First, two quotes from one of my favorite movies, Contact, based on the book by Carl Sagan. Ellie Arroway, played by Jodie Foster, discovers the signal from outer space. Using instructions from the aliens, we build a great machine that can create a wormhole and send one person on a journey. Of course there is a committee to choose that person, and on that committee happens to be theologian Palmer Joss (played by Matthew McConaughey), her one-time lover. During the hearings, the question of God comes up...
Ellie Arroway (to Palmer after she is not chosen to go): So what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious God created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?
And when she finds out that Palmer voted against her:
Ellie Arroway : Why did you do it?
Palmer Joss : Our job was to select someone to speak for everybody. And I just couldn't in good conscience vote for a person who doesn't believe in God. Someone who honestly thinks the other ninety five percent of us suffer from some form of mass delusion.
Ellie Arroway : I told the truth up there. And Drumlin told you exactly what you wanted to hear.
Bush's election, and the recent court cases where people are demanding that the contradiction in terms that is 'creation science' be taught alongside evolution (claiming that evolition is still just a theory!), and the ones about putting the ten commandments in courthouses, all have me very worried. Though even hearing promos for the NPR show Speaking of Faith gives me the willies. Maybe that's just Christa Tippet's melodramatic voice...
I'm not sure why talk of religion makes me so uncomfortable. I was raised nominally Presbyterian, and in high school I was very active in church -- though in fairly non-religious activities like bell choir. Back then I kind of prayed along, but I was already thinking on some level that this whole 'god' thing seemed like some massive, extremely clever con.
I'm not a religious expert, but it seems to me like monotheism has evolved from polytheistic, animist religions where gods were anthropomorphorizations (is that a word too?) of natural elements or emotions. Greek and Roman gods evolved from a collection of other spirits, the Romans adopted them, then the Christians co-opted Roman holidays like the Solstices with their own Christian events. Even most symbols of Christmas have pagan origins. Where was god then?
It all looks to me like, as civilization advances and (for instance) people realize that lighting is not Zeus throwing thunderbolts, religious leaders refine their message so they can stay ahead of the game.
A show on the History Channel I saw on Christmas a few years ago had experts saying that Jesus was just one of a number of prohets who appeared around that time, and over the next few hundred years a number of 'Christ Cults' sprang up around various religious leaders. It was pure chance that his following endured. And later, the Roman Catholic Church, with so much control over all literature and knowledge, was in the perfect position to tell people 'god's truth.'
And what does that bring us to now? A myriad of religions, almost all contradicting each other in very basic ways. So Joss may say that 95% of the world believes in god, but that's hundreds of different forms, all because human religions have evolved in different ways (did I say 'evolvled? That's just a theory). The bible is not some magic absolute truth. People interpret it and translate it in ways to suit themselves. I've read that some people say that the very few references condemning homosexuality in the bible could be translated in other ways that were much less 'damning.'
(BTW, did you know that the pope of the time put a price on queen Elizabeth I's head because she was a heretic? What happened to 'thou shalt not kill'?)
People pray to god, but to what purpose? If a plane crashes or some mother's son is shot and killed in Iraq, people say it was "god's will." So what's the point of praying for peoples' safety if some god, moving in his mysterious ways, is goign to take your loved one away from you anyway. If someone walks away from an accident, people call it a "miracle." I find that to be incredibly naive.
And in the most appaling, cynical examples, people pray for selfish things. For instance, I hear that the priests of Notre Dame pray for their athletic team to win. What's up with that? Are they better christians or something?
That's what it's all about: our religion is better that your religion. We're going to heaven and you're going to burn in hell, and in the meantime we are going to try to save you or vaporize you, whichever comes first. Spaniards invading central America, the Crusades, you name it. More wars seem to have been fought because of the intangibles of religion (or at least in its name) than for power or territory.
I think it's also about humans' fear of death. People can't wrap their minds around the fact that when the body fails, the synapses stop firing, and that's it: you're dead. All that you were is gone except the things you leave behind, and the memories of others. There is no magical immortal spirit that wafts away to go to some higher plane of existence. So people pray and go to church (or whatever) and supposedly try to do god's will -- though I know of some pretty hateful and spiteful evangelicals -- in the hopes of a happier afterlife. I guess it's not enough to ask people to treat each other with kindness and respect just because it's a good thing to do. There has to be a reward/punishment system involved -- as ridiculous as it sounds.
Carl Sagan comforted himself by saying that we are recycled atoms of stars, and we will eventually be recycled again. That's good enough for me.
4 comments:
Enviroboi is wondering what triggered this entry ...
Anyway, I'm not overly religious either [which is kind of funny? ironic? considering my background]; however, I am glad that I was raised in a home where faith was important.
Religion, when it's co-opted by zealots and used as a means to control people [Let's say hi to the Southern Baptists and Al Qaeda operatives out there], can be very bad. Religion, when it teaches people to care about others and to better themselves, can be very good.
One has to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, I suppose.
Carl Sagan seems very Buddhist. Maybe he read "No Death, No Fear" by Thich Nhat Hahn?
I don't know for sure, but I am guessing that Sagan was a Secular Humanist.
And as far as "Religion, when it teaches people to care about others and to better themselves, can be very good." Yes that's true, and I think a lot of Jesus' teachings are very valid. But they would be no less valid if taught in a secular environment. Just as the ten commandments are good rules to live by, but they don't need to be commandments from some demanding god.
I don't care if other people want to practice their faith -- there is a Church of the Nazarene right across the street from me, and I think the are pretty fundamentalist. But they don't park in my parking space, they behave themselves, so as far as I'm concerned, they are fine neighbors. But when people start shoving their religion in my face, that's when I get angry.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."
You are too ignorant to see your own ignorance. If you were free flow discussing any other topic, making category error upon false assumption, you would be considered a quack. Talk of God in this manner and you get to high fives all around. Quoting Sagan does not make you an authority. Be ignorant if you want, save yourself the embarrassment though, and be quiet.
Pat secularism is no less intoxicating and stupefying than imposed religion.
Post a Comment