I picked up the paper this morning
And read all the daily blues
The world is one big tragedy
I wonder what I can do

About all the pain and injustice
About all of the sorrow
We’re living in a danger zone
The world could end tomorrow

But I’m not gonna let it bother me tonight
I’m not gonna let it bother me tonight
Tomorrow I might go as far as suicide
But I won’t let it bother me tonight

Life on the street is a jungle
A struggle to keep up the pace
I just can’t beat that old dog eat dog
The rats keep winnin’ the rat race

But I’m not gonna let it bother me tonight
I’m not gonna let it bother me tonight
The world is in an uproar and I see no end in sight
But I won’t let it bother me tonight

I’m not gonna let it bother me tonight
Tomorrow I might go as far as suicide
But I won’t let it bother me tonight

Lord, Lord, Lord
We got nothing but trouble
I’ve done all I can do today
So bartender pour me a double, right now

But I’m not gonna let it bother me tonight
I’m not gonna let it bother me tonight
The world is in an uproar and I see no end in sight
But I won’t let it bother me tonight

I’m not gonna let it bother me tonight
No I’m not gonna let it bother me tonight
Tomorrow I might go as far as suicide
But I will not let it bother me tonight

Here’s a small excerpt from what he says.

The belief that there is no objective truth is a contradiction, it would have to be objectively true that there is no objective truth. So there must be some objective truth. 

I think it’s more like a paradox. Although, there might not be much of a difference. Think about the old scenario about going back in time and preventing your mother and father from getting together. You would never have been born. If not, how could you have ever gone back in time? Our understanding of time and space is limited and our thoughts about it are partial and provisional. Thus, our statements about time and space bring us to a threshold where paradoxes and nonsensical scenarios emerge.

Theoretical physicists have since proposed theories about the nature of time that resolves that dilimma. But before they did, the paradox seemed insurmountable. Enough to send your brain into a spinning, whirring overdrive.

I think a similar phenomenon is true in the case of statements that the positivistic poster made in the above example. What we have is a statement that brings us to the edge of the ability of our human language systems to handle at this point in time. Since thought and language are so tightly interweaved it seems like the thought, “it would have to be objectively true that there is no objective truth. Therefore there must be some objective truth” is unavoidable. It’s tempting to say, “Boy, you got us there!”

But deep inside, doesn’t a warning light start flashing red? Doesn’t an internal clarion start sounding? Statements like this seem like sophistry – a verbal slight of hand, so to speak.

Do statements about something make that something actual? Remember the statement from Anselm’s ontological arugument for god about “god” being “that . . . than which nothing greater can be conceived?”

I believe Anselm and a succession of thinkers who follow in his footsteps went on to say that since actual existence is a thought that is greater than a thought about possible or potential existence, then an actual god must exist in order for us to have the greatest thought. That may be a poor restatement of Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of god, but I have recently seen much worse.

This argument and other agruments like it try to prove something exists from thoughts about the possiblility of existence. Actually, it may be more accurate to say that such attempts try to prove that something exists from statements about the nature of ideas we form as we try to form thoughts about the nature of existence.

Statements that we hope are true or think are true about reality are not the reality themselves. It’s a fallacy to confuse language that attempts to describe and analyze reality with the reality itself. It could be that the language itself is inadequate once you get to the “meta” level of dealing with the universe.

So the better response to statements regarding objectve truth or Anselm’s ontological argument might be to say, “what an interesting paradox!” Perhaps our language and our cognitive abilities are limited at this point. Because, just because what you say about reality is a contradiction does not mean that what you say about reality is not true. If there is no objective truth, then there is no objective truth. It may me that the only objective truth is that all truth besides this observation of truth is relative.

I live in enduring hope that my use of language might be considered creative. But I mean this in the sense of the way in which I choose words and put them together. I never ever expect my language to create reality. This is a thing which logical positivists and others seem to think they can do. I think this is their biggest mistake.

“Religion is wrong because it lets those who don’t have all the answers believe that they do. The ancient coping mechanism that created thunder gods to explain the sheer terror of lightning to the Neanderthal is now limiting our scientific and social advancement.”.

This was my response:
I went to my first arts festival today as a “post-Christian.” All around me were people of all types whom I would have judged as weird , rebellious, un-godly or worse at various stages of my Christian faith. I now view these individuals as much like the art I was able to see – each one expresses a truth about the world as they see it. Incomplete, flawed, and sometimes tragic – just like me, but in a different way.

I felt a sense of loss. I wanted to reach out to many of them and find out who they were, what made them tick and take into myself some of the universe as they saw it; much in the same way that I took into myself some of the universe as expressed in the artwork all around me.

I kept wondering to myself ‘How?” How does one approach people who are on the surface radicallly different from me, separated by mere cosmetics and circumstances?

I wish that all those years that I sat under the tutelage of preachers, sunday school teachers and seminary professors that I had been taught how to approach people as valuable glimpses into the world around us rather than as lost “sinners” – “others” who are in need of salvation.

Too much time was spent in EE or CWT telling me how to get people convinced that they are lost when I should have been told that I am lost without “those people.”

Yes, in many ways religion is bad for our social advancement – at least mine. I was inspired and overjoyed to wander through the festival today with the music of the live bands flowing through the air along with the breeze. But I wished I knew how to turn the love I felt for life and humaniity into real connections.

Where were you religion when I need to know how to do that?

Originally posted as a comment by oddbird1963 on ExChristian.Net — encouraging ex-Christians using Disqus.

QUOTE (Robbobrob @ Apr 16 2009, 11:05 AM on ex-christian.net )

Today, do you only read the Bible to make your mind up about God? I ask because that is like reading only a McDonald’s menu to decide what you are going to cook for a meal…..there are so many other choices and ways of looking at things, and limiting your main focus to the Bible IS putting your concept of God into a very restrictive box.

Robbobrob,

I particularly like your McDonald’s analogy.

I don’t know how to encourage fundamentalist Christians to be open to reading other faiths’ writings and other philosophical points of view. But it is clear, when looking in from the outside, that people use the Bible to restrict their viewpoint. They may get “deeper into the word,” so to speak, but that’s like going deeper into a box canyon. You may know more about the canyon, but you are still restricting yourself. Once you get out of the canyon, there is a beautiful landscape to explore.

QUOTE (Robbobrob @ Apr 16 2009, 11:05 AM on ex-christian.net)

I prefer to think of God as the Taoist and other eastern religions have describe such a being, as something above good and evil, love and hate, and any other duality that is found in the physical universe. One of the first things the Taoists say in the Tao Teh Ching is that god is unknowable, and once you name it, you have not found its real name.

I look at this “True god, False God/s” issue from the point of view of the old cartoon where the coyote and the sheep dog clock into work, greeting one another in a cordial and professional matter. Once they clock in they engage in a fierce struggle over possession of the sheep. When the day is done, they go to the time clock and clock out, bidding one another a good evening. Once again their tone is ironically cordial and professional.

I have “clocked out” of the “True god, False God/s” struggle. I say that in the sense of the Taoists or Zen Buddhists in how I situate myself in that struggle. If someone were to ask me “Do you believe in God?” I think at this point I would say, “G’Night Bob.” or something. To the question, “Do you have Jesus as your personal Savior?” I would reply, “Have a good weekend!”

I think now I could actually go to church again and not get angry or offended. I think I could recast the entire “show” as a reminder that their is a greater, unspeakable, unnameable reality behind the struggle of opposites. Were I to attend church, I would know I was seeing one head of a two-headed snake. In response to the insanity of a particular religious denomination, I would be open to the people there to be a loving, compassionate neighbor to them. But I can be open and loving to atheists, Muslims, Hindus . . . as well.

The landscape is beautiful once you crawl out of the canyon of theism. Once you say “G’Night Bob!” to the tension of opposites.

IMHO.

Now, a qualifier to this is that the song is about the loss of love at a point in time where the subject did not expect such a loss.  Because of the unexpected loss of a love relationship, the subject in this great ballad wonders if the time spent with said lover has been wasted time.

Strike the romantic parts and that describes how I feel about my 30+ years in Christianity. 

But there’s a deeper dimension to my sense of loss.  All my life I have struggled with a great emptiness.  It is a void – - a shadowy sense of aloneness and isolation from others in this world. 

It’s not just a tragic, ironic void that exists despite otherwise fulfilling circumstances.  It’s a void in the midst of broken dreams, non-existent relationships and a career so full of false starts and mis-steps that I cannot tell if the darkness is inside me, outside of me or both.

Lately, this “void” has been more like a lesion in my inmost being that has grown wider and wider over the years.   The promises of my former faith did not fill that void.   There’s been nothing to heal the lesion of darkness and despair.  I have grown to dread and despise the superficiality with which I relate to all people and they to me.   All this pain for so many years.  And who knows me?  At this present hour, there is no end in sight. 

I still have not told my family about my loss of faith.  They do not know that I am no longer a Christian. 

Still more disturbing is the fact that I love my wife so much and I love my son deeply.  But they don’t know that this cloud within me is so deep and so dark and so persistent from my earliest days, that even my relationship with them, as loving as it is, cannot take it away.  I don’t know if they would ever understand that, though they would want my void to go away, it is not their responsibility or their ability to heal me.

So here I am, with my head in my hand.  I am at my wits end.  I realized months ago that there is no god in the heavens hearing my prayers and sending wisdom or healing my way. 

When I think of the future, I feel like someone has placed a black plastic trash bag over my head and is wrapping a chord around my neck.  Or maybe a better description is being trapped at the bottom of a deep well at midnight on a dark stormy night with only the wind to receive my cries for relief. There’s just no relief in sight.

I don’t know how to conclude this post except to say that my need to express myself is so great that I just had to write these thoughts down.  There is really nobody in my life I feel safe telling these things to. 

Have my years in that religion been of any benefit to me or anyone else?  Have I developed no resources in my life to combat this loneliness?  Or, has it al just been wasted time?

I’ve labored to pen my explanation and interpretation of this scene. But, alas, words fail me in that they seem extraneous and unnecessary.   So I will allow you the reader to interpret why this scene does demonstrate why atheists and agnostics, despite the claims of the apostle Paul and many Christians since then, do in in fact have a basis for meaning and purpose in their lives.

I think also the scene symbolizes a reason for blogging, journaling and all forms of literary expression on the part of the “nobody” writer. We write and share so that others will know were were here and what our eyes have seen.

Please comment, whether or not you agree or disagree.

On Religion (Thinking in Action) , which I can now cross of my books to read list, was recommended to me by Dr. Keith Putt who now teaches at Samford university.  What follows is a very brief review since I am still taking in all that Dr. Caputo wrote.

    I like Caputo’s  dialogic approach – - not a stuffy systematic theology tome or a dry-as-a-bale-of-hay philosophy book with endless quotes and end notes. 
     It was probably Caputo’s intention, but he begins from the standpoint of belief, asking the question after St. Augustine, “what do I love when I love You, my God?”   A more appropriate question might have been “How do I know that what I love is God?”  But, I suspect he would call me a rascal and continue  on from his original launching point.
   And I’m glad he does continue.  The author  engages in a nicely done exposure of pre-modern theology (which I equate to Conservative and Fundamentalist theology of today) as being too certain of the “answers”  it provides.  Nor does the modernist escape with delusions of a singular Reason behind all truth  intact.  His critique of both eras of theology converge in one point – - they both defy what true religions – religions without religion should be – - the pursuit of love as the follower continues to question “what do I love when I love my God?”

The reading of this book also reminds me how much I love  NetLibrary.com .  I was able to read this book in it’s entirety just because I have a library card and a subscription through our local public library.  I wish I could go to wherever the netlibrary people keep their computers and give each server a big hug!  (Yes, I realize that was a bit over the top.)

2serious

I began the series of posts on the concept of payoff after I began to realize that a serious “turning away” had occurred.    On the one hand, there was me turning away from a long held belief system. On the other hand,  I realized over time that a turning away had occurred from me.

Except for my wife and son and a few of her friends to whom, I guess, I am a “tag along” friend, part of a “package” deal,  there is really no one else in my life.  Nobody calls.  Nobody checks to see what I’m up to or what I’m thinking.   I’m pretty much a loner – - not by choice,  it just ended up that way as a consequence of choices I made in the past  I suppose.

I’ve always considered myself a kind, compassionate, empathetic sort with a sense of humor that is silly and  not always fully appreciated.   From everything that I have read, I should be a friend maker.  But, still, there is  that “turning away” thing – - – like suddenly waking up one day in an empty town with no living person around.  I think of the actor Earl Holiman in that classic Twilight Zone episode – - – “Where is everybody?”

Earl Holiman - "Where is everybody?"

I have begun to wonder.  Do people actually experience me as thoughtful, friendly, or  empathetic?

Another reason, maybe?

OR,

do people REALLY experience me in a different way?

Maybe I am not the person I think I am.  Perhaps the perception others have of me is different and not as positive as I would like it to be.

I admit, I feel like my skills at anticipating  what others are feeling are often inadequate.   I often find myself at a loss for the “right” things to say to people.

I don’t feel like an interesting person.  But I try.   Not only do I often feel at a loss for words ,  I also say the wrong things, never knowing fully whether I annoy people too much or even offend them.  Although I try not to annoy or offend people.

“Wretched man that I am . . .”   I have committed the unpardonable sin of being displeasing to society!  I have become an outcast and a loner.  And these days, nobody likes a loner.

However, because of my awkward, isolated status, I have no social pressure on me to conform.  There is no social payoff in trying to see things that are wrong as things that are right.   Good sense in tow, what have I got to lose?

I certainly received no economic benefit from my faith, except arguably a solid work ethic about “getting there early and staying late.”    Since my parents really never pressured me with religion as a child, I have no neurotic nervousness about disappointing Mama or Daddy or some other imposing Patriarchal or Matriarchal figure.

The only residual effects I feel from time to time are a  few irrational  thought processes left over from the mind game that is Religion.

With no god “out there” really communicating with me and no people  saying to me, “C’mon . . .  just say it’s true.”   I became free to think for myself.  With no more payoff for trying to maintain the delusion of religion, I am free to pursue the things that are true and right.

Of course, at this time, it is still a bit of a sad and lonely journey.   There is a choice to be made in life :  happiness or truth.  The “blue pill” or the “red pill.”  I have taken the red pill.

2serious

The payoff is that web of family, economic, social and mental pressures that keeps the believer bound to a religion or a religious organization despite contradictions, disappointment or outrage.

In this post, I want to touch on a couple of observations on how socioeconomic forces may influence and even intimidate people to remain in their faith.

Social

Being part of a group that the “believer” perceives as meaningful is a powerful motivator.  I suppose it is good, as far as it goes, for a person who solidly believes  in what they are doing to have social needs met through a religious organization.  But sometimes social incentives can tilt the teetering believer back into the fold, even if the reasons for staying the course are not purely doctrinal or theological.

This quote (underlined portion is mine) from Ken Daniels in his account of his journey from Moody Bible translator to agnostic illustrates this phenomenon:

During spring break, however, after I had reached the book of Jeremiah (over half-way through the Bible), I met an attractive young lady at a Bible college I was visiting. We struck up a long-distance relationship, which, looking back now, helped take my mind off my doubts and likely provided a good incentive to dismiss them. Whatever the explanation, I was able to regain what I considered to be a full-fledged, robust biblical faith, at least for a time.

While the common shared interest of pursuing religious and spiritual growth contributes to the payoff of believing in a faith, so also can  attraction to a potential mate be a powerful social factor in drawing a person into a religious organization.  Attraction to another person has nothing to do with issues of truth, but does serve to reinforce a willing suspension of disbelief needed to stop chasing nagging questions that arise about a religion.

Social pressure can be exerted from a negative standpoint as well.   In some cultures, it is illegal to leave the faith.   One’s  life and health can be in danger from reprisals and persecution.  In less deadly circumstances, negative pressure can be unpleasant as well.  For example, in Mormon culture people who leave the fold can experience ostracization, criticism, and loss of access to weddings and other life events (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Mormon#Social ).

Economic

Some evidence out there suggests that people may experience pressure to continue with a religious faith for the prospect of long-term financial gain.

It is not that all the reasons that might contribute to economic gain through church and other religious involvement are inherently bad.   Some of the contributing factors to personal advancement through religious involvement seem to be incidental to the initial and ongoing motivations for identification with a faith.  It is not that there are millions of cynical church-goers out there trolling the pews handing out business cards and promising a 15% discount for presenting a Sunday bulletin at their place of business.

Although such practices do occur, the point is that there is a forward moving economic advantage to agreeing to be involved in a group that mutually supports its participants and provides and conveys an air of morality, honesty and stability upon its members.   How many readers have ever gotten a job interview based upon their association with a fellow church/religious organization member?

The payoff for remaining in a religion just may cause a person to gloss over cognitive dissonance or accept as “good enough” ideas and evidences in favor of their faith.   In the same light, such social and economic prospects can cause a person to dismiss out of hand with little consideration evidences that may be brought to bear on an atheistic or agnostic world view.

The power of payoff is not in and of itself a bad thing.  People join and remain in many types of organizations based on the same web of family, societal, economic and personal forces.   Back to an earlier fish club example, if an enthusiast decides to leave the fish club, few families are divided.  Nobody grabs the children and rushes them indoors if the ex-fish club member walks by on the sidewalk.  The payoff for being a hobbyist is milder in some ways than the payoff for being in a religion.

What makes religion different is that a fish club is not laden with “Truth with a capital ‘T’” issues.  The array of issues covered in religion are of the ultimate variety.   For families, government leaders, bankers and bakers alike, the power to be wielded is more enormous and advantageous.  So, when  practitioners of a faith begin to ask questions like “is this true?”  or “is this just?” the anticipated loss of control over status, tithes and attendance causes the forces of shame and exclusion to be pressed in upon the honest seeker.

What the honest seeker soon finds out is that religion is not about truth.  Despite some of the ultimate answers religions claim to provide its participants, it is about power.  It has always been about power and will ever be so.

2serious

I originally posted the following as a comment by oddbird1963 on ExChristian.Net — encouraging ex-Christians using Disqus.  The comments displayed here have been edited slightly.

In the early 80′s, when I was in college, the “Christianity is a relationship not a religion” cliche was being thrown about a lot.

Religions, like casinos, seek to put you in seats and keep you there!

It has persisted to this day as one of the most recognizable cliches in evangelical Christendom.

The phrase was being used to combat a concept called “legalism” which was the emphasis that certain  churches or youth groups placed on rules and regulations.  The legalistic rules that these groups typically objected to were the ones concerning clothing & hairstyle, worship style, and choices in television and movie entertainment.

The “model” for relationship was , of course, Jesus ( The crowd screams, ‘Yea!!!’) and to some extent the apostle Paul.  The “model” for legalism was the evil, nasty Pharisees (shouts of ‘BOO!’ erupt all over the house).   Another related phrase that was kicked around at the time was “Let go and let God.”

The intent was to stress and experience “freedom in Christ,” where you depend on a personal experience to lead you to do the right thing and not a series of external rules.   However, when your experience of God lead you to do things differently than the understood rules – - OH MY!

Even at the time I got the sense that people were being manipulated by this approach to exchange one set of rules for another.

It’s all about religion.

Religions are a lot like gambling casinos.   They design everything around getting people to come in and  spend as much time as possible in the house.   The more time you spend in the house, the more the house will get out of you.

“Relationship vs. Religion” was a nice try.    But it is  like a casino. You can change the lighting and the carpets and buy new furniture,  but in the end its all the same game.

2serious