Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
A question for True Believers (tm)
I'm going to focus on Christianity here for a minute. The answer to why American atheists tend to focus on Christianity should be clear. Most of us were raise with a Christian background and it's in our faces every day.
This post has to do with how things played out after the "flood". This post isn't about the silliness (or evilness) of the flood itself rather on how things played out sociologically after the flood. The Bible makes it clear why there are so many languages in the world with the story of the Tower of Babel. God gets ticked because humans are trying to see heaven with their technological wonder so he afflicts them with language differences(another silly story in my opinion). As a side note, if the big G was so angry about the tower why the hell wouldn't God have nixed the space program where we actually reached the "heavens"?
Back to the real point of this post though. It's a sociological fact that most folks take up their parents religion. The great majority just follow along with what their parents believe(d). After the flood, the world was then populated by Noah's family. While the Bible explains the many languages, I don't recall in my reading any account that explains the abundance of religions that came after Noah's time. Even given that not all of Noah and his family's offspring would necessarily follow exactly what Noah knew to be true (because of his personal relationship with the Sky Daddy)it doesn't really explain how so many disparate religions came in to being after the flood.
Another point to consider is that there are still, in modern times, many isolated enclaves of humanity. You'd think we would find a few groups that still followed the god that Noah knew personally.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
"It's a sociological fact
"It's a sociological fact that most folks take up their parents religion."
Exactly. The religious beliefs of people tend to correlate with geography and family history. This is one of the big gacking points I have with those revelation-based religions that claim universality with regard to potential membership. It's one thing to think you're part of a chosen people -- That would explain why God would talk to you and not others. But if your religion calls for recruiting new members, the lack of universal revelation seems a bit odd.
Inherit the wind
There's a line in the play Inherent the Wind which has stuck with me since I first saw the movie back in high school. The Clarence Darrow character is cross-examining the William Jennings Bryan character about the bible, and he comes across the passage where "Cain knew his wife." Darrow-character asks, "where did she come from? Somebody pull off another creation in the neighboring county?" Bryan-character just says he believes what god tells him.
Aside from the amusement of thinking of creations occurring in neighboring counties with competing deities, I've seen this passage as a clear illustration of the discrepancies in religious stories and the tendency of the true believers to blithely dismiss them, opting for belief rather than consistent logic. Or as my father used to say, "Why spoil a good story for the sake of a few facts?"
Frank Moorman, skeptic
You're using the wrong religion
The answer is very simple. You're coming at it from the perspective of the wrong religion. Christianity has no explanation, because the Flood story is part of the OLD Testament - the Jewish story. Christianity came along later, just as other religions came along later. So looking at the start of Christianity itself will tell you why there came to be so many religions. People disagreed with the Old Way, started a New Way, and there it is. Another religion.
Happens all the time. People have disagreements and splinter off. Maybe it's just into a new building, maybe it's a whole new religion (the Protestant Reformation comes to mind, or the founding of the Church of England), or a sect or whatever they want to be called. All you need is a disagreement, and from that comes the seeds of a new belief system.
Something that might help you understand it is a joke that a friend sent, which he claims explains Jewish behavior. A man is shipwrecked on what he thinks is a deserted island. But after a few hours of wandering around, he smells food cooking! He moves closer and sees a bearded white man who has clearly been there for a while, sitting in front of a small hut, cooking food.
Joyfully, the man calls out and the bearded man waves him over. The bearded man explains that he and a friend were shipwrecked a few years before and have made their lives on the island waiting for help. Over time it became clear that they were the only people on the island, so they decided to set up homes and live as well as they could until they were rescued.
"Is that your friend's house?" the new man points at a second building in the clearing.
"No!" responds the bearded man. "That is my synagogue. After lunch, we will go to visit my friend."
So they ate lunch and then the bearded man led the new one through the jungle in the middle of the island. As they walked, they passed another hut, but the bearded man did not give it a glance and they walked past quickly.
Soon they reached another clearing which also had in it a bearded man and two huts. When introductions were made, this man pointed out his home and his synagogue. The new man admired both, just as he had admired his lunch host's two buildings.
"But who lives in the hut in the middle of the island?" the new man asked.
Silence from the other two. They exchanged looks. The new man looked from one to another in confusion.
Finally, his host told him in a low voice: "That's the synagogue neither of us will go to."
Wouldn't those be the Jews? Or am I missing part of your question?
Fracture
Something I've said in the past, along these same lines:
Religious people stay religious only by never critically examining their own beliefs. But they can critically examine the OTHER guy's beliefs just fine. A single religion splintering into two is probably completely inevitable.
If you listen to the language used by people who belong to old established churches, it's almost completely metaphor, nothing solid at all. I imagine church-goers evolve this metaphor-speak over generations as a way to maintain some sort of cohesion; they learn to talk like this both so they never have anything solid to disagree about, but also so the religion can become immune to reason and critique. In a culture of growing reason and science, churches that don't evolve metaphor-speak die off.
But religions still just naturally splinter, because there are always real things to disagree about. Not even metaphor-speak can cordon you off from the real world.
We've witnessed a splintering here in the U.S. just in the past few years. The question of allowing clergy to be openly gay split the Episcopalian church. The split is small now, this single issue, but given sufficient time with two separate groups, the religion will evolve along different lines to become a great deal more different. It's like a speciation event in biology.
So: Religions fragment.
Just the opposite happens in science. Sciences converge. Turns out biology is chemistry, for instance, but also physics. Astronomy made its first big leap only after optics came into it. Geologists got kick-started into a new era when paleontologists got involved, and vice versa. Paleontologists and biologists compare notes constantly, and so on.
Given that all of us have experience with those small fantasies called lies, we know that a single lie invites the creation of new lies. You tell one lie, you often have to tell more lies to keep from getting found out.
Ditto for the larger fantasies called religions. Religions tainted by reason either die or evolve into progressively more reason-averse forms, until you get something like Islam or fundamentalist Christianity. If you simply must have it in your head, you protect it from being dissolved away by reality in the only way you can -- by working constantly to create new supporting fantasies:
God lives in Heaven. Where's Heaven? Heaven's in the sky. But how come astronomers never see it? It's so far away that they can't. Or maybe it's invisible to mortal eyes. Or it's not really in the sky, that's just a metaphor for where it really is. But how do you know it's there, then? People have heard God's voice telling them so. What does God's voice sound like? It's like nothing you've ever heard. But there's a lot of stuff I've never heard; how will I know it's God's voice? You'll feel it. How does it feel? It feels more wonderful than anything we can know. But how do you know that? We know it because the voice of God tells us so. And on and on, infinitely tinkering up fantastic new answers to every question.
Science questions and critical collaboration on finding the answers are the seeds of new knowledge.
Religious questions are the seeds of new fantasies, new religions.
Fracture?
While I agree that fracture is the cause of the various flavors of Christianity, it does not explain the "other" religions.
For example, Native American and Mayan beliefs. Since the lands known as North America, South America, Australia, Japan, etc. were not known to the writers of the bible, they have nothing to say about them.
Nor could the word of the Middle Eastern religions make it to those people for what, 1500 years?
This is one of the great problems with Christianity -- it tends to be mutually exclusive. You can't believe that your religion is the one true religion and also believe in the teachings of another. Your bible tells you that there was a great flood and Noah saved a bunch of animals on a big ship. But the Indians of the plains states in the US and the Mayans never recorded such an event.
Because if (and I stress the if) it happened, it was local to the people of the Middle East. While it may (and I stress the may) have been a complete flood of their world, their world-view was severely limited.
It's Human History...
I won't pretend to speak for all Christians, or even for all that many, but here goes...
First, I would say that not all Christians subscribe to a rigorous literality in reading the Bible, and I am one of that group. I have come to a loosly-held conclusion that the early stories are true, but somewhat like the sense that Aesop's Fables are true. But I hold the Bible in higher authority because it speaks to me in a more human language - while there are incredibly hard to believe miraculous events, there are also very simple, down-to-earth sections that other religious writings lack.
Was there a literal Tower of Babel? And did God stop the work by miraculously making everyone speak in tongues all at once? I doubt it. But I also hold that there is a human story being illustrated that does carry a seed of truth.
As for the origins of the myriad of religious traditions and beliefs... That one is easy. No form of human communication is fail-safe. Words are misunderstood, messages get garbled, cut off, scrambled. Hearers (and readers) may be only listening with half-an-ear. Sometimes people simply don't like the tradition being handed down, don't see any value in it or may be basically rebellious. Sometimes they like the sound of something new and exciting over the old tried-and-true. The history of mankind is full of this, whether Christian, Hindu, Islamic or animistic. And it's not just religious traditions that get this treatment, it's also tribal customs, farm practices, business operations and political persuasions that get it.
This by itself does not necessarily mean that just because people have screwed up "the message" then there isn't a real message buried somewhere in there. I believe there is a "Truth" that has been subject to human mis-transmission, but also that there are many more falsehoods that seem to be true. They contain varying degrees of truth and error, but I also believe in the
"Law of Cosmic Irreversability":
If you add one spoonful of champagne to a barrel of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage.
If you add one spoonful of sewage to a barrel of champagne, you have a barrel of sewage.
Why the Bible?
richg,
You wrote, "I have come to a loosly-held conclusion that the early stories are true, but somewhat like the sense that Aesop's Fables are true. But I hold the Bible in higher authority because it speaks to me in a more human language"
Well, how could it speak to you in more human terms? Weren't Aesop's fables written by a human? How about Confucius, Homer, Gilgamesh, Emerson? All written by humans, all expressing human desires, hopes, fears and experiences. Why do you pick that one and call it "more human?"
It's in the tidbits...
Most all the ancient writings I have read (Socrates, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Aesop, Epictitus, Virgil...) seem to go straight to the morals of what they are illustrating. There are no little 'asides' that inject seemingly unimportant details or any side ventures that go counter-character to the main character of the stories. If you take, for example, the stories of David and compare then with Aeneas, the former has both marvelous successes and serious failures, while the latter reads more like a clear trajectory to Rome with his side trips (Carthage, Sicily) sent by the gods, not by his own good and bad choices.
Even the Germanic folk tales collected by the Grimm Brothers are relatively free of the starts, stops, failures, backup and start agains that I see in the Bible stories.
Even the passages that were given as laws have more flexibility and mercy than most people see. Take for example, the "Eye for an eye" - When read in context, it was not put there simply as a penalty, but as a reminder to put as much value on the other person as on yourself. Sure it was a harsh reminder, but if you protected the other person's eyes (fingers, money, etc.) as you would your own, you wouldn't be cowering in fear of the penalty.
These are the little 'human' touches that are missing from what I have read in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and other religious writings.
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
Speaking in Tongues
Speaking of multiple interpretations of the bible, "Speaking in Tongues" is another such instance.
There are those for whom Speaking in Tongues means that they are filled with the holy spirit and they start spouting gibberish. I saw that happen in once in the evangelical church that I was brought up in, I thought it was really bizarre.
I lump that in with the snake handlers. They're both pretty empty "look how holy I am" behaviors.
Pride and Superiority.
Yeah, I guess I'm not totally free of feeling superior because I talk funny when I pray.
But the Christians have no corner on superiority. I see just as much here as there.
"I believe in preaching to the converted; for I have generally found that the converted do not understand their own religion." -G.K. Chesterton
No, what you're mistaking
No, what you're mistaking for superiority is people being fed up with stupidity and intellectual laziness.
It's easy to see it in others
I don't think I am mistaking it any more than y'all are doing to the Christians.
"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." -G.K. Chesterton
Whoo!
Truer words wuz never spoke! Very well said.
I grew up in the Deep South, and I'm well familiar with the concept of "uppity" people of various races. In a situation in which one group has treated the other like shit for generations, the moment the downtrodden ones start to ask for the same rights and privileges as the dominators, the topside guys instantly think the downside guys are acting arrogant.
Asking for -- or even demanding -- equality is not arrogance. Not superiority.
It's fair play, and it only seems so scary because you aren't familiar with it. And what does that say about you?
That same topside-downside game is playing out right now in the U.S. Christians are very big on feeling endangered right now, despite the fact that they make up something like 80% of the population, a huge majority over unbelievers, plus something like 99.999 percent of all government officials.
They whine that unbelievers somehow want to, or have the power to, unmake them and their beliefs.
If you're so ossified that allowing a few outsiders equal rights can crack your whole system, I think that probably means you're too fragile to survive anyway.
But meanwhile, if you still have a huge majority, I also wouldn't worry too much. Allow other people equal rights, and Christians might be surprised how well it turns out. They themselves might even feel good about it.
C'Mon Hank!
You actually said that that's what you wanted to do a couple of months ago.
Agreed! Neither is being convinced that you are right.
That's not what scares me. I just want to receive the same respect that I have been showing you.
"All men thirst to confess their crimes more than tired beasts thirst for water; but they naturally object to confessing them while other people, who have also committed the same crimes, sit by and laugh at them." -G.K. Chesterton
I think you're getting more
I think you're getting more respect than what you're showing. No one is jumping down your back telling you what an idiot you are. No one is taunting you to "prove" anything about your beliefs - they seem to ask for clarification for why you still believe your fairytales, but they're very respectful of your right to your own beliefs. You seem to take every snark against christianity as a personal snark against you, and then unleash your rudeness on that person when they did nothing to you.
Which leads me to question why you hang around here. You don't seem to be proselytizing, but you're argumentative and sensitive. Methinks you have issues with parts of your faith, which is leading to issues with the whole of your faith, and your taunts at people to prove things for you is your lazy way out of not doing any thinking for yourself. Its very easy to dismiss an issue with "See, the atheists don't have an answer. They're stupid." When really, I think we've each spent a lot of time thinking about the issues that you bring up and realize the answers and thought process is very complex and personal. We're not so keen to hand over our hours/months/years of thoughts to rationalize things for someone so unappreciative.
Kudos to you for thinking about issues a majority of people don't even approach. But shame on you for taking an antagonistic, half-assed approach.
Post new comment