Sunday, July 10, 2011

How Santa Ruined Religion

One of the problems with trying to describe yourself is that one word attributes just don't cut it. So sometimes it's better just to give examples.

I think one of my defining characteristics is best illustrated by my reaction to being told there was and then later wasn't a Santa Claus. I never thought he existed, at least I can't remember ever believing. However, there was always this terrible feeling that there was something going on and that there could actually be a Santa Claus. I like to call it optimistic pessimism. Besides, my parents told me he was real and that was the story they were sticking to, so that was good enough for me.

So good, in fact, that I would defend his existence to the more skeptical kids in the neighbourhood. As a point of honour, I would fiercely defend something I wasn't sure I believed but wanted to so badly. I got made fun of and roughed up a bit over it, but it was so worth it at the time.

Time passed and my suspicions were confirmed when one of my parents broke the news to me in passing (I was old enough that it would be safe to assume I had outgrown these things) in a very, "but of course, you already knew that," type of manner. This was fine, of course. I did already know that. I'd known that for a long time but now; now I could feel it. Sometimes, confirming what you already knew can still make your heart sink.

Fast forward a decade and a half and I'm frying much bigger proverbial fish. I have had life changes a-plenty mostly revolving around my moral structure and beliefs. Not an easy thing to adjust, kids. Yet, it still seems like I'm wresting with the same issue under a different name.

Say you wade through the treacherous muck of trying to reason through whether there is or isn't a God. Say you make it through to a totally solid, unwavering conclusion with your sanity still intact. Say that conclusion is that there is, indeed a higher power and Creator. What now? So all of creation is too wondrous and magical to have been the product of circumstance. So God made it. Who's God? Your God? The Christian God (among which there are many different versions)? The Druidic gods? Allah? Yahweh? Shiva? Amaterasu? How do you know it's yours?

I don't mean to be challenging anybody or their beliefs, although in essence that's probably what I'm doing anyway. It's more that I don't get how anybody can be certain of their God. I don't have a distaste for organized religion from a belief that it's inherently wrong/unethical/evil (although I do find it a little unnerving); I have a problem with it because I don't see how any rational person could pick one. I honestly, truly do not understand. Not because I think I'm any better, more clever, or more insightful than the next person. I just don't know how anybody could think their way through it without a suffocating amount of doubt.

Some might say something like, "oh, you haven't felt His love," or, "open yourself to His word and you'll understand," or something equally presumptuous and insulting to my own religious experiences. Too many times have I been told that if I could only feel Him like they do, it would all suddenly make sense. I have felt it. I feel it every fucking day. You know what I haven't felt? The need to go to Mass. The need to find a mosque. The need to visit a stupa. (These are all very cool places and a neat experience but I haven't personally found any spiritual significance in any of them.) They are places where Santa Claus lives. They're places for me to go for me to feed that part of me that wants an easy explanation to why Santa (God) exists even though I don't trust a single one of them, mainly because there's way too freaking many of them.

I mean, seriously. It's hard enough already trying to figure out whether or not God is a real thing. Now I have to sift through the umpteen trillion versions and find out which one makes the most sense? God's not a "Him," by the way.

UGH

Every religion, at some point in it's doctrine or mythology, says something an outsider would consider pretty outlandish. Transubstantiation? Nirvana? Heaven and Hell? Slow down, buddy, we have a lot of ground to cover. Also, many religions like to look at other religious institutions and point out how silly and far-fetched they are while totally ignoring the part where they say the can make things change form without changing physical attributes.

And that the form is human blood and flesh.

And that the blood and flesh is to be consumed.

But look at those Yoga freaks with their Chakra! Silly hippies!

Another thing is that, with a couple of exceptions, each religion bases it's beliefs on it's God(s). Whether the philosophy came first or the God did, the teachings mainly boil down to, "because God said so." Most of them have some common ground: don't kill (but we have special cases when it's allowed), don't steal, don't be dishonest. However, some start to differ in drastic ways ranging from diet to worship techniques, prayers, attitudes, relationships and philosophies. The differences seem to be inextricably tied into who and where the people were at the birth of the belief.

Some might claim their religion simply follows the law of nature and that's proof enough that it's the right path. From Taoism to the Tridentine Rite, but rarely do they actually explain what that means outside of their own terms. Natural law is still the religious law. What do you mean by "natural"? Do you mean the way things are or the way they are supposed to be? Lots of people believe in Fallen Nature, and heck, I'm inclined to believe it. People are capable of nasty things but how is our refusal to give into our inclination towards nastiness following the law of nature? I mean in nature, animals shag all the time and don't even call the next day, all the while never feeling the slightest twinge of guilt. It's natural. So why do believers of natural law believe that marriage is so important and sacred?

I don't not believe in marriage and I am not by any stretch of the mind promiscuous or polyamorous (full respects extended to rationally promiscuous people and polygamists), but I can't get it to make sense in my head. I don't want to dwell on the marriage thing too long, as it's only an example and not my real point. It just all reeks of design by committee. Several committees. Over several hundred years. Not by God; I guess that's my point.

Bleh. I'm running on too long with this. My point is, you can't just say, "My God makes the most sense," and give me endless, convoluted reasons why. Well you can, but they had damn well better be good, different reasons.

C.S. Lewis once said this:
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

Which is totally awesome and astute and everything, but that doesn't just go for Christianity. It goes for just about everything except nihilism. It's true for every single bloody religion on this planet. If any one of them is true then it's very important that we all try and figure that out. Which kind of makes the quote not mean anything at all. I mean, come on!

DAMN.

12 comments:

  1. OK, I've been thinking on this one, and the first thing that occurs to me is this: if there is one true thing amongst a myriad of false things, increasing numbers of false things do not invalidate or in any way diminish the truth of the true thing. You are you, and your Isaac-ness does not diminish in the face of six and a half billion others on the earth - and you would not be even more You if there was only one other person. So just because everyone disagrees about what is the truth does not mean *necessarily* that none of them are right.

    The commonality argument, though, seems to hold something, in my mind. If there is something that humans have *always* thought, or that every primitive culture has held as important, it's pretty likely to have some basis in reality. Every primitive culture has perceived the divine, and tried to connect with (or appease) it in some way, which indicates that worship is a human need. Food, clothing, shelter, community, worship. That's, like, the first 5 foundations of every civilization. Rejection of the first four is majorly bad for your health. It's hard for me to imagine that the fifth wouldn't also rob you of something important.

    ReplyDelete
  2. However, worship and a perception of the divine may be a thing we used in the past to explain things that we can't comprehend. The gods used to lift the sun into the sky in the morning, now we know that's not exactly the case. The fact that we've always done it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a need. There are a lot of things we've always done that we could do without. It's my personal belief that it's a sense of solidity, of truth that we need and that worship is a good way of fulfilling that need.

    But I'm not trying to defend a view of non-worship. I know I am about as me as anybody can get, but that's because I'm here and I have some pretty substantial evidence that can back that up. Belief is harder to justify because by it's very nature a leap of faith is needed no matter how much sense it makes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know I'm going to sound like Sarah here, but just because we know that the earth rotates on its axis doesn't mean that the gods don't hoist the sun up every morning, metaphorically speaking. Science doesn't invalidate God, reason doesn't invalidate faith. I think that the fact that every civilization has faith as its foundation does necessarily mean that it's a need.

    and you missed my point about you-ness. All I meat to say was that multiple falsehoods don't diminish truth, so the fact that there are *so* many approaches to God out there doesn't at all imply that none of them can be right. It's not an argument in favor of This one or That one, just A one. Kind of a negative un-proof.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also: name me three things we've always done (universal, from-the-dawn-of-time type things) that we can do without.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Throughout history, the largest and most successful civilizations were built on slavery. Does that make it a need? I know that slavery =/= faith in any respect whatsoever, I'm not making that comparison. Rather that just because every civilization *so far* has had something at it's base does not make it a need. We grow and we learn, which brings me to my first point.

    I respect that even though we know how and why things happen, that doesn't mean there isn't a creator. However, I am saying that a creator isn't necessary to explain these things any more; I try not to set out with a mindset to disprove things that are impossible to disprove. It doesn't invalidate it, but there's little to necessitate it other than personal fulfillment/emptiness (which I also have the utmost respect for and think is totally sacrosanct).

    I think I got your point, but perhaps you misread my intention. My main purpose was to illustrate why it's so difficult to weed through it all. It's true that one could be correct. Indeed, if ANY of them are then, with few exceptions, only one could possibly be correct. Truth is truth and falsehood does not change it.

    My point isn't that we shouldn't be searching, rather that I can't comprehend settling on one system, when so many seem to be so similar in basis yet so different in so many beautiful and terrifying ways. To the outsider, there seems to be a few rules most beliefs hold in common, then the rest are sort of arbitrary and then cite the almighty NATURAL LAW as their reason.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Murder, segregation and idolatry.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You say "largest and most successful" civs, so then slavery is not a foundation. They don't start out large and successful (or with slaves), but they end up needing slavery to get there. So maybe size and wealth are not basic human needs. However, once *every* civ has figured out the food and water issue, they try to find a way to connect with God. I'm talking on a tribal level.

    I see what you're saying about science, but I'm going to get picky about it: I think a creator is still necessary, because science hasn't found the Higgs Bosun or whatever thing that started the Big Bang was - the whole First Mover argument. It may be, though, that you no longer need a Continual Mover to be satisfied with an account of nature. Eventually, I think you'll have to admit that either a) there's a creator or b) nobody knows what the hell started it all, but science isn't any closer than anyone else; however, you can be materially satisfied in thinking that the creator is now resting on his laurels and no longer takes an active role.

    Murder: always been an aberration and not condoned by society, carrying with it some kind of penalty (unless you're talking about human sacrifice, in which case, it is heavily proscribed with taboos and, I think, contains an element of greater truth in it)

    Segregation: is what respect? How has this "always been done" such that it can be done away with without any ill effects?

    Idolatry: I plead that this is a subversion of man's inborn need to worship, and therefore, proves my point. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hate to pull this but is that what EVERY civilization has done? Really? Connect with God? As in, figure out a deity or deities? Because many cultures have had spiritual practices without God or gods, although I honestly couldn't tell you if they started that way.

    Besides, doesn't that kind of say something more about us than the universe? That we can't get by without connecting to the supernatural doesn't prove the existence of it. It could easily be the need for answers, not worship, that I mentioned earlier. Admittedly, yes, science can't say for SURE how it started, but can tell you pretty well how it works now. So sure, we haven't answered the Creator question.

    But again, I'm NOT trying to say there is or isn't a higher existence. I find I'm playing Devil's advocate out of reflex or something.

    When the truth looks exactly like all the falsehoods, the truth is going to need some convincing. That is my point. I'm confused and very frustrated in case you haven't noticed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. OK, I know you're confused and frustrated, but I want to address a couple more points, if i may. Gently, if i can.

    First, you're not saying that truth looks the same as all the falsehoods. You're saying that all these things that claim to be truth are different. So it looks as different as all the falsehoods.

    Second, my argument that worship is an inborn need of man placed there by the creator is not an academic point: if it's true, then we're meant to find it.

    Both of which together mean this: you look around for God. You find something that looks promising. You check it out. If there's an inborn sense of God, and this is the right track, then it will make sense to you. When it stops making sense, you try again, somewhere else.

    It sounds like trial and error, or worse, moral relativism. But if there's God and he wants you to find him, then he'll show you the way. If there's God and he can't show you the way, then that's his problem. If there's no God, then who cares what way you follow? But in the meantime, you've found something that makes sense to you.

    Also, small point: usually, those things that don't make mich sense (i.e. transubstantiation) presuppose that you've been with the teaching since the start. You don't begin with transubstantiation, you get there by degrees.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm with you so far, I think. Except that I only brought up transubstantiation and Communion as a point that religious people shouldn't make a habit of poking fun at seemingly strange concepts and practices.

    ReplyDelete
  11. oh, do religious people do that? I thought only irreligious people did that (and they shouldnn't either).

    ReplyDelete
  12. However, irreligious people tend to base their views on what they see and hear. Even if it's incorrect to be actively irreligious at least it's an attempt at rejecting things that don't *seem* to be rooted in what can be seen, heard or touched. Of course, nobody should really be poking fun at other's beliefs until they've really looked at how and why they believe it.

    Also, ONLY irreligious people do that? You can't be serious.

    ReplyDelete