Thank you, both Michaels, for presenting this captivating story. Another wonderful transformation. I want to comment on one quote from MB:
"However, I remain acutely aware that many people on this "pale blue dot" rely deeply on the hope and peace their faith provides. As long as these beliefs do not result in harm, I see them as fundamentally benign."
At base this seems to be almost tautological and unhelpful, i.e. "As long as the beliefs are not bad, they are good." Might the beliefs be neutral? But more importantly, perhaps the beliefs are intrinsically bad or inevitably lead to bad behaviors. Maybe Christopher Hitchens was right when he asserted that religion poisons everything.
If a person lives their life based on fundamental falsehoods about reality, the cosmos, and life, how can this not lead to maladaptive behavior and increased probability of harm to self and to others?
I am just not persuaded by Michael Bigelow's complacency or optimism about religious beliefs.
The argument I have with the author is only his alluding to religious faith as fundamentally benign. Not so, as the headlines prove everyday. The amount of suffering, suppression, torture and death in religious contexts is no less than what we have observed among communists, dictators and authoritarians. Or more actually if you include head count. More people suffering under misguided religious beliefs today than ever lived on earth previously...
Oh, please! Christianity has "evolved" into a benevolent system of belief. It is also a source of comfort to many (I have seen too many instances of this). Yes, religious belief may be a placebo, but it is better than nothing for some people.
Evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins are a pain in the ass who take great pleasure in figuratively pissing in the village well and expect the villagers to praise him.
The religious fanatics that engage in torture, censorship, and murder is the Muslim religion. Their precious Koran ENCOURAGES murder, theft and murder as an Islamic command. It also supports slavery (which contrary to the wishful thinking of kneejerk liberals) is still being carried on in Africa. Hinduism is also responsible for violence, though not to such a degree as Islam.
And, btw, I am not religious in the slightest manner.
I disagree that Christianity is harmless. It restrained my mind for decades and I've seen numerous people become shackled by it and grow more hateful over the years. I am confident that what I see now is, by and large, not followers of Jesus. They have not learned his teachings, and I know this because I've read them all in the Bible.
Your comment here has many ad hominem attacks and condescending asides, which undermine your credibility.
Which is the better choice: a falsehood which provides moderate comfort vs. a truth which provides a little less comfort? The world would be so much better off if everyone chose the latter.
"Which is the better choice: a falsehood which provides moderate comfort vs. a truth which provides a little less comfort?"
Mmmmm, I don't know. Let's ask the father whose six year old son was killed by a driver? Is the boy in heaven where the father will meet him, or is the boy's gone for good and his body is being eaten by worms.
And you may call it ad hominem, but I view evangelical atheists to be as obnoxious as evangelical religious.
@Armando. The boy is demonstrably gone forever (no one ever came back), RIP. Also, supporting Gary here, falsehoods which may provide a little comfort, vs. the overwhelming calm and comfort that comes from realizing that human life is a precious, limited, finite experience.
GW1: "Which is the better choice: a falsehood which provides moderate comfort vs. a truth which provides a little less comfort?"
AS2: Mmmmm, I don't know.
GW2: My choice is the second option.
AS2: Let's ask the father whose six year old son was killed by a driver? Is the boy in heaven where the father will meet him, or is the boy's gone for good and his body is being eaten by worms.
GW2: No. That would be a nonrandom sample of N=1. Instead, let’s ask 10K randomly selected people and then 5K randomly selected professional philosophers.
AS2: And you may call it ad hominem,...
GW2: I will call it ad hominem because that is what it is. Totally out of line.
AS2: but I view evangelical atheists to be as obnoxious as evangelical religious.
GW2: That is not a sufficient justification for making ad hominem attacks or insults. Surely you can express your views without such rudeness.
@Gary. Yes, and supporting your analysis, there are not enough "evangelical atheists" to shake a stick at. Most are humble, funny, philosophical, and most offer an alternative, humanist view of life and existence.
In regards to the father who lost a child, that is a common reaction to persons who have lost a dear one. And to demolish that comfort is cruel, pure and simple. I don't care what philosophers might say. I have seen it too many times.
In regards to the evangelical religious and evangelical atheists, I have encountered both many times and MY impression has always been that they are, indeed, obnoxious, the first by being in-your-face like superglue and the latter by being condescending and callous. You may call this ad hominem, if you wish. If you want to be condescending. I call it character evaluation.
@Armando. I'm sorry you met some of the few condescending, callous humanists. It might have been a situational meeting where each side set off the other by striking too draconian of a position. No substitute for trying to listen to the other side. First step in dialog is to listen...
AS1: In regards to the father who lost a child, that is a common reaction to persons who have lost a dear one.
GW1: But that reaction includes either a delusion or a lie and in the long run it might actually lead to more harm, depending on the circumstances.
AS1: And to demolish that comfort is cruel, pure and simple.
GW1: Demolish? Nobody can demolish that response. If the victim asks me as a bystander, family member, or friend for my opinion on the tragedy, then I’m probably going to give them my honest, direct, and clear opinion. If they are stressed by hearing an alternative view like mine, then I will try to comfort them.
AS1: I don't care what philosophers might say.
GW1: I do, and you should. Your gut feelings may be mistaken.
AS1: I have seen it too many times. In regards to the evangelical religious and evangelical atheists, I have encountered both many times and MY impression has always been that they are, indeed, obnoxious, the first by being in-your-face like superglue and the latter by being condescending and callous.
GW1: I would present my alternative view to the victim in a sensitive, honest, and comforting way. I don’t really think you help victims by reinforcing delusions, lies, or falsehoods. Give them the truth and help them cope with it. That’s my approach.
AS1: You may call this ad hominem, if you wish. If you want to be condescending. I call it character evaluation.
GW1: Well, it could be both, but you can do character evaluation privately or publicly, with or without insults and ad hominems. Don’t be rude, or as a famous atheist astronomer said “Don’t be a jerk.”
@Armando. What do the practices of a few radical, extremist, Islamist, literalists have to do with "kneejerk liberals"? No one that I know of is condoning slavery, female genital mutilation, suppression of female human rights or any of the rest. Left over from the year 800 CE or so...
To Tzindaro: The proclamation for murder, rape and genocide is enshrined and codified in the Koran: “Whenever you meet unbelievers, cut off their heads” (Sura 47:7) and “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels” (Sura 8:60); “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Sura 2:191); “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood” (Sura 9:123); “When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them” (Sura 9:5); “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable” (Sura 3:85); “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” (Sura 5:33); “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water melt their skin and bellies” (Sura 8:65); “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends” (Sura 3:28); “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” (Sura 8:12); “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people” (Sura 5:51); “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and genitals cut off, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror” (Sura 5:33-34).
Incidentally, I know of no other religion that formally encourages these Satanic impulses. Quite the reverse in fact.
It's kind of funny that evangelical atheists focus their attacks on Christianity, but keep their mouths shut about Islam which is a real, present day threat to civilization. Very cowardly of them.
I lost my religion in a mosh pit in 2008. It occurred to me that every religious feeling I had ever experienced was exactly like the exhilaration I was getting in that mosh pit. "Oh!" I said out loud. "That's what that is." And then I felt the chains of belief shatter, falling from my mind, a great weight taken from me.
I was a fundamentalist Christian and honestly a closeted atheist for the last 25 or so years. Beyond the flood story, for me it was Methuselah and dinosaurs (nerdy kid likes dinosaur books). According to my teachers’ teachings, humans simply lived that long back then, just a few years before the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. Worse, they cast doubt on the concept of time itself with the idea that perhaps a day to God is not a day for humans.
That was part 2 of my conversion. Part 1 was just being a good reader. In late elementary school, The Ark and the Flood, 900-year-old dudes, and a 6000-year-old universe collided with dinosaurs. In 7th grade, my teacher explained that the fossils were put there by God to trick humans. I remember that explanation sending me into a tailspin, because it made God malevolent which didn't sit well with me. I started asking questions and of course the house of cards fell.
Rock music replaced a lot and taught me a lot. I can get downright spiritual about music, because it has always gripped my soul.
Why else do you suppose fundamentalists, among others, hated rock and roll so much? Too much competition. That's the secret to almost all successful churches nowadays, they are nondenominational and full of song.
I too left the Witnesses after doubts crept in - for me, the crack in the facade was my realization that there was no way a supposed "God of Love" would murder billions of people at some arbitrary Armageddon because they didn't accept "Watchtower" magazine when I knocked on their door.
For more intellectual justification on why that religion cannot possibly be true, read former governing body member Raymond Franz' eye-opening book "Crisis of Conscience" which can be downloaded for free at friendsofraymondfranz.com
Thanks for sharing this experience. As another former Jehovah's Witness, it wasn't geology but genetics that led me away from my faith. I vividly recall spending long nights engrossed in "The Selfish Gene," disguising its cover with Watchtower covers in my late teens. It was a transformative period that ultimately steered me towards a career in science and philosophy.
I went to Catholic school K-12, and we were always taught that the Bible (along with every other religious text) was to be taken allegorically or metaphorically. These were stories meant to teach us, not histories to be believed with blind faith. Trying to force myth into truth will only ever bring heartache.
Wonderful essay! I wish I could pinpoint the date of my abandoning ior rejection of faith. Mine was more gradual, in retrospect. Michael SHermer, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens certainly had a lot to do with it.
The faith mindset and the conspiracy mindset are the same phenomenon. They both rely on evidence being able to be confirmed or disproven based on presumptions and biases of the claimant. These presumptions change based on the claim, as well as the limited view of the claimant.
There is no base of acceptable evidence to either one. Both believe that there are larger forces they can't prove exist, yet claim that these forces obscure and obfuscate their claims.
Many good points, however, I studied under a xtian psychiatrist who was writing a book. It was focused on the connections between the bible, physics, cosmology and psychology. Fascinating. Esp the idea of needing a border to stop the expanse. It was interesting. He passed away. He was always studying and challenging what he believed in. Great role model and mentor.
people broken by the genocides of empires lose their roots and their community, their tribe, religions sweeps them up into a group useful for the work of empire.... so religion has herd value to the individual.... being rootless is soothed somewhat by religion.... now the herd or flock is taken care of by the ;'good' shepherds.... and what good shepherds they are.... in partnership with the wolves.... after all even a 'good' shepherd's got to eat and how well some of these shepherds live on the blood of their sheep.
But you are doing harm by pushing such ridiculous views onto your children, or allowing them to continue in their delusion and internal prison. As with most JH men you have it both ways.
Thank you, both Michaels, for presenting this captivating story. Another wonderful transformation. I want to comment on one quote from MB:
"However, I remain acutely aware that many people on this "pale blue dot" rely deeply on the hope and peace their faith provides. As long as these beliefs do not result in harm, I see them as fundamentally benign."
At base this seems to be almost tautological and unhelpful, i.e. "As long as the beliefs are not bad, they are good." Might the beliefs be neutral? But more importantly, perhaps the beliefs are intrinsically bad or inevitably lead to bad behaviors. Maybe Christopher Hitchens was right when he asserted that religion poisons everything.
If a person lives their life based on fundamental falsehoods about reality, the cosmos, and life, how can this not lead to maladaptive behavior and increased probability of harm to self and to others?
I am just not persuaded by Michael Bigelow's complacency or optimism about religious beliefs.
The argument I have with the author is only his alluding to religious faith as fundamentally benign. Not so, as the headlines prove everyday. The amount of suffering, suppression, torture and death in religious contexts is no less than what we have observed among communists, dictators and authoritarians. Or more actually if you include head count. More people suffering under misguided religious beliefs today than ever lived on earth previously...
Oh, please! Christianity has "evolved" into a benevolent system of belief. It is also a source of comfort to many (I have seen too many instances of this). Yes, religious belief may be a placebo, but it is better than nothing for some people.
Evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins are a pain in the ass who take great pleasure in figuratively pissing in the village well and expect the villagers to praise him.
The religious fanatics that engage in torture, censorship, and murder is the Muslim religion. Their precious Koran ENCOURAGES murder, theft and murder as an Islamic command. It also supports slavery (which contrary to the wishful thinking of kneejerk liberals) is still being carried on in Africa. Hinduism is also responsible for violence, though not to such a degree as Islam.
And, btw, I am not religious in the slightest manner.
I disagree that Christianity is harmless. It restrained my mind for decades and I've seen numerous people become shackled by it and grow more hateful over the years. I am confident that what I see now is, by and large, not followers of Jesus. They have not learned his teachings, and I know this because I've read them all in the Bible.
Your comment here has many ad hominem attacks and condescending asides, which undermine your credibility.
Which is the better choice: a falsehood which provides moderate comfort vs. a truth which provides a little less comfort? The world would be so much better off if everyone chose the latter.
"Which is the better choice: a falsehood which provides moderate comfort vs. a truth which provides a little less comfort?"
Mmmmm, I don't know. Let's ask the father whose six year old son was killed by a driver? Is the boy in heaven where the father will meet him, or is the boy's gone for good and his body is being eaten by worms.
And you may call it ad hominem, but I view evangelical atheists to be as obnoxious as evangelical religious.
@Armando. The boy is demonstrably gone forever (no one ever came back), RIP. Also, supporting Gary here, falsehoods which may provide a little comfort, vs. the overwhelming calm and comfort that comes from realizing that human life is a precious, limited, finite experience.
GW1: "Which is the better choice: a falsehood which provides moderate comfort vs. a truth which provides a little less comfort?"
AS2: Mmmmm, I don't know.
GW2: My choice is the second option.
AS2: Let's ask the father whose six year old son was killed by a driver? Is the boy in heaven where the father will meet him, or is the boy's gone for good and his body is being eaten by worms.
GW2: No. That would be a nonrandom sample of N=1. Instead, let’s ask 10K randomly selected people and then 5K randomly selected professional philosophers.
AS2: And you may call it ad hominem,...
GW2: I will call it ad hominem because that is what it is. Totally out of line.
AS2: but I view evangelical atheists to be as obnoxious as evangelical religious.
GW2: That is not a sufficient justification for making ad hominem attacks or insults. Surely you can express your views without such rudeness.
@Gary. Yes, and supporting your analysis, there are not enough "evangelical atheists" to shake a stick at. Most are humble, funny, philosophical, and most offer an alternative, humanist view of life and existence.
In regards to the father who lost a child, that is a common reaction to persons who have lost a dear one. And to demolish that comfort is cruel, pure and simple. I don't care what philosophers might say. I have seen it too many times.
In regards to the evangelical religious and evangelical atheists, I have encountered both many times and MY impression has always been that they are, indeed, obnoxious, the first by being in-your-face like superglue and the latter by being condescending and callous. You may call this ad hominem, if you wish. If you want to be condescending. I call it character evaluation.
@Armando. I'm sorry you met some of the few condescending, callous humanists. It might have been a situational meeting where each side set off the other by striking too draconian of a position. No substitute for trying to listen to the other side. First step in dialog is to listen...
AS1: In regards to the father who lost a child, that is a common reaction to persons who have lost a dear one.
GW1: But that reaction includes either a delusion or a lie and in the long run it might actually lead to more harm, depending on the circumstances.
AS1: And to demolish that comfort is cruel, pure and simple.
GW1: Demolish? Nobody can demolish that response. If the victim asks me as a bystander, family member, or friend for my opinion on the tragedy, then I’m probably going to give them my honest, direct, and clear opinion. If they are stressed by hearing an alternative view like mine, then I will try to comfort them.
AS1: I don't care what philosophers might say.
GW1: I do, and you should. Your gut feelings may be mistaken.
AS1: I have seen it too many times. In regards to the evangelical religious and evangelical atheists, I have encountered both many times and MY impression has always been that they are, indeed, obnoxious, the first by being in-your-face like superglue and the latter by being condescending and callous.
GW1: I would present my alternative view to the victim in a sensitive, honest, and comforting way. I don’t really think you help victims by reinforcing delusions, lies, or falsehoods. Give them the truth and help them cope with it. That’s my approach.
AS1: You may call this ad hominem, if you wish. If you want to be condescending. I call it character evaluation.
GW1: Well, it could be both, but you can do character evaluation privately or publicly, with or without insults and ad hominems. Don’t be rude, or as a famous atheist astronomer said “Don’t be a jerk.”
@Armando. What do the practices of a few radical, extremist, Islamist, literalists have to do with "kneejerk liberals"? No one that I know of is condoning slavery, female genital mutilation, suppression of female human rights or any of the rest. Left over from the year 800 CE or so...
Could you please tell me what passage in your copy of the Koran says those things? I can't seem to find it in my copy.
If you do not have a copy of the Koran or have one, but have not read it, please tell me your source for this information. Thank you.
To Tzindaro: The proclamation for murder, rape and genocide is enshrined and codified in the Koran: “Whenever you meet unbelievers, cut off their heads” (Sura 47:7) and “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels” (Sura 8:60); “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Sura 2:191); “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood” (Sura 9:123); “When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them” (Sura 9:5); “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable” (Sura 3:85); “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” (Sura 5:33); “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water melt their skin and bellies” (Sura 8:65); “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends” (Sura 3:28); “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” (Sura 8:12); “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people” (Sura 5:51); “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and genitals cut off, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror” (Sura 5:33-34).
Incidentally, I know of no other religion that formally encourages these Satanic impulses. Quite the reverse in fact.
It's kind of funny that evangelical atheists focus their attacks on Christianity, but keep their mouths shut about Islam which is a real, present day threat to civilization. Very cowardly of them.
I lost my religion in a mosh pit in 2008. It occurred to me that every religious feeling I had ever experienced was exactly like the exhilaration I was getting in that mosh pit. "Oh!" I said out loud. "That's what that is." And then I felt the chains of belief shatter, falling from my mind, a great weight taken from me.
I was a fundamentalist Christian and honestly a closeted atheist for the last 25 or so years. Beyond the flood story, for me it was Methuselah and dinosaurs (nerdy kid likes dinosaur books). According to my teachers’ teachings, humans simply lived that long back then, just a few years before the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. Worse, they cast doubt on the concept of time itself with the idea that perhaps a day to God is not a day for humans.
I had a liberal religious background, never fundamentalist, but I grew up surrounded by fundamentalists.
That is interesting. Humorous but interesting.
I was saved from religion by the spirit of rock.
I'm sorry. What does that mean?
Begin the day with a friendly voice
A companion, unobtrusive
Plays that song that's so elusive
And the magic music makes your morning mood
Off on your way, hit the open road
There is magic at your fingers
For the spirits ever lingers
Undemanding contact in your happy solitude
Invisible airwaves crackle with life
Bright antennas bristle with the energy
Emotional feedback on a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free
That was part 2 of my conversion. Part 1 was just being a good reader. In late elementary school, The Ark and the Flood, 900-year-old dudes, and a 6000-year-old universe collided with dinosaurs. In 7th grade, my teacher explained that the fossils were put there by God to trick humans. I remember that explanation sending me into a tailspin, because it made God malevolent which didn't sit well with me. I started asking questions and of course the house of cards fell.
Rock music replaced a lot and taught me a lot. I can get downright spiritual about music, because it has always gripped my soul.
Why else do you suppose fundamentalists, among others, hated rock and roll so much? Too much competition. That's the secret to almost all successful churches nowadays, they are nondenominational and full of song.
I too left the Witnesses after doubts crept in - for me, the crack in the facade was my realization that there was no way a supposed "God of Love" would murder billions of people at some arbitrary Armageddon because they didn't accept "Watchtower" magazine when I knocked on their door.
For more intellectual justification on why that religion cannot possibly be true, read former governing body member Raymond Franz' eye-opening book "Crisis of Conscience" which can be downloaded for free at friendsofraymondfranz.com
Thanks for sharing this experience. As another former Jehovah's Witness, it wasn't geology but genetics that led me away from my faith. I vividly recall spending long nights engrossed in "The Selfish Gene," disguising its cover with Watchtower covers in my late teens. It was a transformative period that ultimately steered me towards a career in science and philosophy.
I went to Catholic school K-12, and we were always taught that the Bible (along with every other religious text) was to be taken allegorically or metaphorically. These were stories meant to teach us, not histories to be believed with blind faith. Trying to force myth into truth will only ever bring heartache.
Wonderful essay! I wish I could pinpoint the date of my abandoning ior rejection of faith. Mine was more gradual, in retrospect. Michael SHermer, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens certainly had a lot to do with it.
The faith mindset and the conspiracy mindset are the same phenomenon. They both rely on evidence being able to be confirmed or disproven based on presumptions and biases of the claimant. These presumptions change based on the claim, as well as the limited view of the claimant.
There is no base of acceptable evidence to either one. Both believe that there are larger forces they can't prove exist, yet claim that these forces obscure and obfuscate their claims.
Many good points, however, I studied under a xtian psychiatrist who was writing a book. It was focused on the connections between the bible, physics, cosmology and psychology. Fascinating. Esp the idea of needing a border to stop the expanse. It was interesting. He passed away. He was always studying and challenging what he believed in. Great role model and mentor.
Was the book published? If yes, what’s the title and the author’s name?
No book, he passed away before completing it. Was hoping his son who is a psychologist would have continued it, but he didn't 'get it.'
We consulted with him weekly. If he cx, we'd still see him at another time. We never missed a week.
Love Michael Shermer!
people broken by the genocides of empires lose their roots and their community, their tribe, religions sweeps them up into a group useful for the work of empire.... so religion has herd value to the individual.... being rootless is soothed somewhat by religion.... now the herd or flock is taken care of by the ;'good' shepherds.... and what good shepherds they are.... in partnership with the wolves.... after all even a 'good' shepherd's got to eat and how well some of these shepherds live on the blood of their sheep.
But you are doing harm by pushing such ridiculous views onto your children, or allowing them to continue in their delusion and internal prison. As with most JH men you have it both ways.