfully close to blasphemy to me).
More serious is Mr. Jager's attempt to lump all religious people into a single basket:
"Supernatural god-beliefs are just that - beliefs, a figment of imagination and a superstition. People that are indoctrinated from birth into supernatural god-beliefs know that they are right and that the others have it all wrong."
One hardly knows where to start. First, discard "supernatural" - a God-belief is by definition supernatural, the word is thrown in because supernatural makes it sound less believable. "Figment of imagination" is inconsistent with "indoctrinated from birth". "Indoctrinated from birth" ignores the fact that many religious people reject religion at some point and come back based on life experience. Finally, I have yet to meet an atheist (with the possible exception of Mr. Jager) who does not believe "they are right and the others have it all wrong".
Similarly, most of the rest of my problems with Mr. Jager's analysis have to do with his lumping of all religious people together with the fundamentalists that he has encountered. With some caveats, I have no problem with:
"It is those that are contaminated with the word of God that can not distinguish fantasy from reality, blow up abortion clinics, use airplanes to crash into buildings that kill thousands of innocent people and condemn everyone that do not believe as they do."
But this ignores the evil done by those who do not believe - the contamination is in the infallibility of the self (which can happen to atheists as well). The problem is that humans manage to be evil regardless of their beliefs. Of course it is wrong (and inconsistent) for a Christian to bomb an abortion clinic and take lives. The people I know who have experienced the Holy Spirit or truly studied the New Testament are the least likely people I know to engage in violence of any kind. I have never met a spiritual person (Christian or otherwise) who was capable of violence (except possibly in self-defense). This is logic of the worst kind - branding all because of the actions of the few. People who want to do evil use all kinds of logic to justify it (I'm superior - I can do whatever I want, God told me to do it, etc.).
Then Mr. Jager quotes Donna Gore, comparing religion to mental illness (see "My Conclusions on Religion" at http://www.mindspring.com/~wjager/billrel.html ) . This is just silliness - one has to be both religious and mentally ill to fit the descriptions. I understand that Mr. Jager has encountered people who fit the descriptions - but to label everyone who belongs to a religion in this fashion is gratuitous. A brief look at the "reasons" religion = mental illness:
5) Paranoia, 6) Emotional abuse, 7) Violence: These all address extreme behaviors that happen to religious people and others. My religion encourages none of these behaviors - in fact, it presents a great deal of teaching, reason and exhortation to avoid these behaviors.
4) Inability to distinguish fantasy/reality: "The beliefs
are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical
fact." This is simply absurd to apply to all religion. While
some people believe in an infallible Bible or an infallible pope - many believe
the Bible is a living document, meant to speak to a wide variety of people
across many years. A fable or a parable can teach. Further, my
religious beliefs are not contingent upon any "myths" - it has
everything to do with the truth that I see in the message and how it applies to
my life today. I couldn't care less about virgin birth, # of days in a
tomb, etc. The "myths" provide a convenient way to understand
God's love for us and what kind of lives He wants for us.
Let me be clear - I accept most of the New Testament stories as
"Truth" because the truths within the stories have meaning and worth
for me. The virgin birth says Jesus was special and opens our hearts to
the miraculous - even if logic tells us it could not happen. The details
of whether this happened through sex not involving penetration or through a
miracle (God can create the universe but he can't manipulate a woman's egg?) or
is simply a metaphor - how does this change Christ's message? Similarly, I
don't care whether or not evolution is true. It is possible that God
created the world in a much smaller time frame and left all kinds of evidence to
the contrary to help us hone our scientific skills. It is possible that He
created a universe that evolved into what we now see. Both are equally
miraculous - why do I care about the details? Where does Jesus imply the
details are important?
3) Denial/Inability to Learn: (prayers are not answered). This is a gross misunderstanding of the role of prayer. God knows our prayers before we offer them up. "No" is an acceptable answer. Prayer is a recognition of our relationship with God and opens our eyes to the many times that God does answer our prayers (and the many times we are better off when he denies them! when I think of all the girls I thought were perfect for me... Thank God my prayers were ignored!). Prayer as an attempt to manipulate God is absurd...
1) Hallucinations, 2) Delusions: This is great logic...
You believe in / experience God. God does not exist. You are insane.
Fine. I cannot see or prove love - but I can experience it.
Does a color-blind person think others are delusional? I am sorry if you
have to experience something to believe it exists. There is more to life
than what can be proved and demonstrated. There may be many, many ways to
appreciate that - but to close yourself off to the possibility is to blind
oneself.
Mr. Jager goes on to compare religion to a mind virus. It is not hard to understand how Mr. Jager's experiences with "religious" people would lead him to reject religion. What is less obvious is why exposure to intolerance should lead to intolerance, why exposure to the danger of feeling superior based on belief should lead to self-satisfied comparisons of one's mental health with those who have different experiences and beliefs.
I close by saying that God has made a tremendous difference in my life. Exploring religion helps bring me closer to God. If my church or religion ever asked me to do something inconsistent with the truth that is evident in the New Testament, I would try to find another way to maintain that closeness. Human failing does not mean (nor does it even imply) that God does not exist, does not care about you and does not want a better life for you. It only proves that seeking enlightenment, happiness or peace through humans (including yourself!) is a tough way to go...
email me at doug@hardts.net