Heads God wins, tails you lose
I heard a nice chat on the BBC World Service the other evening. Roger Heering was naturally very worried that the people of Haiti might have lost their ‘religious faith’ due to the recent unpleasantness, and he and a woman from a faithy charity group talked about it. ‘You might think this would undermine it,’ he said to her anxiously, but she was quick to reassure him. ‘It actually seems to have strengthened it,’ she said in a pleased tone. They hugged themselves in glee, and then Roger Heering turned to the sports.
But that’s interesting, isn’t it – having all the buildings fall down and tens of thousands of people die and tens of thousands more lying around screaming in agony is another point for God. Well if that’s the case, what would be a point against God then? What would God have to do to make everyone decide God was a shit? Not just letting children lie under a slab of concrete for hours and hours crying in pain and fear and misery and then die. So, what then? It’s frankly quite hard to think of anything. If that kind of thing goes in the credit column, it’s hard to think of anything that would be considered a demerit.
So what, you could say; what business is that of mine? But it is, because people don’t just think there is this God, they worship it. It’s not a matter of recognizing the existence and power of the local warlord or Mafia boss, it’s a matter of bowing down to someone taken to be superlative in all the good ways and none of the bad ones. Well if torturing people to death is something a god superlative in all the good ways does, then torturing people to death is apparently a good thing to do. So actually it does matter if a lot of people believe that perpetrating horrors is a reason to worship someone even more.
Of course there’s also the usual thing of calling it a ‘miracle’ when one person is rescued while the tens of thousands of people killed or mangled are just ‘whatever.’ It’s the same with that ridiculous ‘saint’ in Australia.
When Kathleen Evans arrives at the pearly gates, she will have a simple question for St Peter: ”Why me?” The 66-year-old mother of five and grandmother of 20, who identified herself yesterday as the recipient of the second miracle bestowed through the intercession of Mary MacKillop, has no idea why she was ”chosen” to be cured of cancer. She only knows that 17 years after a non-small carcinoma was found on her right lung, followed by secondary growths in her glands and brain, she is free of cancer.
And that she ‘prayed to’ a nun named Mary MacKillop, ‘and she wore a picture of Mother Mary with a small piece of cloth from the nun’s garments pinned to her nightie.’ That’s what she knows. And the nun gets the credit for this one disappearance of cancer, and nobody gets the blame for all the other cancers that don’t disappear. Credit for the good stuff, a free pass for the bad stuff – that’s ‘religious faith.’
The only thing that could diminish God’s status is if he were to introduce himself.
A.C. Grayling talked briefly (c. 3minutes, most of it the host trying to defend “cherry-pickers” and mis-represent what Grayling was saying) about this issue on Radio4 “Today” programme this morning (16th).
Doesn’t say anything new, but nice to hear, and worth many, many years of “Thought for the Day”…
For anyone who’s interested:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ps0tv/Today_16_01_2010/
Starts at 1hr 56mins
This (the cognitive dissonance) is a classic response by a host whose behaviour is being manipulated by a parasite.
It is the parasite of religion that manipulates its host’s thought patterns to avoid those thought patterns which might result in its rejection before it can spread to other hosts.
I suspect that for many people in Haiti their religious faith is one of the few positive things in their life. BTW the bishop of San Sebastian in Spain says that the new abortion law is worse than the Haiti earthquake, so there.
Surely if you have cancer, praying to a non-saint is a much riskier strategy than praying to a saint with an established track record. And that woman had thousands to choose from: there must be at least one for cancer by now.
I’ve made this point before at B&W but a substantial proportion of medical conditions of all types simply go away of their own accord.
She might as well have prayed to a cheese sandwich.
I work in cancer research and have occasionally sat in on clinical meetings where case reports are discussed. While rare, there are situations where an initial diagnosis of cancer – even incurable cancer – is followed by an all clear. These type of results are invariably regarded with dread by the clinicians for the simple reason that by far the most common reason is a mistaken diagnosis. A mistaken diagnosis in regards cancer is serious because the treatments are so serious. You do not perform radical surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy if you don’t need it.
Unfortunately the common response to the ‘recovery’ of the patient is to let them believe in a miraculous situation rather than admit the initial medical failure and risk a lawsuit.
Every time I see news footage of another deserted, devastated market in some dusty desert town littered with discarded shoes and pools of congealing blood, I see the work of “god”.
And then the camera inevitably switches to pictures of crowds of burka clad matrons screaming, beating their breasts, and wailing their gods name, crying for “him” to fix the thing which was done in his name, a fix which never occurs. Every time I want to scream at the t.v “Where was your god before the outrage? Why didn’t he prevent it? What good are your prayers and supplication?”
I really, truly cannot understand the religious mindset and how it survives the horrors perpetrated in it’s name.
Sometimes I despair for humanity.
Religion has a safety net of ‘heaven’ to protect itself when disaster strikes. This acts as a way of convincing believers that those who die don’t really die but are still alive in some way. If you consider it as a sort of virtual life support system that preserves the deceased loved ones of believers. It also helps explain the animosity shown towards atheists who must appear like heartless hospital administrators threatening to pull the plug on the life support.
I saw a Telegraph blog piece by Julian Kossof that’s a pretty standard piece of post-disaster religious vacuity, but it opens with this noxious sneer: “The Haitian earthquake is a godsend for atheists.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/juliankossoff/100022446/wheres-god-in-haitis-hell/
Yep, we love mass death and suffering, we do. As long as it helps us prove our point.
Here’s an interesting bit of news I came across:
“Port-au-Prince is completely devastated. The Cathedral, the Archbishop’s Residence, all the great churches, all the seminaries are reduced to rubble. The pastor of the Cathedral, who survived the earthquake, told me that the Archbishop of Port-au-Prince perished under the rubble, along with hundreds of seminarians and priests who are under the rubble”
How will they spin this?
How will they spin that? With the usual lies. Compare the Lisbon earthquake. For example (page 115):
Yikes, Sigmund, that’s a very interesting (and convincing) explanation.
“BTW the bishop of San Sebastian in Spain says that the new abortion law is worse than the Haiti earthquake, so there.”
Fucking hell. No abortion involves dropping a slab of concrete on a little girl’s leg and leaving her there in horrible pain for 38 hours and then making her die. Fucking hell. Catholics have the most twisted warped disgusting priorities…
“… what would be a point against God then?”
Well put. I’ve never seen anyone been thrown this one in a debate situation. Has anyone else?
I thought the L-word was banned here…
Some smart commenter, I think on Pharyngula, said something insightful that I try to remember when I consider issues like this. Basically, he said that one of the biggest mistakes atheists make in trying to understand religious people is that they assume that religious people believe in their religion the same way the atheist imagines he would believe in their religion if he were religious.
That’s a mouthful, but… I think its correct. I find myself assuming that religious people believe in god in a literal, actual sense- that they believe in it the same way I believe in the stuff I believe in, like the name of my wife. I find myself assuming that religious people will similarly behave on a daily basis as though they literally believe their beliefs to be true. So I assume that a person who believes that the Rapture will happen in our lifetimes is utterly worthless when it comes to questions like global warming or the storage of nuclear material, or other questions with a relevant timeframe of more than one lifetime. And on my worst days I find myself assuming that a person who believes that Hell is a just reward for someone who doesn’t believe in their religion is automatically a worse person than Hitler (do the math).
But that’s not correct. People often believe in religion as a sort of rich imaginative life. So they simultaneously hold beliefs that are actually plausible, while also insisting that they believe otherwise. And they are influenced in their behavior by their beliefs in various amounts depending on how “real” the issue feels to them. When it comes to something relevant on a daily basic, they operate in their day to day paradigm. When it comes to something that’s far away and imaginative, like the fate of Haitians or the morality of medical procedures they’ve never had the chance to endure, they operate in their religious paradigm. And when the two worlds collide, they’re stricken and upset.
the topic of aid to haiti came up on a bicycle forum. One of the suggestions to give aid if someone had no money was to pray because it couldn’t hurt. I countered by saying it does hurt because people are suffering and dieing while you are being passive and as a human being that bothers me a little bit. I also gave suggestions on how one could help even if they have nothing to give. So in reply I get stories of how an aunt lived longer than doctors expectations due to the power of prayer, eyesight was improved due to prayer. I asked for proof of this power and I was instructed to google “healing miracles” and start reading. No time. I’m reading “Does god hate women?”
This was the first time I have had any discussions of faith with anyone outside of my wife. I was amazed at how the people on that forum did not like it challenged.
The l-word is banned here when it refers to specific people, but not when it refers to a general category. ‘The host’ is no one in particular. Even Justice Eady wouldn’t entertain a libel suit for that (I assume).
Stephen Turner, do you remember where you got the bishop in San Sebastian item? I haven’t been able to find it.
Never mind, I found some refs.
I don’t see it in English anywhere.
In fairness, he didn’t make a direct comparison, but he did imply it.
Here’s a translation of the first bit of an article from El País (link below).
[TITLE]
Munilla says that “our spiritual poverty” is “a worse evil” than the Haiti tragedy.
[SUBTITLE]
The new bishop of S S recommends that Zapatero and other politicians do not go to Mass, because to take communion is incompatible with “endangering innocent lives”.
The recently installed bishop of S S, José Ignacion Munilla, has said, in speaking to Cadena SER [a radio network] that “there are worse evils” than that which the people of Haiti are suffering after the powerful earthquake that devastated Port-au-Prince two days ago. According to Munilla, much worse than the deaths, the pain and the chaos reigning in the Caribbean island, where there are more than 50,000 dead so far, is “our poor spiritual situation and our materialistic conception of life”. These are two defects that characterize our society, in the bishop’s opinion, and “we ought to cry” over them.
[He goes on to talk about abortion, therefore that’s what he meant.]
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Munilla/dice/pobreza/espiritual/mal/mayor/tragedia/Haiti/elpepusoc/20100114elpepusoc_12/Tes
Interestingly (and this is in the article too) he’s an arch-conservative who was appointed despite the fact that 77% of the priests in his diocese signed a petition against him!
Another reason why it’s our business: when they start to rebuild in Haiti, you can guarantee that the cathedral and churches will get a lot of effort expended on them that could go to housing people, or building schools or hospitals. People will say “oh, but that comes from voluntary donations”, but it’s the long term indoctrination of religions that has persuaded so many people that a non-existent being needs a better building than living humans. The difference in standard in Port au Prince between the churches and the slums will be particularly odious.
Thanks, Stephen. He sounds rather like Madeleine Bunting – moaning about materialism and envying the simplicity of life in Africa.
Good point Barney. (Mind you even the cathedral wasn’t well built enough not to fall down on the archbish.)
Patrick said: “atheists … assume that religious people believe in their religion the same way the atheist imagines he would believe in their religion if he were religious.” I agree.
Then he explains: “People often believe in religion as a sort of rich imaginative life.” This is not correct. People don’t believe in their religion… period.
I quite like Patrick’s post, I think it well written and thoughtful. I tend to agree with him, except I would explain it by saying that even theists are atheists, pragmatically speaking. The image of the Pope in his bullet-proof Popemobile comes to mind.
Bertrand Russell once suggested that all philosophers who didn’t believe in the existence of walls should drive their cars into them, at a speed inversely proportionate to their belief. The less you believe in the existence of walls, the faster you drive into them. Of course, no-one ever does, just like the Pope never really believes in god’s ability to intervene and stop bullets, as evidenced by his penchant for bullet-proof glass.
Re: the comments by Heering and his guest: ISTM as if they were saying, “Yes, this earthquake has caused incalculable destruction and loss of life – but we’re lucky it didn’t persuade the Haitians to turn to atheism! That would have been a real tragedy!”
A concern when analyzing financial markets is an effect know as a survivor bias. If you only examine stocks that are currently being traded, you will be missing data about companies that have failed. I wonder if there is a similar issue with respect to large natural disasters. The people who are professing that their faith has been strengthened are those who survived. It doesn’t seem to be a huge stretch to imagine a survivor looking around, realizing that many people had a much worse experience, and then being grateful to be alive. Something along the lines of “There, but for the grace of God …”
The bishop of San Sebastian, José Ignacio Munilla, “
“bad though the earthquake is, it’s not as serious as the spiritual situation of the Spanish people!”
South of Watford states:
“He now claims that he was misinterpreted as he was talking from a theological point of view, so that’s alright then.”
SoW continues:
“The recently appointed Munilla has already had his share of controversy, as the decision to give him the job is widely regarded as having been a move by the Spanish church to impose central control over their Basque followers. Munilla is from the more ultra wing of an already hardly moderate institution, and many Catholics in the Basque Country have opposed his appointment. He is on the other hand very popular amongst right wing Catholics in Madrid who see him as someone who will crack down on any signs of Basque nationalism amongst the clergy. Given the attention he has already captured he might need to spend a period in silent contemplation.”
Rush Limbaugh has also got got a piece on CiF – regarding Haiti, which is worth reading.
You know, I can totally sympathize with people in devastating situations who rely on faith to get through them–who wouldn’t?
What I can’t sympathize with is comfortable First Worlders responding to devastation elsewhere with intense worry about the victims’ faith, rather than, I dunno, their wellbeing.
Well, you know what, Jenavir? While I may sympathise with people in devastating situations who rely of faith to get them through, I don’t understand it. I thought I did once. I’ve had all sorts of people say to me: “I don’t know what I’d have done without my faith.” But I’ve never heard any of them say what faith did for them, and I couldn’t say, even though I was in the “faith business.” I played around the edges, just like all the theodicies do. But when it came to really devastating, faith was as thin as gosamer.
But I can understand comfortable people (of faith) having an intense interest in the faith of victims. That’s completely understandable, because the more people in catastrophic situations who express their reliance on faith, the more reasonable one’s own faith seems. That’s payback. But no one, in my view, and in my experience, in any real sense, really believes that God comes to their aid, but they do believe in the importance of believing. It’s a kind of discipline, a way of retaining some dignity in the face of misfortune, but it doesn’t have real substance. They may talk a lot about faith, but that’s not the same thing. In fact, it’s a bit like hoping out loud, and wishing it were all true.
Like the folks at the National Catholic Register, people have the idea that, if there is no god, nothing really matters. So, since things obviously matter to them, there must be a god. So they “believe.” They may even say, of things like earthquakes, cancer, and other things that take our loved ones away from us, that it all happens according to plan, even though we can’t know what the plan is. But if you really put it to them and asked: ‘Okay, what purpose could a god possibly have allowing a child to die of hunger and thirst, alone, under heaps of concrete?’; they couldn’t give you a good answer. They’d have to resort to mystery. Of course, no one is going to be so insensitive as to put it to them. But if it had been their own child who died that way, that simply wouldn’t be enough, and if it were – enough, that is, – you’d have to wonder what happened to their fine moral perception, which it takes the existence of a god to underwrite.