Voices of Me!

Being an atheist named Faith is mostly ridiculous and occasionally hilarious*. Today it's the latter. (thank you to [redacted] for the link.)

Voices of Faith: How do I know what is the true religion?

Voice of Faith: there is no god, therefore, no religion is true. Go, and wonder no more.

The Rev. Duke Tufty, Unity Temple on the Plaza, Kansas City, Mo.: There are two basic ways to know what the true religion is. The first is to let another or others tell you. In most cases their response will be "my" religion is the only true religion.

Voice of Faith: "Most cases"? If you didn't think your religion was the one true religion, why would you believe in it? Well, I guess those friendly universalists who are pretty open about their need to believe in something even if they have no idea whether or not it is real. Unsurprisingly, universalists are pleasant to be an atheist around.

The second way for you to know what is the true religion is to personalize it and do research to discover what the true religion is for you. Read the statement of beliefs, acquaint yourself with the history and determine whether the theology inspires you, empowers you and resonates with your deepest beliefs.

Your spiritual path should be one that impassions you, not imprisons you. It should be one that continually moves you to higher levels of joy, love, peace of mind and harmony. Seek and you will find the spiritual source that is best for you. The one that truly supports your greatest happiness and highest good.

Look, I'm down with the universalism, but "it makes me happy" does not make something true. Unfortunately, "it's the highest good" doesn't make something true, either.

The Rev. Justin Hoye, pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church, Nevada, Mo., and St. Bridget's in Rich Hill, Mo: You don't - that's why faith is called for! I can give personal testimonies and historical accounts that could tip the scale toward belief in the person of Jesus Christ. But you can dismiss these professions as biased, unsubstantiated or unreliable. That is, at a certain point you are asked to assent to these claims with an act of faith.

Yeah, look, you could look at the evidence and conclude this is all a bunch of bullshit, but . . . faith!

Faith: "yes?"

Priest "Oh, I didn't mean you."

Faith "Hey, you called for me, I answered. What up?"

Priest "Well, look, I . . ."

Faith "Seriously, are you selling that 'faith is truth if only you believe' bullshit again? That shit's not true."

Priest "Historica-"

Faith "If I believe that I am a invisible pink unicorn does that make it true?"

Priest "That is not a fair comparis-"

Faith "Fine. I have faith, complete faith, that the events as related in Girl Genius are the absolute truth. I even have evidence- look at all these books, and this website and all these people dressed up like the characters! It must be true."

Priest "I really hate you."

Faith "Right back at you, buddy."

A Catholic professes that Jesus Christ is the savior of all and that knowledge of this truth is universally accessible; i.e., this truth is accessible to you and to everyone else.

We say this is possible because faith is in communion with reason, and the church works tirelessly to present her beliefs so that they not only provide direction and, ultimately, salvation, but express a faith that is in concord with reason.

For what definition of reason? I can't . . . I just . . . there is no part of that that is "in concord with reason". I mean, what part of God sacrificed God to God to change a rule God made is "in concord with reason"?

Christian faith is mysterious, yet it resonates with our experience of the human condition. A Catholic would invite you to investigate the claims of the church to see if they speak to your heart and mind.

Evidence is there, along with the reality that men and women throughout the centuries have been so captivated by an encounter with Jesus that they profess him to be true. They - we - have found the truth that sets us free. Our access to this reality comes when we cease looking for undeniable proof and make an act of faith.

People have also, for centuries, professed to be true: faeries, unicorns, Zeus, Thor, Odin, ghosts, demons, elementals, magic, telekinesis, telepathy, astrology, homeopathy, I could go on all day. Are all of those things also real? How many people have to believe a thing for how long to become real under your system? Is there some sort of cutoff? More people than accept the Book of Mormon as true, for longer than Islam has been around? C'mon now.

*Sometimes, I get to type bad faith complaints and I giggle the entire time.

The Eye of the Beholder

I have a close male friend whose taste in women is clearly different than mine. I say this because he will describe a woman to me as "so beautiful" in rapturous tones, and then I'll meet her and find her to be . . . plain.

What I am saying here is that while some truths are true for everyone, some truths are only true for one person. Gravity? No matter who you are, let go of a ball and it falls to the ground. Beauty? What's beautiful to you could be beautiful to others, but it's unlikely to be beautiful to everyone and may only be beautiful to you.

Which is why the argument that science is useless for determining truth is rather silly. Science's truths are the only truths we can all share.

There is a tendency in the modern age to think quite the opposite. There is a tendency to think that "truth" means what can be empirically proven to have some physical existence, and that anything which can't be reduced to its physical components must not actually be true. Even though there are plenty of moderns who will voice exactly that, there are few willing to take this hideous notion to its terminal points--for if truth equals empiricism, then tragedies and histories, poetry and art, emotion, reflection, memory, and all such things are not really an experience of what is true, but only a pleasant sort of fiction which each person decides upon for himself, based on a few random biochemical reactions entirely out of any person's control.

I wouldn't say that poetry, art, and emotion are pleasant fictions, but nor are they universally true. One man's true love is another woman's stalking. One man's heroism is another man's barbarism. One woman's safety is another woman's oppression. Outside of science, nothing is true for everyone.

That is why science is, or should be, so attractive. There are at least two sides to any story, usually more, so give me math and well-designed studies, give me experiments and test results, and please, please don't stint on the empiricism.

This Post Is a Miracle

As are the 959 that precede it, apparently.

Matthew Archbold, who looks so much nicer than anyone I associate with Creative Minority Report, is a miracle man. By that he means, well, I'll let him explain it to you:

I’m not a science guy. I’m a man very comfortable with miracles.

Some say the word “miracle” is overused. Not me. I don’t think it’s
used enough. Not nearly.

To me, sunrises and gravity are hardly surprising but miraculous nonetheless. By naming things, we too often believe we own it. It is ours now. Not God’s anymore. We’ve labeled gravity a law. We’ve named radio waves. We too casually classify God’s handiwork as science. But there are miracles all around us.

I know how children are made but that doesn’t make them less
miraculous. Acceptance of miracles is a willingness to look past the thing-ness
of everything and see God.

Just so we're all speaking the same language, miracle: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

Look, I enjoy a good sunset, too, but sunsets are not inexplicable by the laws of nature. Sunsets are easily explained by the rotation of the earth. Gravity is not miraculous, nor are radio waves.

Mr. Archbold's argument is one that religion has been advancing at least since Galileo's time: it is bad to understand things. Science is evil because it takes the mystery, and the god, out of everyday life. By investigating and thereby understanding the world around us, you are removing god from lightning and earthquakes, reducing them to understandable physical forces.

Implicit in this argument is a sad little admission about God: once you explain god out of sunsets and gravity and radio waves, there isn't much place left for him, so I want to stick my head in sand and remain ignorant so as to preserve my faith in my invisible friend. The fact that science has improved my life is irrelevent to me as long as I get to keep pretending someone listens when I pray.

To those like Mr. Archbold, the loss of miracles is sad. To me, the sadness lies in those who reject the knowledge we replaced those miracles with. Ignorance is never something I will celebrate.

Disingenuous (adjective):

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity.

I like the word "disingenuous." I like it because it is a good description of so much of what goes on in the news, in punditry and in politics. If you notice, being disingenuous does not mean you are not telling the truth, it means you aren't telling all of the truth, or you are telling the truth in a context that makes the truth complicit in a less than truthful statement. Sort of like holding a gun to the truth and forcing it to read a prepared statement.

Below is an example of disingenuous reporting.

This is an article from Campbell Brown, of "No Bias, No Bull" (disingenuous), posted on CNN today.

I want you to hear something President-elect Barack Obama said just about a year ago:"I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House." Just this weekend The New York times published a list of names -- a rather long list of names of people -- who are working on Obama's transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists. The Times reports that some of those people were lobbying as recently as this year.

Ummm . . . are they lobbyists now? Because if they aren't lobbyists now, then no lobbyists will be working in the White House with Obama, and his statement is entirely true. Two years ago, I worked as a data entry clerk. Now I am a legal secretary. I don't call myself a data entry clerk, and it would be inaccurate for anyone else to do so. The above is disingenuous. Everything she says is true, these people know, are related to, or used to be lobbyists. BUT, since they aren't currently lobbyists, Obama did not go back on his words. The above doesn't seem to say that, does it? And yet, Ms. Brown didn't lie. She just made the truth dance on the head of a pin.

Moreover, virtually everyone in Washington has worked as, or is related to, a lobbyist. There are thousands of jobs in the field, it's well paying, there are lots of entry level positions, and there is power and prestige to be had. Obama would have to start recruiting people with no useful experience from other states entirely to avoid all ties with former lobbyists and their families. Do you want your government run by people with no experience at all? Well, if you're a Republican, you do. The rest of us would like to be able to sleep at night.

Now, the Obama team is quick to point out that their rules and restrictions on lobbying ties are far stricter than any previous administration.

And now we have the truth twisted into a knot. She makes it sound like the Obama team is being, well . . . disingenuous. What they are saying is simple truth. I have to admire Ms. Brown's ability to make the truth look like a lie.

And the Obama folks concede that eliminating anyone in Washington who had ever lobbied Congress or who has a family member who lobbied Congress would be foolish. They concede? That's what you do when you have been lying and are forced to tell the truth. Perhaps they were pointing out the reality of Washington. Seems a little more truthful put that way, doesn't it?

And it's true, you could argue the reality of Washington and our government is that lobbyists are often the most informed people on a given issue. Yeah, it's true, but unless the truth is dressed up in a dominatrix outfit and whipping Democrats, we don't care about that here.

But we certainly never heard Obama articulate it quite that way when he was candidate Obama. What he said then was:
"That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am president of the United States of America." Still don't see how that is no longer true. Hey, is that the truth? Why is it wearing a William Shatner mask? And what's up with the machete?

And that is a promise that he may already be struggling to keep.

"May be"? Why are we debating what may or may not be going on? Lots of things may be happening right now. How 'bout we try reporting on and commenting on what actually did happen? Oh, that's right, silly me . . . that would require research and . . . stuff.