Views from the train window

Our work here is done!

nadiawilliams — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:36:58 +0000

Micky and I have decided to retire this blog. Primarily, we think we’ve said what we wanted to say. It’s served its purpose. But there’s also the element that we’re tired of having the same old discussions, the same old tired plays again and again, just with different actors. I realised this with my earlier post today, and when I brought up the possibility of wrapping things up with this blog tonight, found that Micky feels the same.

We both thank you for reading, and hope you enjoyed the ride.

This is getting a little old

nadiawilliams — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:58:17 +0000

A common and very effective strategy used by cults and terrorist organisations is to isolate those they are sucking in. It’s not only physical isolation, in many cases that doesn’t come into it at all. No, it’s mental isolation. Through some form of manipulation, the victim is convinced to expose themself only to information advancing the organisation’s view of the world. When people try to reason with the victim, they are told they just don’t understand. They don’t get it.

I saw this in schizophrenics when I had quite a bit of contact with them some years ago. To them, their delusions are perfectly reasonable. They don’t get how you can’t see their point of view. How can you think this or that statement doesn’t make sense? They insulate themselves from the reasoning of others, lock themselves away from the real world and create their own.

Someone explain to me how this mindset:

“If you believe it, you’ll see it.”

or…

“This concept of the Cross is not grasped by the disillusioned, sceptic, agnostic and unfortunately many Christians. In fact, even the Bible points out that the non-Christian regards the “message of the Cross” as foolishness. I respectively accept that.”

…is different from that of the schizophrenic, or the cult member. You start by putting in the disclaimer that what you’re about to say will sound like nonsense to those beyond the pale. That way, you can talk complete bull and anyone who calls you on it, you sadly shake your head: “Ah, but you see, it only seems like nonsense to you because you have not received the revealed truth.” You insulate your mind against any chance of being corrected if in fact you have the cat by the tail.

I seem to recall a story like that, you may have heard of it. It’s about an emperor and his clothes that only the very wise and well-informed could see.

I genuinely would like to know how you as a Christian distinguish between your conviction that the truth has been revealed to you and the schizophrenic or cult member’s conviction that the truth has been revealed to them.

“I don’t have to explain.”

nadiawilliams — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:54:31 +0000

Religion thrives on mystery. Questions are met with: “We are too small to understand”, “We have to trust God knows best”, such evasions. Faith is the opposite of an enquiring mind.

I think that culture of ‘don’t ask, just trust’ is especially toxic in the Catholic church, though it is inherent in all faiths. It filtered through to all parts of life. Here’s a classic example:

A child dies after a medical procedure. The parents try to find out what happened, and why. They’re met with what they describe as ‘a wall of silence’. It’s only seven years later, in court, that they get an apology and some understanding of what went wrong.

Society needs to change. We need to move away from the models we’ve worked on, many of them given to us by religion. Perhaps we should start with a culture of transparency.

Assumptions

nadiawilliams — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:58:12 +0000

I have preconceived ideas of what people think and how they’ll act. Especially those who call themselves True Christians (this is NOT meant as a stab at anyone specific, though I have recently debated someone who was a TC and yes, that brought the issue to my mind). They have common attitudes and approaches that lead to predictable arguments. It’s in fact so common that when you engage a True Christian, you can safely make certain assumptions on where the debate is going to go. Ironically, one of these assumptions is that the person you are engaging has certain preconceived notions about what atheists think and believe. You therefore assume they have made certain assumptions about you.

A lady I now consider a cherished friend showed me once that Christians don’t always behave or think as I’ve come to expect. The thing is, she doesn’t call herself a True Christian. As much as I’ve thought through my prejudice, as much as I realise one needs to give people a chance to prove your assumptions wrong, the fact remains that True Christians have some identifiable beliefs without which they would not be Christians. Just the fact that they put that ‘true’ in front of ‘Christian’ tells you a lot about that person’s beliefs, perhaps enough to fill a short essay (or a long one, let’s be honest), with a very good chance of being spot-on.

Perhaps because people who hold to one or another faith are so used to there being a common creed, core common beliefs all Christians/Muslims/Jains/Hindus have in common regardless how radically they may differ in other areas, I think it’s difficult for them to grasp the concept of atheism. I’ll tell you, though, I’ve been flabbergasted again and again by the things people have haughtily assured me I believe, seeing as I’m an atheist. The arrogance is sometimes staggering, though most of the time it’s more a lack of information than anything else.

The complication with the term ‘atheist’ is that it is so simple. All it says about a person is that they don’t believe any gods exist. That is a very small little umbrella covering a miniscule part of a person’s beliefs. Stephen Hawking is an atheist, so is someone who doesn’t believe in deities but does believe in fairies. Making assumptions about anything else an atheist believes solely from the fact that they are an atheist, is like saying someone likes bacon, and from that alone making assumptions about whether they like pumpkin. In some cases the preconceived ideas are so astonishing that it’s like describing exactly what else they’ve eaten for the last month based only on “I like bacon.”

I am an atheist. That is NOT the same as “I am a Christian.” There are no core central beliefs I ascribe to, no creed I am bound to follow, no holy book I turn to for answers when I need them, and therefore you cannot make assumptions about what I think or believe based solely on my atheism quite the same way as you can with someone who follows a religion, such as True Christianity. This is valid for all atheists, even those who identify in additon to their atheism as humanists, brights, ‘new atheists’ (I really think that term is ridiculous) and so on. Keep that in mind when you engage atheists in debate.

Food for Thought from George Carlin

nadiawilliams — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:06:07 +0000

Bless his crusty bones. This is hilarious, but for those of you who don’t know George Carlin, a warning: he is crude and cusses worse than a whole group of drunken sailors.

Meditation

nadiawilliams — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:27:38 +0000

I just read a very interesting article on the New Humanism site. D.T. Strain takes a look at meditation, in the exact spirit I’ve become more and more interested in: teasing out the good parts of religion, cleaning off the harmful residue and incorporating these things into our lives. While the whole article is a fascinating read, I was especially touched by his closing paragraph:

There can be a Humanism that is an integration of knowledge, values, perspectives, principles, and practices—all aimed at cultivating a better life by becoming better people. In this way, we can build a deep and rich naturalistic spirituality, healing the schism between the natural and the sacred; between reason and compassion.

The good bits about religion

nadiawilliams — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:47:08 +0000

I recently listened to a very interesting talk by Alain de Botton called Atheism 2.0. In this talk, he suggests we take another look at religion, identify the good bits about it and incorporate that into a secular society. PZ Myers launched a scathing attack on his ideas, and Matt Dillahunty gave it a more gentle thumbs-down. I think both of them miss the point to a degree. Here, you can watch and decide for yourself.

What do you think are the good bits about religion? I’m really curious. I’m not really thinking of the warmth and safety you feel knowing God loves you, I’m thinking: “I really love attending worship services, and singing with a group of people.” Or: “I went on a pilgrimage, and it was a wonderful experience.” I may just go troll on some forums to find answers to that question.

Justice

nadiawilliams — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:37:52 +0000

Edited on 20 January at 13:26 to add a better reference for one point, and to clarify information given on the ‘happiness index’ results.

A friend posted this on his Facebook wall the other day*:

If we acknowledge the God of the Bible, we are commited to struggle for justice in our society. Justice means giving to each his due. Our problem is that each of us overestimates what is due to him as compared to what is due to his neighbour. Consequently justice cannot be done, for everyone will judge in his own favour. Justice is done only when each one acknowledges a judge with authority over him.

A just society can flourish only when its members acknowledge the justice of God, which is the justice manifested and enacted upon the Cross.

If I do not acknowledge a justice which judges the justice for which I fight, I am an agent, not of justice, but of lawless tyranny.

- Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret

Is this true?

What is justice? You can find the full dictionary definition here, but Newbigin himself makes clear what sense of the word he means: giving to each his due, and also later by referring to ‘lawless tyranny’ as the opposite of justice. Here is the thesaurus result for ‘justice’, with the antonyms listed: illegality, injustice, lawlessness. How can we know when injustice is the order of the day? People are very sensitive to perceived injustice, and their reactions are predictable. ~~While this article relates to perceived injustice in organisations, I think we can safely draw its conclusions to a wider arena.~~ [I found a better reference, which more concisely links negative emotions to injustice.] Where there is nationally a pervasive anger, bad behaviour and depression, there may well be a lack of perceived justice. So if people are indeed overestimating what is due to them and therefore under the impression that injustice is at the order of the day, they will feel these emotions and display these behaviours. All of these phenomena can be caused by other factors, but when they occur, the first culprit we should examine is the presence or absence of perceived justice.

Bad behaviour is an expression of anger, so when we try to see if a nation is generally angry, I think it’s safe to have a look at statistics for peacefulness. This interactive map and ranking list shows us which countries are the most peaceful in the world. In light of the quote I posted, obviously I want to see if the most peaceful countries are also the most religious, specifically, the most Christian. This can be difficult, because the statistics are difficult to interpret, and then you have factors such as whether people are this or that type of Christian, and whether they really practice their faith. Ireland is supposedly a Catholic country, but living here I can tell you that very few people are practicing Catholics. They often haven’t seen the inside of a church since their confirmation at age 12. A more certain denominator is lack of belief in any gods, as that is much less ambiguous. So which nations are the least religious in the world?

If the above quote is correct, then these should be the least peaceful countries in the world. How are their rankings in the peacefulness index? Out of 153 countries listed:

Estonia is 47th,

Sweden 13th,

Denmark 4th,

Norway 9th,

Czech Republic 5th,

Azerbaijan 122nd,

Japan 3rd,

France 36th,

Mongolia 57th, and

Belarus 112th.

Only two of our top ten irreligious countries are in the bottom half of the peacefulness index (Hong Kong is not listed). There is clearly no correlation between lack of religion and peacefulness.

Can we look at how depressed people are in various countries to compare that to their religiosity? Well, unfortunately we can’t, because numerous factors can skew the results. The USA, which is relatively religious, has a high rate of depression, but then so does France. If people are not educated on what exactly depression is, they obviously won’t give accurate reports on how depressed they are. If a nation has a ‘just get over it will ya’ culture, people may hide their condition, and not seek medical help for it. We cannot draw reliable conclusions from findings on depression. However, there are statistics available for how happy people think they are. How do our least religious nations fare on that scale? Out of 149 countries:

Estonia is 68th,

Sweden 10th,

Denmark 2nd,

Norway 7th,

Czech Republic 51st,

Azerbaijan 98th,

Japan 53rd,

France 47th (which is interesting considering their high rate of depression),

Mongolia 81st, and

Belarus 101st.

In other words, three of our top ten irreligious countries are also in the top ten happiest countries, seven of them are in the top half.

A just society can flourish only when its members acknowledge the justice of God, which is the justice manifested and enacted upon the Cross.

That is quite simply not true.

*I have my friend’s permission to discuss this quote here. Thanks, Jan.

Definitions

nadiawilliams — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:02:25 +0000

The word ‘atheist’ is often used to define the views of a certain group, but it is woefully inadequate. All ‘atheist’ means is ‘doesn’t believe in gods’. Within that group, you get a massive spectrum of people who range from homeopaths, yoga instructors and reiki practitioners all the way to astrophysicists and biologists who vehemently oppose the aforementioned practices. You will find people who call themselves atheists who strongly disagree on big issues otherwise.

It’s not difficult to understand. If someone says: “I am a Christian”, you can have before you anything from a fundamentalist evangelical faith healer to the pope. Make it even wider, and look at: “I am a theist,” which expands the net to include Hebrews, Muslims, and those who ascribe to no organised religion but believe there is some higher power out there who keeps everything going.

Do we need definitions? Yes and no. We don’t need definitions which seek to hem us into a box with boundaries decided by others. Yet definitions can help us understand ourselves, and find a group to connect with.

‘Atheist’ is a very poor definition to turn to, though. It probably correctly defined me at first when I was still struggling through the trauma of discovering God does not exist. It was needed, because my focus lay with processing the change. Then I reached the point where I realised I was over the upheaval stage. I’d walked in the new pair of boots, had packed away the stuff into my new dwelling. I could look again to the other things that define me: I love the outdoors, I love writing, I care deeply for other people. I don’t need ‘atheist’ any more to find a group, as I connect with people who share other qualities with me. It’s interesting that the women I think of as my best friends are almost all atheists too, though, but we discovered this after becoming friends, we did not connect because of knowing we had that in common.

There are people who combine their ‘atheist’ label with other ideologies. I read yesterday, in the course of looking at something for a new book, of ‘hippie atheists’ and ‘spiritual atheists’. Still that didn’t quite encompass the patchwork quilt of philosophies and ideas which is my world view. Would ‘bohemian atheist’ sound too pretentious? Maybe I’ll just keep it to myself.

Eyes

nadiawilliams — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:25:23 +0000

I have become addicted to TED talks, listening while playing Crazy Quilt Solitaire. It’s one of the blessings of the internet which I wonder if we really appreciate enough: we can get to know people from all over the world, learn of their points of view, expand our knowledge, our minds. A few talks have touched me deeply, and I like observing the process this learning triggers in me: gradual progress, like evolution. The latest big impact talk I’ve heard was by Devdutt Pattanaik. While the entire talk is spellbinding, what he says at the 15:12 mark sparked much thought in me:

…there is nothing right or wrong in what you do in life… you’re not really sure how you stand in front of God. [W]hen you go to the temple, all you seek is an audience with God. You want to see God. And you want God to see you, and hence the gods have very large eyes…Because you don’t know whether you’re right or wrong… all you seek is divine empathy. “Just know where I come from…”

The above quote appeals to me, to my world view, though I don’t agree with every word, I agree with the spirit of the message. I think there is right and wrong, defined as “good for the web of interconnected living beings” or “bad for the interconnected web of living beings”. We can and should philosophise, debate, agonise over the difficult decisions, but in the end, in my and in most people’s day to day life, it comes down to being looked at and receiving empathy. Receiving understanding for where I come from. Where I differ from Devdutt is in my idea of a ‘god’: it is us, collective life. It’s the fluffy cat asleep beside me, it’s my next door neighbour, my natural disaster of a dog, the silent mountains that spread protective arms to shelter Dundalk from the cold North winds.

And it’s me.

We are looked at, but being part of the collective, we also see. It strikes me as a very moving thing that we can be aware of how much we need that divine empathy, and at the same time know what a precious and essential gift it is. Give generously. See, and love anyway.