…and this is a 
We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: June 12, 2007 11:47 AM, by PZ Myers
When the Buddhas of Bamyan were dynamited, it wasn't an atheist who lit the fuse. These modern atheists that have stirred up so much resentment among the apologists for religion are not destroyers who seek to demolish the past or who want to advance a destructive ideology — they aren't philistines who reject literature and art and music, and they aren't monsters who will exterminate people to achieve their ends. We aren't out to eradicate the world of ideas or obliterate the vestiges of our religious history in art and architecture, although we have been accused of such nefarious plans; such claims are easy to dismiss as the ravings of the delusional.
Stanley Fish doesn't go quite so far in damning these "new atheists," perhaps to avoid the easily ridiculed paranoid martyr-complex of the mob. Instead of being the 'new communists' who are planning to march the orthodox to Siberia, we're merely unlettered, unschooled near-illiterates with no appreciation of the depths of religious thought. We don't understand the nuances, he cries; we dismiss all of the texts and traditions as "naive, simpleminded and ignorant." We just don't understand, period.
Suppose, says Hitchens, you were a religious believer; you would then be persuaded that a benign and all-powerful creator supervises everything, and that “if you obey the rules and commandments that he has lovingly prescribed, you will qualify for an eternity of bliss and repose.”
I know of no religious framework that offers such a complacent picture of the life of faith, a life that is always presented as a minefield of the difficulties, obstacles and temptations that must be negotiated by a limited creature in his or her efforts to become aligned (and allied) with the Infinite. St Paul's lament can stand in for many: “The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, I do…. Who shall deliver me?” (Romans, 7: 19,24). The anguish of this question and the incredibly nuanced and elegant writings of those who have tried to answer it are what the three atheists miss; and it is by missing so much that they are able to produce such a jolly debunking of a way of thinking they do not begin to understand.
Stanley Fish is a blind man.
First of all, that "complacent" faith he claims does not exist is everywhere: turn on your television, Stanley. Watch a football game and see the Christian players credit God with their touchdowns. Watch our politicians piously declare that they are praying for our troops. Watch the televangelists milk their audience with blatant hucksterism; haven't you ever heard of the "prosperity gospel?" Give the good reverend a portion of your social security check, and the wealth will come back to you tenfold. The bulk of religious thought is "naive, simpleminded and ignorant." Turn off your television and walk down to the local converted grocery store that is being used by one of those fast-growing, evangelical/charismatic/pentecostalist churches and ask anyone in attendance, and they will tell you (as long as you don't mention him by name) that Hitchens' characterization is correct. By faith will you be rewarded with paradise.
It's that second accusation, that we "do not begin to understand," that is the more subtle and more dishonest claim here. Rather, it's clear that Fish does not understand.
His article is littered with literary allusions: there's Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, with it's hero fleeing towards a dream of salvation; he uses Milton's Paradise Lost to rationalize the existence of evil with the concept of "free will"; he references the book of Job and Jesus' pain on the cross as evidence that the religious have been grappling with the problems of suffering. And of course they have. We all have.
What Fish ignores is that these are entirely human sufferings, human strivings, human efforts to find meaning. He, like so many other apologists for religion, glosses over the origin of these fears and aspirations in our existence, and tries to justify it all in the terms of his imaginary deity. Why does the church expect us to praise a god? Because it's all we can do "in the face of his omnipotence and omnipresence." Why did god condemn all of his creation and all of their descendants to sin and suffering for the trivial offense of eating a forbidden fruit? Because if it wasn't a trivial infraction, it wouldn't have been a test of obedience to the deity. How can a beneficent god allow the Holocaust to happen, and how can people retain their faith when confronted with overwhelming evil? Because it is all our fault, our own polluting sin and corruption. In every case, Fish elides over the human consequences and the human struggle and instead digs up an etiolated theological excuse, some thin anodyne from the facile world of the priests to build a case for the entirely imaginary workings of an invisible and impotent cosmic mind; an excuse for that loving all-powerful agent to do nothing at all, to keep his postulated power indiscernible.
What we atheists are saying is that we need to turn away from those powerless rationalizations, no matter how poetic they might be, and recognize that their power and their appeal flows from their humanity, not their religiosity. Forget god, that empty hulk, that great vacuum that humanity has stocked with its fears and dreams, and look at what we have created and felt instead. When someone weeps over a dead child or creates a great poem, it should matter not at all what some priest imagines his pantheon is doing. Take your eyes off your hallucination of heaven—what's real are that woman's tears, that child's triumph, that grain of sand, that bird on wing. The meaning is derived from the reality of what we see and feel, not some convoluted vapor and self-serving puffery about an abstract concept like "god".
Fish confuses the rejection of the supernatural pretext with the rejection of the depth of real feeling. He is mistaken. In my case, I read his superficial theological gloss with loathing because I see him substituting the wishful thinking of millennia of shamans and priests for the reality of the human condition—his conciliatory apologies are support for generations of lies. He confuses the efforts of the writers of those texts to grapple with suffering and doubt with the legitimacy of the religious answer; I can respect the beauty of religious literature and the struggle put into it while at the same time realizing that falling back on the will of an imaginary being is an admission of failure. I don't consider the believers to be simple-minded—I think life can be hard, and that the great minds of history have endeavored to articulate some sense of meaning to pain and beauty, because that's what human minds do. But I also think that passing the buck and inventing an ineffable universal will as an ultimate cause is a seductive trap, one that Fish has readily fallen into, where we try to project our mental state onto the universe as a whole. St Paul's anguish was real, but the supernatural entity to which he directed it was not. When an atheist rejects the entity, it does not mean the anguish is denied.
There is some great work in that Bible Fish quotes, some wonderfully lyric writing, and it reflects a few thousand years of people straining to make sense of their world. What diminishes it is not the atheists who reject the answer it gives — that there is an all-powerful magic man behind the universe — but those who accept it, who seek meaning in rote recitations of its words without concern for how the minds of human beings could find some solace in the struggle to explain. Instead of a representation of thought, it's treated as a recipe book for salvation. Perhaps Fish should turn some of his pious tut-tutting against the blind believers who want nothing but an answer, rather than against those few who can still appreciate the question.
That baggage of superstitious, religious thinking is what Dawkins calls the delusion, and what Hitchens says "poisons everything"—not the book itself, not the literary qualities of the writing, not the pain expressed in the book of Job or the love shared in the book of Solomon. None of those writers want the Bible burned or denied to readers. What we want is for people to think of it as a great hodge-podge of human expression which doesn't so much vindicate a nonsensical image of a divine being as it does the complex, earthy, sometimes soaring and sometimes hateful picture of us. But no, we instead get the inanities of chatter about the personal desires of that ludicrous god, the same kind of febrile blitherings that Fish offers as a justification for accusing atheists of not understanding the depths of the deity.
Let me give you an example of the godless view of your holy books. There's one book I turn to when I'm feeling the pain of grief; I first found it when my grandmother died many years ago, and I've read it several times since, usually when I've lost someone I cared about. It isn't really a religious text, although it has gods in it, and a few religious concepts, but fortunately it's free of the mystical baggage with which our culture loads the Bible — it's easier to shake off the superstitious connotations when the god isn't named Jesus and isn't some being that your aunt believes is real, and there's no literary critic somewhere ready to accuse you of lacking an understanding of nuance because you don't believe in an old prophet's conjuring tricks.
The book is the epic poem, Gilgamesh. I very much like the Herbert Mason verse narrative(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which isn't so much a literal translation (the original is a collection of 2500 year old Babylonian tablets) as an attempt to catch the spirit of the story. If you aren't familiar with it, put that Bible down and go read it—it's basically a lament to mortality. It's about a king, Gilgamesh, whose beloved friend Enkidu dies, and leaves him wracked with grief.
Enkidu, whom I love so much,
Who went through everything with me.
He died — like any ordinary man.
I have cried both day and night.
I did not want to put him in a grave.
He will rise, I know, one day.
But then I saw that he was dead.
His face collapsed within
After several days,
Like cobwebs I have touched
With my finger.
There is the touchstone, the common element that atheists and theists share, and that lies at the heart of those works that Fish praises and thinks the godless philistines neglect. We bond in the human experience; it is only the superficial and bigoted critic who thinks some of us miss the point because we do not believe in the divinity of Anu and Marduk … or Jesus or Mohammed.
The rest of the story is a quest, as Gilgamesh tries to find a way to bring his friend back from the dead, or win immortality for himself. There are deities and monsters involved, some interesting mythical figures, trips to the underworld, etc.—all quite thrilling stuff, as long as you are willing to recognize that it's all poetry and allegory and storytelling. What I, as an atheist, find most satisfying, though, is the reality. It's a story of loss, and most importantly, the quest fails—his friend is not returned to him, he realizes that he's going to die someday, too, and there is no glib empty promise that if only you do the right rituals everyone will get together again in a paradisal afterlife. We live, we die, people grieve; that's the hard truth.
In time he recognized this loss
As the end of his journey
And returned to Uruk.Perhaps, he feared,
His people would not share
The sorrow that he knew.He entered the city and asked a blind man
If he had ever heard the name Enkidu,
And the old man shrugged and shook his head,
Then turned away,
As if to say it is impossible
To keep the names of friends
Whom we have lost.Gilgamesh said nothing more
To force his sorrow on another.He looked at the walls,
Awed at the heights
His people had achieved
And for a moment — just a moment —
All that lay behind him
Passed from view.
There's more to the godless view than just the "jolly debunking" and the assumed lack of understanding that Fish imparts to us. We do not escape sorrow, we do not lack for joys, and we try as hard (I think even harder) as the believers to find meaning in our lives. We simply do not accept the short cut of magical thinking that allows the lazy-minded to follow the path of religious escapism.
We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved. No gods, no religion. Us.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
They're going to rebuild the Buddhas of Bamiyan, aren't they?
Posted by: Stanton | June 12, 2007 11:57 AM
Perhaps one of the most lyrical and best things you've written here, PZ. You have my huzzahs!
Posted by: NC Paul | June 12, 2007 11:59 AM
Duke campus sighed a sigh of relief when Stanley Fish left. There was much rejoicing.
Posted by: coturnix | June 12, 2007 12:01 PM
That was beautiful, PZ. Well said.
Posted by: spondee | June 12, 2007 12:01 PM
Pay no mind to Stanley Fish...he's a Miltonian, he can't help having a skewed view of literature, religion AND humanity.
Posted by: mojojojo | June 12, 2007 12:05 PM
Wow, I'm awed PZ. You should have been a professor of literature, at least on weekends. Well written, moving, and sensible. It is pieces like these that remind me, despite all theistic protests, that they are the ones living empty, shallow lives. It is them who simply "just don't understand, period."
Posted by: H. Humbert | June 12, 2007 12:05 PM
that is one of the most powerful, eloquent and meaningful pieces i have read on this question of reason vs faith. you have captured, i believe, the essence of how atheism proceeds naturally from what it is to be human, and of how it can lead not only to a recognition, but to a celebration, of our true nature.
Posted by: john | June 12, 2007 12:08 PM
A recipe only required because of the book itself.
Posted by: Ray S | June 12, 2007 12:08 PM
Beautiful!
I have heard about Gilgamesh many times before, but had never read it. After reading this post I just bought one at amazon.
Thanks!
Posted by: Andre | June 12, 2007 12:10 PM
Excellent, heartfelt, real. Thank you.
I was angered at Stanley Fish's essay too. He ought to know better. I'm sick of people tut-tutting clear-minded rational discussions such as the three atheist books because they think the naive authors miss the spiritual big picture that only religion is able to address. Fish's muddy and at times childish piece did this in such a smarmy way.
And these ivory tower types need to get out more and see how many people on this Earth interact with religious beliefs not as a trove of human intellectuo-mystical wisdom, but as a wraith on their finances, health decisions, civic responsibility, and intellectual development.
Posted by: cm | June 12, 2007 12:17 PM
Don't quite know what to say, PZ.
But "wow" seems to cover it.
I'm sure you've managed to articulate here what many of us were unable to put into words.
It always strikes me as deeply ironic when theists complain that we 'don't understand religion' and this post is the best response I've seen.
If only Fish and his ilk would actually take the time to read what people like yourself have to say and then try to understand..... or is this too much to hope for?
Posted by: Andrew | June 12, 2007 12:18 PM
Religion is really only good for one thing: ridicule.
Great post, PZ. Thanks.
Posted by: waldteufel | June 12, 2007 12:20 PM
wonderful post, thank you
Posted by: matthew | June 12, 2007 12:28 PM
Superb, PZ! This is one to pin on the wall. You cut to the heart of the issue: in the end, it's just people trying to make sense of their world. And a good question unanswered is much better than a trite answer.
Posted by: John Rynne | June 12, 2007 12:30 PM
This post is particularly wise and beautiful writing, Professor Myers. And you've inspired me to read the translation of Gilgamesh you quoted.
Posted by: Richard Clayton | June 12, 2007 12:31 PM
P.Z thank you, that was a fantastic post. It makes me proud to be an atheist
Posted by: Ex Patriot | June 12, 2007 12:42 PM
PZ,
Reading your blog and the responses posted on here, I have great hope that maybe one day we'll wake up from the religious coup that has taken over our nation while responsible people slept.
Posted by: Firemancarl | June 12, 2007 12:49 PM
One of your best, Prof. Myers.
Now, about that book with which you keep tantalizing us. . .
(-:
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 12, 2007 12:51 PM
I agree with the above - great post PZ!
Posted by: Magpie | June 12, 2007 12:52 PM
Amen PZ! RAmen.
Posted by: Jon | June 12, 2007 12:53 PM
Blake Stacey,
No kidding! This is some of the best prose I've read since the passing of Edward Abbey. If I were a publisher, I'd be salivating over material like this.
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 12, 2007 12:54 PM
Thanks, PZ.
Posted by: Shiftlessbum | June 12, 2007 12:55 PM
The way I like to put it is that we're not trying to abolish religion, we're trying to Make Religion History. I always capitalise it, in the hope that someone more industrious than me will make it into a T-shirt.
We are free to savour the poetry in the story of Gilgamesh, or in the Iliad (my personal favourite), because we are no longer subject to the tyrannies of that age. If half of all Americans believed that fire reached humans from Prometheus, and demanded equal time in physics classes, such works would be much harder to appreciate.
Posted by: Jon Eccles | June 12, 2007 12:57 PM
Beautifully said, but there is also something to say for the conciseness of Twain:
(The Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Posted by: Mark Borok | June 12, 2007 12:58 PM
One of the things that helped me move from Christianity to atheism was the Bible. As I read and reread it, it became clearer that this was an utterly HUMAN document. Eventually I could no longer rationalize that it had been inspired by a god, let alone "written" by one.
Thanks PZ, for restating that realization. And for exploding the idea that atheists are somehow lacking emotional and moral depth.
Posted by: wright | June 12, 2007 1:00 PM
It's that second accusation, that we "do not begin to understand," that is the more subtle and more dishonest claim here. Rather, it's clear that Fish does not understand.
Oh he understands alright. He's just trying to think up something out of the blue so he can belittle the atheists he doesn't like. If he wants to lament something maybe he should lament that his god doesn't abolish hell or that Satan doesn't convert to his religion. Lol.
Posted by: 386sx | June 12, 2007 1:00 PM
Sounds like the beginnings of a bible chapter.
Realityist 2.1-4
1. Duke campus sighed a sigh of relief.
2. When Stanly fish left. He hobnobs with the dull and deluded still.
3. There was much rejoicing. Many casks of beer and wine were opened and tears of joy flowed.
4. The false priests and new Pharisees looked up from counting their money and said, "Plenty of Fish in the sea, no big deal".
[OK, so it isn't in the same league with Gilgamesh]
Posted by: raven | June 12, 2007 1:04 PM
Organized religion and multinational corporations are to society and economy as cancer is to flesh.
Even if it is cured, more is right around the corner- flesh is weak.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | June 12, 2007 1:12 PM
Bravo!
And I almost never use exclamation marks.
Posted by: Don | June 12, 2007 1:14 PM
I am compelled to join in the praise: that was beautiful and incisive and true. It always amazes me when people call you "shrill" or accuse you (or us atheists in general) of lacking sensitivity or understanding. This is the sort of writing to which such people should be directed; after reading this, any further such protestations would be evidence of pathologically closed minds. Thank you for this.
Posted by: Opisthokont | June 12, 2007 1:17 PM
O what a wonderful read to start the day! Thank you, PZ, for another essay that should count among your classics. And I hope more of your god-bothering critics read this before they continue to mis-characterize you (and fellow atheists).
Posted by: Madhu | June 12, 2007 1:20 PM
How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable!
Thanks, PZ.
Posted by: Jud | June 12, 2007 1:26 PM
Lovely. When someone weeps over a dead child or creates a great poem, it should matter not at all what some priest imagines his pantheon is doing, on its own, is beautifully quotable.
Me, I'd push Fish's criticism back at him... It is not that unbelievers do not appreciate beauty; it is rather that there is little or no beauty where he claims there is, and, rather, much, much more that is deeply, even profoundly, ugly. I believe much of what drove me from religion in the first place was the very tackiness of so much of it, the very crassness of it, the very tastelessness of it. I could spend cold nights at the telescope gazing deep into the stellar nurseries in M42, long nights poring over Burnham's, ponder an image of a planetary nebula from Hubble, think upon the lives of stars... And if I make the mistake of mentioning any of these things in front of a certain deeply superstitious and religious Moslem I know, she'd be going on about the website she'd just found, in which a whackjob numerologist is excitedly declaring that the number of known planetary nebular was foretold in the Qur'an. At the death of my (deeply skeptical, in the way of his generation, and very independent-minded) grandfather, I would think of Edna St. Vincent Millay's Dirge Without Music... I know. But I do not approve...' as reflection on his life, on what we had lost, what remained... But when I made the mistake of mentioning this meditation in front of a certain relative I will not deign to name, she will take it as invitation to make a deeply crass conversion appeal... her segue: to say to how her dear saviour doesn't 'approve', either...
I find such efforts disgusting, frankly, cheap, and cheapening. Thinking of them, I'm more than sympathetic to Hitchens' comment about religion poisoning everything. Likewise, I find it quite offensive, taking everything that is wonderful and fascinating and intricate and bizarre in the natural world as we discover it, and reflexively ascribing it to the mind of some imaginary invisible friend or other, speaking breathlessly of 'holy mysteries' when the world is more than lovely and fascinating enough without adding such a cheap and obvious gloss to it--like throwing a coat of cheap, thick off-white latex over a freshly bloomed rose.
Posted by: AJ Milne | June 12, 2007 1:32 PM
They really think we don't know. How difficult it is for them to realize we know and reject. I have had encounters with people who think they are more knowledgeable about religion because they can cite more Bible verses from memory than I can. They may be well-versed, but a conversation often reveals them to be exceedingly narrow, as well as profoundly ignorant about anything outside their own particular cult. It's especially fascinating to listen to them explain what I or other non-believers supposedly think. They are also singularly lacking in gratitude when shown to be full of crap.
Posted by: Zeno | June 12, 2007 1:35 PM
Outstanding writing. Some of the best on the subject I have ever read.
One quibble, only because I always find this irritating when I see it. It is popular for both unbelievers and liberal theists to use the word allegory for works like Gilgamesh and Genesis. But to be an allegory, the author must intend that it be allegorical and that his audience see it that way. I just don't buy that. We don't know much about the authorship of the Gilgamesh epic, but we can clearly see that Genesis was written by three or four competing groups of priests. I cannot accept that priests in the second and first centuries BCE had so much greater respect for truth than modern religious types. We can never know exactly what their motives were, but I have to think that they intended and expected these works to be accepted as truth. Maybe the authors believed what they wrote, perhaps they just mad shit up, most likely a little of each., but if it was written to be believed, it is not allegory.
Posted by: tharding | June 12, 2007 1:37 PM
I can do nothing more than add my voice to the chorus here:
Well said.
Posted by: dorid | June 12, 2007 1:38 PM
Write the book already!
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 12, 2007 1:39 PM
Fish is a great Milton scholar and an able propounder of reader-response criticism, but he's making an ass of himself if he thinks that the views of outsiders like Dawkins and Hitchens are less worthy of attention than the endlessly solipsistic views propounded by religion addicts.
That's just dumb.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 12, 2007 1:40 PM
To understand religion you only need to understand behavior modification.
This is not to say that all religious people are practicing behavior modification -- they are however repeating the behavior modification that worked on them.
What "worked" on Stanley Fish were the shared foibles of human existence and humanities eternal struggle with them.
I love how PZ has approached this. He has shown Mr. Fish that indeed even atheists and non-Christians share the pain and struggle of being mortal, flawed humans and are capable of expressing themselves with great emotion, eloquence, and wisdom about the experience.
Posted by: Sonja | June 12, 2007 1:42 PM
PZ great stuff. You hit one of the points I always try to make when a god-botherer asks what I believe in, I always say Us. We are the source of many of our problems, but we are also the only help we are going to get in sovling them.
In the end, we are what makes our existance as a spcieces possible and worthwhile.
Cheers
Posted by: Bill E | June 12, 2007 1:47 PM
PZ gets the Eloquence Award today, but Zeno made me snicker root beer out my nose...
Posted by: Sastra | June 12, 2007 1:47 PM
Addendum to my previous remark:
Maybe I've just been hanging around these parts too long and therefore have an instinctive response to Courtier's Replies, but this reminds me irresistibly of a comparison Mark Liberman once made: "like shooting Fish in a barrel."
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 12, 2007 1:47 PM
Very nicely said. Unless you're reserving them for publication (which would be welcome news too), I strongly recommend that you permanently link this article as well as your post "Christianity's Sins Against Science".
Posted by: Spaulding | June 12, 2007 1:57 PM
I've read your posts PZ, sometimes informed and awed, sometimes feeling you've degenerated into snark and condescention. This is perhaps your most heartfelt post I've seen from you in ages - a human work (dare I say humanistic?) with real passion and connection. Really, you could make a book out of this.
There is the touchstone, the common element that atheists and theists share, and that lies at the heart of those works that Fish praises and thinks the godless philistines neglect. We bond in the human experience;
Which is what it comes down to. Before our theologies and theories and all that - we're people. That's where we start, like it or not. That's what we all have in common. That's not the end - that's the beginning. Us.
And, aside from much stupidity and brutality, we humans have done some pretty damn amazing things. It is awesome, it is entrhalling.
Posted by: DragonScholar | June 12, 2007 2:01 PM
Fish: It's the poetry, stupid.
Dawkins and Hitchens: It's the stupidity, stupid.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 12, 2007 2:02 PM
Heh. This is hilarious. I will match my knowledge of world religions (discussed with me by practicing members of faith) against that of little suburban-minded, "I never associate with anyone unlike myself but I embrace all faiths because they're all just different flavors of Christianity, right?" Stanley Fish, any time, any day.
No googling.
What do Muslims mean when they refer to the "people of the book", Fish? (Hint: the "book" does not refer to the Bible.)
Do Muslims believe that Jesus will come back, Stanley Fish? Think hard, now.
Which Hindu god stole the butter?
A certain sect of followers of Kali contributed a common word to our vocabulary. What was that?
Do Jews emphasize the afterlife? What do they think should be done with an abandoned synagogue when a Heritage Preservation Commission wants to refurbish it? (Actual situation for me.)
What do Tibetan Buddhists think about the destruction of the statues of Bamyan?
What does a Somali man (I know some Somali) never say to any woman, ever, and why?
No googling. :-)
Posted by: Kristine | June 12, 2007 2:04 PM
What you're saying definitely rings true for me. I feel I can honestly say that I'd disagree with Beethoven's views on religion, and yet I'm not sure there are many higher musical achievements than his Ninth Symphony.
I can disagree with the message while appreciating the artistry.
But you said it better than I did...
Posted by: MikeM | June 12, 2007 2:09 PM
PZ,
Although I hope you live for many years to come you may well never write something so moving.
When has one of those "Neville Chamberlain" atheist written anything so good ? And they accuse you of being intolerant and lacking compassion! Fuck 'em!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 12, 2007 2:14 PM
One thing that has always struck me is the level of ignorance that Believers have in their own religious texts. This is particularly true for christians, even those who carry a bible around with them.
For over 20 years I have done Tavistock Group Relations conferences (A.K. Rice, GREX & others). These are workshops where people learn what actually happens when a group of people sit in a room together by actually sitting in a room together with other people. Trust me, it is much more educational & fascinating than it might sound.
Many of the sponsoring organizations and participants in these conferences are religious in nature. It is a lot of fun to tell people that you spent a week living in a convent in Chicago with the Cennicle Sisters. When you are sitting (in the library of Dominican College) in a circle being "killed" by other participants for your ideas and beliefs and you look up and see the seal of the Dominican order (a circle surrounding three dogs, the Hounds of the Inquisition), it is an enlightening experience.
What I have found is that the priests & ministers I meet & work with typically have very little idea of what is in the bible. They seem to select a few passages as meaningful and then ignore the rest. Those bible thumpers typically have bibles that have spines broken only on a few tracts (often Revelations, Leviticus, Daniel & John), and it is a lot of fun to counter their ideas with a superior knowledge of their source text.
Knowledge of other religious texts & folklore, such as Gilgamesh & Homer or Egyptian, Indian, Mesopotamian, Islamic, African, "Pagan" European/Asian & Chinese, also is quite handy in countering their belief in the "singular nature" of their religion/Sect/Cult.
Those of you who believe that, "Religion is really only good for one thing: ridicule", are as blind as the Believers. Even wrong ideas can have benefits. Even correct ideas can be destructive.
Posted by: Jaycubed | June 12, 2007 2:18 PM
MikeM,
On a similar note Douglas Adams wrote that Bach often moved him to tears, yet you will find no one who was more adamant about not believing in god(s) that Douglas.
Composers such as Bach and Beethoven, although on the face of it they compose religious music, in fact did something far more powerful: they composed music that spoke directly to what it is to be human.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 12, 2007 2:21 PM
PZ, that was amazing, and it touches on something that's been bothering me.
I've seen that response quite a bit lately: that Dawkins et al don't appreciate "nuanced" faith, the kind that you find from scholars.
It seems like nothing more than a chance for them to show off how well read they are of arcana and to see how many names they can drop. I just roll my eyes when I read that and think, "Right, because Joe Blow down the street has read those same documents." Do they not realize that their faith is the one that's radically different from the way it's practiced by most people?
Posted by: Bachalon | June 12, 2007 2:22 PM
Kristine...
GIVE!! PLEASE???
If I can't google - I'd need to recover my college bookshelf of comparitive religion books (as a 'practicing athiest' it was quite a hoot)... and they're "scattered to the four winds" to use a literary allusion!
If I can't google I'll be suffering pain and angst all day (and I wouldn't cheat -- that's not how humanists operate!)
Please-- spare us the suffering!
?
Posted by: tony | June 12, 2007 2:23 PM
Great Post PZ! You are dead-on on this one. Thanks!
Posted by: Paul Merda | June 12, 2007 2:24 PM
Since I was an early teen and experienced the epiphanies of wonder at the infinite complexities of the universe, from quarks to quasars, I have always felt that the practical among us, whether scientists or craftsmen or those in between have a deeper and more complex appreciation of the realities of life than the priests or the self-proclaimed spiritual leaders who surround themselves and muffle their minds with their fatuous fluffy dreams.
Well, that was run-on, but your piece was stimulating PZ, thank you.
Posted by: Hairhead | June 12, 2007 2:26 PM
PZ, this is just proof that you need to deliver on that book you promised. I will certainly buy it.
Kristine: you had better post the answers before to long!
Posted by: Robert | June 12, 2007 2:28 PM
Your Stanley Fish smack down sounds a bit like my Chris Hedges snarker.
But of Hedges I say: "with enemies like Chris Hedges you don't need friends."
Here's PZ on Fish:
Here's me on Hedges:
Posted by: Norman Doering | June 12, 2007 2:28 PM
Even correct ideas can be destructive.
I fail to see what is destructive about understanding that there is no god.
If one understands this, what is one to do: shut up? Leave the religious kooks alone? Let them introduce religion into government and science classrooms or spread their ignorance until more than half the country cannot accept the facts of evolution?
Come on!
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 12, 2007 2:32 PM
Curiously, I recently posted http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-will-rescue-me-from-this-body-of.html on how Christians deliberately misquote Paul in Romans 7:24, and here we have another example :-
'The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, I do.... Who shall deliver me?"'
Paul wrote 'Who shall deliver me from this body of death?'
Paul wanted to be rescued from his body. Fish drops the last part of the quote.
Because Christians teach that Paul claimed the body would be saved and resurrected, they simply truncate what Paul said.
No wonder creationists quote-mine, out of context, and dropping important phrases.
Theologians do that to the Bible, so why should creationists treat other writers differently?
They simply replicate the standards they are used to seeing in religious debate.
Posted by: Steven Carr | June 12, 2007 2:34 PM
Awesome. One of the best things I've read in a long time...
Posted by: Josh Schraiber | June 12, 2007 2:34 PM
Put this one beside "The proper reverence due those who have gone before" http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_proper_reverence_due_those_who_have_gone_before/
& I consider that high praise.
Posted by: Jim Baerg | June 12, 2007 2:35 PM
Curiously, I recently posted http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-will-rescue-me-from-this-body-of.html on how Christians deliberately misquote Paul in Romans 7:24, and here we have another example :-
'The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, I do.... Who shall deliver me?"'
Paul wrote 'Who shall deliver me from this body of death?'
Paul wanted to be rescued from his body. Fish drops the last part of the quote.
Because Christians teach that Paul claimed the body would be saved and resurrected, they simply truncate what Paul said.
No wonder creationists quote-mine, out of context, and dropping important phrases.
Theologians do that to the Bible, so why should creationists treat other writers differently?
They simply replicate the standards they are used to seeing in religious debate.
Posted by: Steven Carr | June 12, 2007 2:35 PM
God you atheists think you are all so smart, but you are at the level of teenagers. I'm going to start calling you sheePZ!!! Get it, haha. Try the veal, tip your waitress.
Posted by: Raging Braytard | June 12, 2007 2:38 PM
Some once said PZ was not a good communicator. The person was one of those "Neville Chamberlain Atheists" PZ and others have written about. I remember that I had a bit of a spat with the person, on the grounds I thought they were totally misunderstanding what PZ was saying. I am sure some the regulars here can remind me who it was, because I would really love to go back to that person and invite them to read this. (If I recall it was in the comments in a blog by the Horse's Arse, sorry, Ed Brayton.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 12, 2007 2:43 PM
"The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, I do.... Who shall deliver me?" (Romans, 7: 19,24).
The essence of this passage seems to be: "hmm, life is hard, i make mistakes...i guess i'm a big failure...but if I choose to put faith in something for which I have no evidence, that will make it all ok."
So how does this help?
Posted by: Ron Richardsono | June 12, 2007 2:44 PM
I liked this Fish line:
And they toss little bouquets to one another along the way.
The entire Bible is one giant bouquet toss, for crying out loud. They're quoting each other continually, or plagiarizing each other's thought, and generally failing to come up with original ideas about anything!
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 12, 2007 2:51 PM
Figures somebody who made his name with a blatantly tendentious and unsupportable misreading of Milton would not grasp the point that one can perfectly well appreciate religious poetry (I love Dante myself) while wishing that the beliefs behind it no longer persisted (as beliefs, not as cultural history, obviously) in today's world. Misunderstanding is what Fish does, he's made a career of it.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | June 12, 2007 2:51 PM
As perfectly said as any explanation of the atheist position.
Posted by: Ian Menzies | June 12, 2007 2:54 PM
Jaycubed said "Even correct ideas can be destructive".
I think what you mean is inappropriate responses to bad ideas can be destructive. If we take what you say at face value you must think that it is sometimes better to embrace bad ideas rather than the truth.
Sometimes, in the everyday details of life, not being entirely honest can be a good thing. Telling your wife she is fat is NOT a good idea if (1) you wish to remain married and (2) remain in possession of your testicles. This not about about everyday details though, it is far for fundamental than that.
If PZ came across a person breathing their last in the street he would not tell them there was no afterlife. To do so would be cruel, and PZ in not cruel. But again we are not dealing with such a situation, we are having a discussion about what it is be human, and what humans can ligitimetly think is true. And in this case PZ is right.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 12, 2007 2:55 PM
It's especially irritating to be told by God-botherer's that I must not understand religion when I have been raised religious. I went to a Christian school, evangelical summer camps, and Catholic Sunday School. I went through the entire painful process of deconverting myself with all the benefits of a religious education. I think I have a pretty good idea of what religion is.
And I have read religious writing. I have no doubts that a lot of those medieval guys could think the pants off of me. Unfortunately, I can also see that for all their brilliance, they are shackled by a completely idiotic slavish obedience to Catholicism. It is because I respect their intelligence that it is such a painful experience to read them -- like watching a thoroughbred spend its entire life in a stall.
PZ - Thanks for separating humanity from religion. Just because we don't believe in God, doesn't mean we don't have a metaphorical soul -- a point I think Dawkins makes right at the outset of the God Delusion.
Oh, yeah, and thank goodness for clay tablets. I can imagine at a few thousand BC people were saying, "What? Are you still reading that Gilgamesh stuff? That's for old people. Check out the NEW shiznet -- stories of people who becomes gods and live FOREVER." Gilgamesh might have been the first victim of middle-of-the-road consumerism.
Posted by: inkadu | June 12, 2007 3:00 PM
Fish seems like one of those people that if you don't laugh at a bad joke insists it's because you didn't get it. And then can't possibly accept that maybe the joke just wasn't funny.
Posted by: Brian W. | June 12, 2007 3:02 PM
Oh. Wow. Excellent post! It read like a coherent version of various thoughts I have had during (and often after) discussions about religion with friends and family. Your essay is spot-on. Thanks for the great writing!
Umm, I also am refraining from google-ing, and also hoping that Kristine will put us out of our curiosity misery. Especially about the hindu god that stole the butter! :)
Posted by: ctenotrish, FCD | June 12, 2007 3:05 PM
Wonderfully well written!
Posted by: Ric | June 12, 2007 3:05 PM
This moved me to order Gilgamesh. Thanks for the words PZ.
Posted by: JLM ++ | June 12, 2007 3:10 PM
Bravo, PZ, bravo.
This one's a keeper.
Posted by: The Uppity Atheist | June 12, 2007 3:24 PM
Fish seems to be completely oblivious of the fact that many "radical atheists" either was raised Christian or held such beliefs at some point in their lives - Dawkins, Dennett and PZ included. Many of us have went through the deconversion process (and all it's shades - "sophisticated, nuanced academic faith" included) and have thought more about religion than the current religionists themselves. I still consider myself a comparative religions buff (especially obscure mythologies), and would join the wi... er, Kristine's challenge to Fish any given day.
Posted by: forsen | June 12, 2007 3:25 PM
thanks PZ,, that piece made me very happy,,, you completely nailed it :)
Posted by: jeepinci | June 12, 2007 3:29 PM
Erudite, evocative, eloquent - and more deeply spiritual (in the ineffable sense of the word) than an entire lifetime of fundamentalist detritus.
Posted by: Carl Flygare | June 12, 2007 3:29 PM
(Long-time lurker, first-time (I think) commenter):
Lovely post, PZ. I have that translatio