Print
How to abandon your God
by Mark Morford, SF Gate
Reposted from:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/03/05/notes030508.DTL&nl=fix
Is it OK to switch religions, change denominations, even split from God entirely? Jesus says: Sure!
This much we know: God is failing.
Or more accurately, God is mutating. Changing. In flux. Becoming perhaps slightly less appealing as a dogmatic force of rigid closed-minded sit-down-and-shut-up paternal scowling and becoming perhaps more fluid, interesting, dynamic, unspecified, something you actually want to take into your heart and into your mouth and lick until you find the rich, creamy center and then define that taste for yourself, blissfully independent of what your parents or priest or president tells you, until you reach that point of deeper knowing where you can't help but go a-ha.
It's all part of that big new study from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, released just recently and ripe and ready to be spun a thousand different ways, the one that contains the big whopper of a statistic that says 28 percent of Americans have abandoned the religion they grew up with and have taken up another one, or none at all, or maybe more than one because polytheism certainly sounds tasty and, you know, what the hell, right?
It's not really all that shocking. People change religions. People swap denominations. People evolve, go to college, learn to think (and seek meaning) for themselves, change their minds or marry someone of a different belief or go through a personal revelation, or actually experience the spiritual/intellectual epiphany that reveals how all religions are one and God is not "out there" and you are not here to be its meek sinful guilty mindless servant.
And maybe you go even further, as you realize that it's actually quite dangerous and small-minded to hew too closely to one narrow way of seeing/feeling/tasting the divine as you perhaps come to the slippery conclusion that it's all about co-creating God in your own way and, therefore, any religion that contains more than one person (that is to say, you) is deviously suspicious and apocryphal at best, unhealthy and destructive at worst. Or maybe that's just me.
Chances are you already knew, or at least suspected, much of what this study contains, because it's all quite naturally as it should be. But it's always good to be reminded that 1) try as they might, no one system can ever have a lock on the divine experience, 2) more people are at play in the Wal-Mart of the Lord than our leaders, preachers and godmongers might imagine, and 3) despite the disturbing number of evangelicals in America (26 percent), there might yet be hope for the nation to evolve and grow and bust out of the archaic straitjacket of religious authority once and for all. Possible? Possible.
Or maybe not. Given the high rate of turnover, it's easy to see religious choice in America as essentially a dour marketplace, a consumer good, each system vying for your attention and your devotion and very, very much your dollar because, well, if you think it's all about deep personal enlightenment, I've got this noxious library of "Left Behind" books on tape to sell you, cheap. The pothole on the road of religiosity is obvious, and enormous. As the saying goes, most people use religion the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: as convenient support, not illumination.
Speaking of marketing, should we try to muster some pity for the Catholic Church? I mean, for so many reasons, but this time for how this study reveals that, were it not for a massive influx of immigrant families into America, its numbers would be not merely wavering and faltering, but tanking fast? Fact is, more people split from the Catholic Church than any other, so many that it turns out a whopping 10 percent of Americans are former (i.e. recovering) Catholics, and it's certainly easy to see why. Hell, even Christian megachurches have become more fluid and modern in their perspectives on love and sex and human evolution than the House That Dogma Built.
Ah, but what of the big numb stunner of a number, the one that says 78 percent of Americans still identify as Christian overall, no matter if they actually pray or attend church or run for Congress or secretly snort meth and visit gay hookers as they run an evangelical megachurch in Colorado? It certainly seems like an impressive number, like no matter how you slice it and no matter how many new beliefs spring up, we are overwhelmingly, devoutly Jesus-happy.
I'm not buying it. I suspect a huge chunk of respondents merely check the "Christian" box for lack of something else, because they felt they needed to choose something, even though they don't actually follow Scripture in the slightest, but since they're not technically atheists and they've never really ventured out on a unique spiritual quest of their own, they merely choose "Christian" as the default American position, the fallback, the safe bet, sort of like checking "average" on a customer satisfaction survey or saying "fine" when your barista asks you how you're doing today. Thoughtless, automatic, convenient.
Which brings us to perhaps the most interesting stat of all, wherein 16 percent of Americans (and 21 percent of godless, sinful, heathenistic Californians, both much larger percentages than perhaps anyone expected) don't hook into any religious affiliation whatsoever, thus making them/us the fourth largest "religious" group in America — and growing fast. They are the unaffiliated, the wayward ones, not just agnostics and atheists but also the poets and the grazers and spiritualists, the mystics and the explorers and the cosmically, intellectually, divinely self-determined. (Or maybe they're all just actors and bass players and trust-funded art students. But let's try to be optimistic).
It's a heartening number indeed, and it brings up a delicious question, pondered for ages and yet seemingly more pertinent than ever: Are we headed for a more secular age? Is dour organized religion finally losing its grip? Does it all point to something grander, perhaps more luminous for us as a society, as more and more people abandon religion's authoritarian hammers for spirituality's exquisite seeds?
And what of the other big question, the one no one really talks much about and certainly no one really teaches you? It is this: How does one actually abandon a religion? How do you dump your God and choose another, or none, or the one deep inside yourself? I mean, besides lots of wine and Yeats and education, open-throated sex and experimental drugs and sitting on the lap of the Buddha sipping absinthe and reading old Tom Robbins books and meditating on the nature of stillness and the divine feminine and Cate Blanchett?
Tentative answer: Maybe you don't. Maybe it's not about abandoning God at all, and instead merely broadening your definition of the divine so as to encapsulate and swallow it all, every God, every dogma, every attempt to corner the market on belief and parse it and put it into cute little boxes and break us all up into angry tribes who stomp our feet and wave our little gilded books and launch screaming bloody wars over promised lands and chosen peoples and crucifixes and crusades and witches and pagans and gays.
In other words, maybe you abandon God by realizing it's all God, it's all divine, all hot, thrumming, vibrating connection in all places in all things at all times. And hence, to try and parse it and restrict it and beat it into submission and claim it for one people, one history, one country or church or authoritarian body, is actually the highest form of divine insult.
Or, you know, grand cosmic joke. Same thing, really.
Thoughts about this column? E-mail Mark.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/03/05/notes030508.DTL&nl=fix
Is it OK to switch religions, change denominations, even split from God entirely? Jesus says: Sure!
This much we know: God is failing.
Or more accurately, God is mutating. Changing. In flux. Becoming perhaps slightly less appealing as a dogmatic force of rigid closed-minded sit-down-and-shut-up paternal scowling and becoming perhaps more fluid, interesting, dynamic, unspecified, something you actually want to take into your heart and into your mouth and lick until you find the rich, creamy center and then define that taste for yourself, blissfully independent of what your parents or priest or president tells you, until you reach that point of deeper knowing where you can't help but go a-ha.
It's all part of that big new study from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, released just recently and ripe and ready to be spun a thousand different ways, the one that contains the big whopper of a statistic that says 28 percent of Americans have abandoned the religion they grew up with and have taken up another one, or none at all, or maybe more than one because polytheism certainly sounds tasty and, you know, what the hell, right?
It's not really all that shocking. People change religions. People swap denominations. People evolve, go to college, learn to think (and seek meaning) for themselves, change their minds or marry someone of a different belief or go through a personal revelation, or actually experience the spiritual/intellectual epiphany that reveals how all religions are one and God is not "out there" and you are not here to be its meek sinful guilty mindless servant.
And maybe you go even further, as you realize that it's actually quite dangerous and small-minded to hew too closely to one narrow way of seeing/feeling/tasting the divine as you perhaps come to the slippery conclusion that it's all about co-creating God in your own way and, therefore, any religion that contains more than one person (that is to say, you) is deviously suspicious and apocryphal at best, unhealthy and destructive at worst. Or maybe that's just me.
Chances are you already knew, or at least suspected, much of what this study contains, because it's all quite naturally as it should be. But it's always good to be reminded that 1) try as they might, no one system can ever have a lock on the divine experience, 2) more people are at play in the Wal-Mart of the Lord than our leaders, preachers and godmongers might imagine, and 3) despite the disturbing number of evangelicals in America (26 percent), there might yet be hope for the nation to evolve and grow and bust out of the archaic straitjacket of religious authority once and for all. Possible? Possible.
Or maybe not. Given the high rate of turnover, it's easy to see religious choice in America as essentially a dour marketplace, a consumer good, each system vying for your attention and your devotion and very, very much your dollar because, well, if you think it's all about deep personal enlightenment, I've got this noxious library of "Left Behind" books on tape to sell you, cheap. The pothole on the road of religiosity is obvious, and enormous. As the saying goes, most people use religion the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: as convenient support, not illumination.
Speaking of marketing, should we try to muster some pity for the Catholic Church? I mean, for so many reasons, but this time for how this study reveals that, were it not for a massive influx of immigrant families into America, its numbers would be not merely wavering and faltering, but tanking fast? Fact is, more people split from the Catholic Church than any other, so many that it turns out a whopping 10 percent of Americans are former (i.e. recovering) Catholics, and it's certainly easy to see why. Hell, even Christian megachurches have become more fluid and modern in their perspectives on love and sex and human evolution than the House That Dogma Built.
Ah, but what of the big numb stunner of a number, the one that says 78 percent of Americans still identify as Christian overall, no matter if they actually pray or attend church or run for Congress or secretly snort meth and visit gay hookers as they run an evangelical megachurch in Colorado? It certainly seems like an impressive number, like no matter how you slice it and no matter how many new beliefs spring up, we are overwhelmingly, devoutly Jesus-happy.
I'm not buying it. I suspect a huge chunk of respondents merely check the "Christian" box for lack of something else, because they felt they needed to choose something, even though they don't actually follow Scripture in the slightest, but since they're not technically atheists and they've never really ventured out on a unique spiritual quest of their own, they merely choose "Christian" as the default American position, the fallback, the safe bet, sort of like checking "average" on a customer satisfaction survey or saying "fine" when your barista asks you how you're doing today. Thoughtless, automatic, convenient.
Which brings us to perhaps the most interesting stat of all, wherein 16 percent of Americans (and 21 percent of godless, sinful, heathenistic Californians, both much larger percentages than perhaps anyone expected) don't hook into any religious affiliation whatsoever, thus making them/us the fourth largest "religious" group in America — and growing fast. They are the unaffiliated, the wayward ones, not just agnostics and atheists but also the poets and the grazers and spiritualists, the mystics and the explorers and the cosmically, intellectually, divinely self-determined. (Or maybe they're all just actors and bass players and trust-funded art students. But let's try to be optimistic).
It's a heartening number indeed, and it brings up a delicious question, pondered for ages and yet seemingly more pertinent than ever: Are we headed for a more secular age? Is dour organized religion finally losing its grip? Does it all point to something grander, perhaps more luminous for us as a society, as more and more people abandon religion's authoritarian hammers for spirituality's exquisite seeds?
And what of the other big question, the one no one really talks much about and certainly no one really teaches you? It is this: How does one actually abandon a religion? How do you dump your God and choose another, or none, or the one deep inside yourself? I mean, besides lots of wine and Yeats and education, open-throated sex and experimental drugs and sitting on the lap of the Buddha sipping absinthe and reading old Tom Robbins books and meditating on the nature of stillness and the divine feminine and Cate Blanchett?
Tentative answer: Maybe you don't. Maybe it's not about abandoning God at all, and instead merely broadening your definition of the divine so as to encapsulate and swallow it all, every God, every dogma, every attempt to corner the market on belief and parse it and put it into cute little boxes and break us all up into angry tribes who stomp our feet and wave our little gilded books and launch screaming bloody wars over promised lands and chosen peoples and crucifixes and crusades and witches and pagans and gays.
In other words, maybe you abandon God by realizing it's all God, it's all divine, all hot, thrumming, vibrating connection in all places in all things at all times. And hence, to try and parse it and restrict it and beat it into submission and claim it for one people, one history, one country or church or authoritarian body, is actually the highest form of divine insult.
Or, you know, grand cosmic joke. Same thing, really.
Thoughts about this column? E-mail Mark.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 47 of 47 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #139334 by Gymnopedie on March 5, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Switching a religion seems to me like a great move for the credulous. The old faith is basically cut off like a nasty mole and the new congregation spews forth "love and charity" making the new convert feel wonderful. Plus those feelings must be some sort of divine confirmation as well. Or maybe it's just me, because I know I'd switch religions just like I hit up every event that has free food. The whole thinking thing gets in the way, though.Other Comments by Gymnopedie
3. Comment #139353 by bentleyd on March 5, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I'm not buying it. I suspect a huge chunk of respondents merely check the "Christian" box for lack of something else, because they felt they needed to choose something, even though they don't actually follow Scripture in the slightest...
If the Pew study was conducted via land line phones only, then it would exclude a great deal of younger and technically adept people who have switched to cell (mobile) phone only. This excluded demographic includes a higher percentage of nonbelievers. Also, respondents to telephone surveys tend to tell the surveyor more politically correct answers, so as not to feel embarrassed or ashamed, especially when family members in the room are within earshot. A truly anonymous survey would yield a more accurate response.
Other Comments by bentleyd
4. Comment #139367 by SPS on March 5, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Those whose beliefs were moderate enough to allow for changing from one religion to another may come to the conclusion that they needed neither. The required foundation of faith for religion may make it its own worst enemy, as it only requires that you believe this thing or that, rather than be convinced of this thing or that.Other Comments by SPS
5. Comment #139374 by Gymnopedie on March 5, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The point about them only using land line phones seems hugely important, how the hell could they not think of other survey methods? I don't even own a land line telephone, so there goes any chance of my participation.I think a lot of people stick with religion not because of the deeply fulfilling theology or whatever, but because they like the community of it all. Sunday lunches or Youth groups, anyone? That is part of the reason it is hard to give people a reality slap; they just don't give a shit about the whole fantasy thing, it just feels so darn good.
Other Comments by Gymnopedie
6. Comment #139385 by 4horsefins on March 5, 2008 at 5:20 pm
There are 2 fundamental reasons people continue to be religious in spite of the mountain of evidence, that is, they can not distinguish the numinous from the supernatural, and they can not distinguish between the utility of an idea and the truth of one.Other Comments by 4horsefins
7. Comment #139391 by rod-the-farmer on March 5, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I bet the Catholic Church was either aware of this trend through their own observations, or is trying to develop a strategy to deal with it now this survey has come out. But from my observations, the decline is almost totally due to general disgust with the number of child abuse cases laid at the feet of RC priests. How they will respond to this will be interesting to watch.Another item perhaps worth consideration is that if the number of conversions (from one branch of faith to another) has gone up dramatically in just a few years, I would think that bodes well for us in the secular/atheist group. We are sort of the lowest common denominator. Once you start considering leaving one faith, it should be easier to abandon them all. Sort of a glass ceiling effect. Once broken, that scent of freedom from dogma may be intoxicating. Maybe we need some marketing snazz. Help get rid of the bad rep that atheists seem to have in some quarters. "Join the Atheists, and see the world (as Nature meant you to see it)." Get rid of all dogma.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
8. Comment #139398 by Double Bass Atheist on March 5, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Hell, even Christian megachurches have become more fluid and modern in their perspectives on love and sex and human evolution than the House That Dogma Built.
Priceless!!! ;-)
In general, a pretty good article. The author makes some good points... worth reading.
With the obvious exception of the biblical literalist YECs, most christians have had to constantly redefine 'god' in order to fit into what we are learning factually about our world, and the universe in general. As a result, god has become a moving target of sorts.
I'm sure we've all had the experience of debating one of these people, so you know what I mean... their definition of 'god' can change even as the debate progresses!
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
9. Comment #139416 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Religion is evolving to keep bums on seats. It wants something from you, gives you essentially nothing - idea's about god, woop-de-doo.
Rhetorical rubbish mind games. Might as well call it a marketing survey. Hey, what I think is better than what you think, gimme a dollar and I'll tell you all about it;)
If I can give less and take more... no, how 'bout give nothing and take everything! Woo-woo, here comes the gravy train...
*ranting*
Other Comments by LorienRyan
10. Comment #139419 by Ed-words on March 5, 2008 at 7:22 pm
The last paragraph is a very fuzzy definition of God.The 1st chapter of TGD rightly states that one can't
debate the existence of a god
so broadly defined.
Does the writer pray to
his "God-all-over-the-place"?
Other Comments by Ed-words
11. Comment #139446 by MelM on March 5, 2008 at 9:08 pm
A god that's nothing specific is undefinable and nothing at all. End of reason thus end of debate.Other Comments by MelM
12. Comment #139448 by shaunfletcher on March 5, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I dont understand the bit about fundie churches being more modern on evolution than the followers of cathol.. Surely the RCC accepts evolution while your megachurch protestants dont at all?Other Comments by shaunfletcher
13. Comment #139450 by cowalker on March 5, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Rod-the-farmer:I bet the Catholic Church was either aware of this trend through their own observations, or is trying to develop a strategy to deal with it now this survey has come out. But from my observations, the decline is almost totally due to general disgust with the number of child abuse cases laid at the feet of RC priests. How they will respond to this will be interesting to watch.
As a one time Catholic who keeps in touch through family and publications, sometimes I get the feeling the American Catholic Church is just phoning it in. I think the Vatican has pretty much given up on traditional Europe (even Italy and Ireland!) and native American Catholics, and turned its attention to the possibilities of immigrants and the citizens of Third World nations in Africa and Asia.
In America there is a small group of Catholics who consider themselves "traditional" who are constantly nagging the bishops and the pope to enforce Church law in their parishes. They want thunderous denunciations of contraception from the pulpit on Sunday. They want public condemnation of movies and TV shows and books. They want politicians who aren't constantly trying to get abortion made illegal to be publicly refused Communion. Instead they get tolerance and nuns who speak at Mass about meditations on god's feminine side based on walking the labyrinth.
I had a theory back in the seventies that if the pope after John Paul II didn't show more enlightened attitudes toward sex and contraception, and didn't put things in motion to start women on the path to the priesthood that Americans would really start leaving the Catholic Church. Or more accurately, the people who always bolstered Church membership by pushing children and husbands to participate would lose interest.
I'm one of the sixties/seventies feminists, and many women of my generation had the idea that the priesthood was some kind of prize. Some of them are still waiting for ordination, having gotten the education required. I rather suspect that their daughters and nieces and granddaughters no longer focus on the priesthood as a wondrous honor, no doubt due in part to the scandals you mention.
Other Comments by cowalker
14. Comment #139458 by Andrew Stich on March 5, 2008 at 10:21 pm
10. Ed-words:It is true and accepted that different people define God in different ways. Among the less conventional is the way described in the article; namely, God is everything that exists. Fine. Define God that way if you like. Do you believe in everything that exists? I believe in everything that exists, so under that definition, I'm a(space)theist, and so is every rational person.
I do agree, however, that it is important to remember that this is not what most people mean by "God". Most people mean something akin to the Christian God. And this sort of God is what Richard debates against and that which would make me and every rational person an a(no space)theist.
Remember, when debating the existence of God, the goal is not necessarily to be an atheist, no matter how God is defined; the goal is to be correct. And it just so happens that under most definitions, atheists are right.
Other Comments by Andrew Stich
15. Comment #139459 by Andrew Stich on March 5, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Oh, and how do I make those neat little quotation boxes, such as the one at the top of cowalker's post?Other Comments by Andrew Stich
16. Comment #139465 by Barbara on March 5, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Andrew Stich
without the spaces:
< blockquote > Text < /blockquote >
Other Comments by Barbara
17. Comment #139469 by GBile on March 5, 2008 at 11:33 pm
In other words, maybe you abandon God by realizing it's all God, it's all divine ..
Maybe you abandon God by realizing it is all humans, all animals, all plants, all seas, all rocks, all stars, all milky ways , all stuff , all ordinary ...
Other Comments by GBile
18. Comment #139471 by Justanotheratheist on March 6, 2008 at 12:07 am
A god that's nothing specific is undefinable and nothing at all
A god for whose existence there is absolutely no evidence is also nothing at all, but even in the 21st century that won't stop the believers. They just justify it as "faith", and that's that. Switching religions or denominations is just window-dressing.
Except in the wonderful world of Islam, where it can get you killed in thoroughly nasty ways.
Other Comments by Justanotheratheist
19. Comment #139474 by Enlightenme.. on March 6, 2008 at 12:16 am
^Yes, but consider what happens at the boundary of a black hole.
Looked at from this side of the binaverse the godly particles enter our universe, whilst the antigodly particles disappear into the black hole.
Break on through to the other side.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
20. Comment #139475 by AllanW on March 6, 2008 at 12:20 am
What a poorly organised, thought-out and written article. Full of 'look at me/what I think' self-obsession, disorganised points in no particular flow and how do you read sections like; there might yet be hope for the nation to evolve and grow and bust out of the archaic straitjacket of religious authority once and for all. Possible? Possible.without screaming?
Or maybe not.
His last point sums it up really; yeah, whatever.
Other Comments by AllanW
21. Comment #139483 by phatbat on March 6, 2008 at 12:47 am
Maybe it's not about abandoning God at all, and instead merely broadening your definition of the divine
Since God is almost never properly defined by the likes of McGrath and the actual half thinking theists that exist - I think i'ts fair to say that God is probably a gas or a particle or perhapse a wave or some energy.
Either way god is our ignorance of the answer to the 1st cause problem.
I'm going to start worshipping waves though now. To believe it's not a wave, is just as much a leap of faith as i'm making you fundamentalist atheists you.
;)
Other Comments by phatbat
22. Comment #139486 by NJS on March 6, 2008 at 1:24 am
I agree about the "ticking the Christian box" thing. Here in the UK the census is I think distorted by the "weddinns, christenings and funerals" type of people who just tick it out of habit and tradition.I'd love to see the 2011 census really go for it with extended "do you believe in god?" type analysis.
Other Comments by NJS
23. Comment #139490 by Enlightenme.. on March 6, 2008 at 1:40 am
^ Now there's a campaigning idea, first we've got to win over the Jedis though! Other Comments by Enlightenme..
24. Comment #139494 by stephenray on March 6, 2008 at 1:54 am
HOLD IT!Lot of nonsense being talked here. Only people who did NOT have landlines were excluded. This doesn't mean that young, technically savvy people would not have taken part in the survey, since plenty of them have a landline as well as a mobile phone (cellphone - which I always thought was what the prisoners used in US penitentiaries, but hey).
The question is, did the survey allow for the possible small bias against people who don't have a landline?
It would, of course, have excluded homeless people, but who cares what they believe?
Other Comments by stephenray
25. Comment #139496 by irate_atheist on March 6, 2008 at 1:58 am
I can't be bothered to comment on this article. Other Comments by irate_atheist
26. Comment #139498 by rod-the-farmer on March 6, 2008 at 2:05 am
cowalker said
In America there is a small group of Catholics who consider themselves "traditional" who are constantly nagging the bishops and the pope to enforce Church law in their parishes. They want thunderous denunciations of contraception from the pulpit on Sunday. They want public condemnation of movies and TV shows and books. They want politicians who aren't constantly trying to get abortion made illegal to be publicly refused Communion. Instead they get tolerance and nuns who speak at Mass about meditations on god's feminine side based on walking the labyrinth.
Interesting. If this is true (and I have heard of a small instance with one elderly family member), then there would be a hard-core, more rabid group of RC's, still forming the centre of American Catholics. Immigration (according to the survey) is keeping the numbers relatively constant, so there must be a good-sized fringe of more moderate RC's leaving the church in large numbers. Any idea where they went ? To which church/sect ? What about the drying up of incoming nuns & priests ? I have read that is becoming a real problem. That would imply fewer parishes, but with larger congregations, no ? I do agree with many who say the questions did not clearly identify the core beliefs. Surely many just ticked the box they always used to, without detailed thinking about their actual, current beliefs (or lack of same).
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
27. Comment #139518 by Thor'Ungal on March 6, 2008 at 3:00 am
ahhh,does anyone else cringe when statements like "...closer to god" and "what would Jesus do..." are bantered about by seemingly liberal/Agnostic churches. I occasionally attend a unitarian church here in Australia. I've found one thing extraordinary about it is that they accept science almost explicitly and believe the bible was written by people alone yet they still use it as if that makes no difference.
To make matters even more interesting they occasionally introduce other "holy" books into the mix and treat them with the same unthought as the bible. Why do people bother, just use ordinary quotes. Heck even Douglas Adams had more inspirational things to say than most holy books. Socrates, Aristotle, Mark Twain, Bertram Russel, anyone with literary ability and a sharp mind really can do better.
I think many people miss the point entirely. Your holy books are holding you back. Embrace the fullness of your philosophical heritage and quit quoting from books simply that crazy.
And whats this about gods anyhow, what do they have to do with good and evil or meaning for that matter. To quote Douglas Adams "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Btw. The good thing I can say about unitarians, at least the ones I've met is the degree of intelligence they seem to have and the degree to which they are willing to debate their beliefs. It's only one or two real hangups I have with them, this being one of them.
Thor
Other Comments by Thor'Ungal
28. Comment #139552 by mixmastergaz on March 6, 2008 at 4:31 am
Rod asks "where did the lapsed Catholics go?" (apart from purgatory and hell obviously! I'm paraphrasing you Rod; hope you don't mind). Well, I'm a very lapsed Catholic and I ended up lurking here. From my experiences when I was still a practising Catholic here in the UK I'd say that many stay within the fold and just don't talk about the fact that they have serious disagreements with the Church authorities. None of the Catholics I used to know from church (and still know) were at all persuaded by half of the things they were expected to believe in. Just by looking at how the numbers of kids in catholic families has dropped we can see that the ban on contraception isn't being taken seriously. I'm also pleased to report that there were openly gay couples in church, and none of the rest of the faithful seemed to have a problem with that. In fact one couple were widely respected in the parish, and would go on pilgrimage to Lourdes each year with the local group, caring for elderly fellow parishioners. I'm sure for many people, leaving isn't an option simply because of the purely social aspects of attending church. What do others think? Other Comments by mixmastergaz
29. Comment #139563 by bucketchemist on March 6, 2008 at 5:05 am
Maybe you abandon God by realizing it is all humans, all animals, all plants, all seas, all rocks, all stars, all milky ways , all stuff , all ordinary ...
I guess what he is kind of calling for is not so much a redefinition of god, since any definition this broad would be meaningless, but a dispositional shift such that the attitude religious people bring to their god is smeared across the natural world; Einstein's God in other words. This is the approach that Ursula Goodenough adopts in 'The Sacred Depths of Nature'. Pantheistic, maybe; ordinary, no.
Other Comments by bucketchemist
30. Comment #139571 by ShavenYak on March 6, 2008 at 5:48 am
Former Catholic here, too. There seem to be quite a few former Catholic atheists/agnostics. I think growing up being taught that 'The Church' is the exclusive source of truth, and then finding out it's actually full of crap, leads us not to switch churches but to drop out entirely.The pedophile priests have driven a bunch of us away, sure, but let's not forget the election of Pope Nazi, the conservative Catholics' treatment of John Kerry, the insane bloviations of Bill Donahue... the list goes on and on.
Other Comments by ShavenYak
31. Comment #139572 by Podaar on March 6, 2008 at 5:49 am
mixmastergaz:
I'm sure for many people, leaving isn't an option simply because of the purely social aspects of attending church. What do others think?
I've made the observation elsewhere, in my experience, this is a major reason for people to stay AND join religions.
I like rod-the-farmer's question. It would be fascinating to see statistics on what worldview most reformed-Catholics choose.
Other Comments by Podaar
32. Comment #139579 by Rufus08 on March 6, 2008 at 6:14 am
I blame the internet for the decline of Catholicism. The information age has created a world where it's constantly and globally under scrutiny.Other Comments by Rufus08
33. Comment #139581 by al-rawandi on March 6, 2008 at 6:19 am
Rufus,
Don't you mean "credit" or "applaud", not "blame"?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
34. Comment #139583 by Johnny O on March 6, 2008 at 6:26 am
What by the hair on Odin's chin is...open-throated sexI'm scared to Google it
Other Comments by Johnny O
35. Comment #139597 by Lu Castro on March 6, 2008 at 7:18 am
[...]becoming perhaps more fluid, interesting, dynamic, unspecified, something you actually want to take into your heart and into your mouth and lick until you find the rich, creamy center and then define that taste for yourself, blissfully independent of what your parents or priest or president tells you, until you reach that point of deeper knowing where you can't help but go a-ha.
I'm not sure why there is so much support for this article. This kind of moderate, "I have my own version of god" trash is less intellectual than the theologians who hang on every word of their pointless old scripts.
I guess I'm being a bit negative, and the fact that he seems secular is positive, but have you ever had a discussion with one of these "spirtitual moderates"? It's impossible. They criticize the organized religions, but somehow justify that they know better than anyone else. That their idea of god is somehow under protection because they made him up in their heads!!!
I don't know. Maybe this type of sprituality is better than that of your traditional faith-head, but it seems intellectually dishonest at best.
Other Comments by Lu Castro
36. Comment #139601 by jimbob on March 6, 2008 at 7:27 am
I wonder if the road to abandonment is paved with cherry pickers?Richard very aptly pointed out that yahweh is "one of the nastiest characters in all of fiction," and it seems that all the modern flavors of religion ignore that sort of biblical reality.
Thus, my humble suggestion to aid our campaign for rationality, is to belabor that point. For example, Dobson's "focus on the family" very conveniently ignores the fact that Jesus wanted his disciples to turn away from their families. Thus, we could label them the "Ignore the anti-family Jesus" cherry pickers.
How about we start a move to label cherry picker categories? First prize for the best suggestion will be supper with annabanana. Second prize will be a free acupuncture session with epeeist!
While I'm on a roll with this theme, let's look a year ahead. February 12th 2009 will see the 200th birthdays of two great men -- Charles Darwin and Abe Lincoln.
Maybe we can use that birthday occasion to increase "abandonment" by pointing out that:
- Darwin showed the absurdity of the notion of "intelligent design."
- Lincoln showed the absurdity of the bible as a guide to morality in that the "holy book" is practically an owner's guide to perpetuating slavery!
Other Comments by jimbob
37. Comment #139604 by Gymnopedie on March 6, 2008 at 7:48 am
Lu Castro, I feel the same way. The new-age-hippie-buffet religions are just as nonsensical as the monotheistic religions which are just as nonsensical as the polytheistic religions which preceded them. The first baby step to being a rational person is to toss out all religious dogma.Other Comments by Gymnopedie
38. Comment #139610 by Tyler Durden on March 6, 2008 at 7:54 am
"I am a false prophet! God is a superstition!"
Anyone seen "There Will Be Blood"? Fantastic. The cinema audience (Irish) was in convulsions laughing at the "faith healing" scenes, and whenever the "prohpet" made one of his wacky speeches.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
39. Comment #139615 by bentleyd on March 6, 2008 at 8:10 am
stevenray in post #24 says: HOLD IT! Lot of nonsense being talked here.
Now I can't let that go unchallenged! This June 4, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article discusses the land vs cell phone issue: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/04/BUGI6Q5L141.DTL&type=tech
Here are a few excerpts:
In its biggest challenge in 30 years, the survey research and public opinion industry is cranking up its efforts to account for the growing number of respondents who use cell phones exclusively these days.
About 13 percent of all households in the country have "cut the telephone cord" in favor of cell phones, according to federal figures released last month. That puts this group out of reach of traditional surveys that rely heavily on calls to standard landline phones.
To remedy the situation, surveyors are trying to reach this demographic segment by turning to cell phone surveys and online polls and reworking the survey parameters that have served them for years. There is even talk of returning to more traditional methods like mailing questionnaires and visiting respondents door to door.
The shift to wireless-only households is worrisome for the survey industry because researchers fear that this group, if uncounted, could invalidate or undermine their data.
Researchers have a rough idea who's in this group from early demographic and behavioral data. Basically, they are mostly young, less financially well-off and single. It also includes a larger proportion of minorities and tends to be more progressive in thinking than the general populace.
A separate study last year found that 53 percent of cell phone users lean toward or identify with the Democratic Party compared with 30 percent that favor the Republican Party.
In my case, I have cable TV & internet connection. When I got my first cell phone, I saw no reason to pay $40 a month for a land line, and dumped it.
Other Comments by bentleyd
40. Comment #139640 by 4horsefins on March 6, 2008 at 9:42 am
Where and when will be the first available recording of Richard's tour?Other Comments by 4horsefins
41. Comment #139658 by Enlightenme.. on March 6, 2008 at 11:00 am
^Your in the wrong room 4fins, this is 'postmodern hippy bullshit'.
They normally appear in around a week or so in the main artivcle thread.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
42. Comment #139678 by Mishakal on March 6, 2008 at 11:41 am
These days people have more loyalty to their internet provider than they do to their "religion".
It's not shocking.
Other Comments by Mishakal
43. Comment #139885 by Lucas on March 6, 2008 at 3:54 pm
There is even talk of returning to more traditional methods like mailing questionnaires and visiting respondents door to door.
and
The shift to wireless-only households is worrisome for the survey industry because researchers fear that this group, if uncounted, could invalidate or undermine their data.
This is exactly it. I've been studying religion for ten years, and have been training as an oral historian for the past two. I'm familiar with sociological survey methodology and ethnography and all that, and I'm convinced that there is little to be learned about such a delicate and complex issue as religious belief through these methods. It takes a sensitive, knowledgeable, somewhat charismatic and empathic approach to coax useful information out of people about such things. Face to face may be the only way. Of course, that takes far more time and money than cold-calling 30,000 people. So, ah, any billionaire grantmakers out there want to help us all out a bit, I'll send you my bank account and routing number asap and we'll get a team right on it. Hardy har.
Other Comments by Lucas
44. Comment #140258 by stag on March 7, 2008 at 4:37 am
In other words, maybe you abandon God by realizing it's all God, it's all divine, all hot, thrumming, vibrating connection in all places in all things at all times. And hence, to try and parse it and restrict it and beat it into submission and claim it for one people, one history, one country or church or authoritarian body, is actually the highest form of divine insult.
Spinoza would be proud.
Other Comments by stag
45. Comment #140472 by Nairb on March 7, 2008 at 12:57 pm
To bring a European perspective on Religous attitudes- see below the results of the Eurobarometer poll done in 2005.Four in five EU citizens have religious or spiritual beliefs. In fact, over one in two EU citizens believe there is a God (52%) and over one in four (27%) believe there is some sort of spirit or life force. Only 18% declares that they don't believe that is any sort of spirit, God or life force.
In 5 european countries less then a third of people have a belief in a God . In another 5 coountries over 25% of the population believe there is no God. In France this was 33% !
Reason for cheer !
For those who want all the data - click here - http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
Other Comments by Nairb
46. Comment #140507 by Shuggy on March 7, 2008 at 3:20 pm
He seems like a nice guy who is genuinely trying to put into words a lot of people's attempts to make sense of the numinous ideas they have, confronted with how big and mysterious the whole shebang is. Being cold-blooded and "there isn't an OT God so there isn't any god at all so stop blathering" about it may make you feel better, but it won't address a lot of people's feeling that he is saying the kind of thing they want to say.Is there a possible discussion about pantheism/Einstein's god that isn't just dismissive?
Other Comments by Shuggy
47. Comment #140510 by Steve Zara on March 7, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Comment #140507 by ShuggyIs there a possible discussion about pantheism/Einstein's god that isn't just dismissive?
Personally, I think not. I find Einstein's God actually less of a reasonable idea than a theistic God. If God does not interfere in the universe, and there is no need for a creator, then what is the point of Him at all? Re-defining God as "the nature of existence" removes anything God-like: the presence of a mind, the ability to interact with creation. The pantheistic God is a homeopathic God.. diluted to the point where there is nothing left at all.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Thus the creationist's favourite question "What is the use of half an eye?" Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye..."
Richard Dawkins
"Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them."
Peter Ustinov
"Pointing to another world will never stop vice among us; shedding light over this world can alone help us."
Walt Whitman
"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
Richard Dawkins
"Group selection of any kind is not Darwinism as Darwin understood it nor as I understand it."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
Breaking the Spell
Daniel C. Dennett
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #139327 by Lucas on March 5, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Other Comments by Lucas