Guest post: The same wellspring of desire for order and for answers
Originally a comment by Seth on 13 bible verses.
I just watched an interview wherein Neil deGrasse Tyson sat in Stephen Colbert’s chair and interviewed Stephen as a guest on his own show (I suspect, since they’ve been such good friends over the last fourteen years, they thought it was a welcome change of pace to have the conversation go somewhat the other way). The slice of conversation relevant to my point here begins at the 6:15 mark, though there is more context and banter that can also work to frame it from the preceding minute or two.
In summary, Tyson, who is publicly agnostic in the most milquetoast way but obviously an atheist in every way that matters, asks Colbert, who is perhaps the most famous progressive Catholic in the world, how he resolved his desire to know and his respect for the evidence with the tensions of his faith; Colbert rejected this as a false dichotomy, in a friendly but nevertheless tension-inducing way, and he went on to describe his faith as the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing’. It was founded upon his deep and utter gratitude at existing, his inability to explain why, and his personal tradition of channeling that majestic awe through the framework of Catholicism and, more specifically, his ‘…gratitude for Christ, through Him all things were made’.
Which, naturally, got uproarious applause from the progressive audience, who doubtless felt their heartstrings pulled by such piety; and it got an indulgent non-response from Tyson, who doubtless judged his comradeship the better part of valour. And, arguably to his credit but I think ultimately to his shame, Colbert defused the tension by saying he was ‘…taught by intellectual Catholics who believed you could be a Catholic and still question your Church’, and followed up with a joke about how the proper term for such a belief was being a Protestant.
And, of course, Stephen Colbert is not personally responsible for this sort of tragedy. The members of his church are likewise blameless. But the high-minded personal faith he espouses in that banter, the guiding light and reassuring answer to the mystery of his existence, is inextricably bound up in the same base urges and failed pattern-seeking that led this little band of psychopaths to feel righteous for torturing a child to death. They come from the same taproot, the same wellspring of desire for order and for answers.
This sort of thing is what inevitably happens when one group of apes holds itself as beyond any critique or inquiry, and the very same faith that Colbert espouses is the most reliable source of such constructions. And the Colberts of the world are somehow never held to account for this.
They are, disgustingly, applauded.
To know or not to know? That takes us back to Genesis. See below.
But first, the function of any religion is to be the community’s social glue. It does not matter what a community believes, as long as its members all believe it together, and without any dissent . Members are also welcome to find the beliefs of rival communities odd, ridiculous, outrageous, etc. Also that they can sin as they please, but it’s OK as they are forgiven. And actually, forgiven in advance. All they have to do is ask for it.
That is a bit leaky philosophically. But It does not matter what we believe so much as that we all believe it together, Colbert included. What actually takes place in a religious ritual is the community worshipping itself. (Vide Emile Durkheim.) Believing is the path to belonging, and we must all sing off the same page, no exceptions.
Christianity, as professed by Colbert, goes further, and rests on idea of sin and redemption. That in turn rests on the proposition that in the beginning there was the Garden of Eden, specially created by God, and inhabited by Adam and Eve, a happy nudist couple also of God’s own creation. God also created a special tree, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the fruit of which Adam and Eve were forbidden by God to eat. So again: to know, or not to know?
But then, cut to the scene in which a talking snake led Eve astray and to eat of the Forbidden Fruit, and she persuaded Adam to do likewise, and so tainted the whole world with genetically transmitted sin. Believe or dispute that if you like. But it is all there in Genesis 3.
The clerics of Judaism wrote the Books of Moses. Hence arguably, the dump on ‘knowledge of good and evil’. In the opinion of clerics the world over, such issues should be left to them.
To know, or not to know? And what domain of human knowledge covers the study of knowledge, and with that ‘good’ and ‘evil’? Why philosophy of course. Thus Genesis 3 is an attack on philosophy and rationalism, which developed rapidly in 5th Century BC Ionian Greece, but not from nothing. Rationalism, including science, must have had roots going much further back in time. Tool-making and fire-making are impossible without some form of it.
The foundation of the Christianity preached by Colbert, the Pope and the rest is that same old, somehow genetically transmitted, Original Sin: derived from Judaism and shared with Islam, and resting on the proposition of the forbidden fruit and an evil talking snake. Only Christianity added the doctrine of redemption.
Yeshua bar Joseph (aka Jesus Christ) served himself up as to be crucified as a sacrificial lamb to God the Father, with whom he was bonded as one in the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and so paid for the sins of the world, including sins of all those as yet unborn. Effectively, he sacrificed himself to himself. And after being crucified by the Romans as a trouble-maker, Yeshua rose from the tomb and departed shortly after into the sky, heading for Heaven. Believers’ souls can join him there after the deaths of their bodies.
I think that covers most of it. I still enjoy going to church for old time’s sake. I spent part of my youth as a Christian believer. But then I got into philosophy.
Sermons are important reminders to congregation of what they are obliged to believe. Thus, for the sake of maintaining church unity, Catholics have an infallible pope. But the whole thing: churches, congregations, cathedrals, choirs, Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Stephen Colbert and all, rests on the credibility or otherwise of that forbidden fruit and that mean old talking snake.
Tough spot for Tyson there. If he probes any further, he probably comes across as the jerk to most of the audience and doesn’t accomplish much. Unfortunately, the kind of mealy-mouthed vagueness offered by Colbert really hits society’s sweet spot: it purports to be an answer of sorts to Tyson’s question, so Colbert has fulfilled his social obligation to answer, and it’s too vague and mushy to be obviously factually or morally wrong in a way that lends itself to any follow up other than “what does that mean,” which is usually perceived as rude. And of course Colbert is a charming guy who comes across as earnest and decent, so that makes it particularly difficult to push farther.
It’s interesting to me how society tends to give a “pass” to this idea of taking your awe at the universe — one that we know Tyson shares — and channeling it through Jesus and Catholic doctrine. Like, what reason do you have for making that the vehicle for your awe and gratitude, other than “dunno, was just raised that way”? We don’t usually think that’s a good idea for other emotions: if someone channels their anger into some belief system that bears no connection to the cause of their anger, we call that “misplaced anger” and think it’s dysfunctional and unhealthy. But as always, religion gets special treatment.
PZ’s been doing some self-critical posts about New Atheism recently. In retrospect, I agree that the movement was a little more tainted by bigotry than I had thought at the time, and certainly its principals have ended up in rather sad places intellectually (other than Dennett, who seems to have moved on to other things). But I still think that the project of publicly challenging religion’s free pass was and is a worthwhile one.
This is Sam Harris’s view. I don’t think I share it. I don’t believe progressive religion is guilty of “propping up” fundamentalism and religious sadism any more than progressive governments, by their very existence, legitimize totalitarian governments.
If religion disappeared tomorrow psychopaths would still find reasons to torture children. Admittedly in plenty of cases they’d find it harder to rationalize though. :(
Do Sarah and Stephen share a tell? Pursed lips (but no angry frown between eyebrows); slight corner downturn (but not to the point of sadness and not asymmetrical contempt); sometimes a cute little dimple on chin a little below (involuntary result of wiring of face muscles?).
Sarah “… people of faith really care about …” (https://youtu.be/CqdEI3NNpGc @ 00:35)
Sarah on climate “… in the hands of someone much more powerful than any of us …” (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/hannity-sarah-huckabee-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez_us_5c47ec0be4b0b66936750864?ec_carp=1898809143288332282 @ 1:03)
Stephen’s gratitude for faith (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2019/13-bible-verses/
-> Colbert http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2019/guest-post-the-same-wellspring-of-desire-for-order-and-for-answers/ @ 7:19)
After reciting their holy belief by rote, did the thinking brain remind them of how fabulous it was? Lips closed because I don’t want to be challenged on this and have to answer by overusing this template to the point where it becomes indefensible.
Closing of lips by a psychopathic liar on the way to duping delight (https://youtu.be/P_6vDLq64gE
@ 15:47 – 15:49)
That’s enough amateur psychology.