The implicit tyranny
Eric explains why he writes about religion.
Suddenly, I find myself reading more and more about religion, and, since I spent a lifetime in the church, and am trying to put this behind me, I need to explain to myself, sometimes, why I am doing so. For now, instead of trying to give an account of myself, as St. Paul would have said, for the faith that is in me, I write to oppose religion, and all, or pretty much all, that it stands for…I oppose religion because I find that it diminishes — and cannot fail to diminish — us as persons.
He zooms in on the religious tendency to try to mandate a “religious” view of the body without regard to the actual experience and feeling of the person who inhabits the body. He does not like it.
I don’t want to be told that I must find my body, which has been reduced to this, to be a sacred home, when it’s just not possible for me to see it in this way; and I don’t want people like Ackerman or Ziettlow to play their religious shell game with me, and tell me that I must simply give up the conceptions of a lifetime and find my dignity in something else.
That resonates very strongly with me. Our conceptions of a lifetime are ours, and religious people have no business trying to make us alter them. Doing so is a form of tyranny.
None of this is to say that people should not be treated with respect and dignity, no matter what their condition or stage of life. But it is to say that religious conceptions of the sacredness of the body are only applicable to those who find this language helpful, and it is, as Dworkin says on the same page, “a devastating, odious form of tyranny” to make “someone die in a way that others approve, but he feels is a horrifying contradiction of his life.” It is the implicit tyranny of Rev. Ziettlow’s remarks that I find so objectionable, because religious conceptions just are the kind of thing that people believe it is appropriate to impose on others, and that is, to a large degree — aside, of course, from the ineradicable epistemological problems of all religious beliefs — the most objectionable thing about religion. Religion believes itself in the possession of absolute knowledge, applicable to all people, always, and everywhere. That’s why I write about religion, because it is an affront to human dignity and a continuing threat to human freedom.
Yes. Exactly. It is the tyranny and the imposition that is so profoundly objectionable. That’s the fuel of gnu atheist wrath – we all resent the imposition and the tyranny. We all squirm when it tries to grab us, and we all want to drive it back into a safe corner where we can keep a wary eye on it.
I wrote an article about this last summer. I wrote it at the invitation of Adam Lee of Daylight Atheist, but he rejected it. I might post it here one of these days.
Show me someone who says that the latter sentence is hyperbolic, and I’ll show you someone who has not fully grasped the former. It’s like when a prominent gnu gives a speech or participates in a public debate, only to have an audience questioner get up at the end and ask “But if people do away with their religion, what will you replace it with?!” I always think, wow, you haven’t heard a damn thing, have you? Religion is the impediment. When a prisoner has her handcuffs removed, she does not ask “But what shall I replace them with?”
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Wayne de Villiers. Wayne de Villiers said: The implicit tyranny – Eric explains why he writes about religion. Suddenly, I find myself reading more and more abo… http://ow.ly/1aYi1a […]
I really like the eloquence of your post, however, I disagree. Prisoners often try to find another prison once they are released. Prison is a secure and predictable place. Releasing a prisoner who is poorly prepared for freedom can be cruel. Like in the “Shawshank Redemption”, the old man hanged himself because he could not bear to be free.
The idea of leaving one’s religion, even if belief is lacking, can be terrifying.
Back when I was wrestling with the whole deism/agnosticism/atheism thing, trying to figure out which of these I was, I sometimes looked at people of faith, read books on”spiritual” stuff and wondered if I was “colourblind”. Maybe I was deficient or missing something (the god-shaped hole in my heart?) Somehow I was not “seeing” something that was really there that others could see, feel and experience. My upbringing was not particularly religious, I had nothing to rebel against, but I felt vaguely troubled and uneasy, as if I should have some sort of “spiritual grounding”. But I knew that all the theistic religions were wrong and deeply flawed (this was the deist in me). This period of my mental life lasted much longer than I would care to admit.
Looking back I think my way out of this was lit by Carl Sagan’s work (Thanks, Carl!) Now that I am decidedly atheist I realize that I was not missing anything but that all those other people were seeing things that were not there at all, that they had a god-shaped hole in their brains and were, however sincere and well-meaning, just making stuff up.
Andy @#1,The handcuff image is perfect. It’s so depressing to see so many people shackled by religion. If there is no god then these people are submissive and obedient to the will of the men who claim to speak with and for the imagined god, which is sadder still. At its heart, atheism is about freedom and liberation from this obedience and submission. Accomodationists might see Gnus as rudely trying to take away people’s life preservers as they toss about on life’s turbulent seas, clinging to their faith as if their lives depended upon it. What Gnus are in fact doing is offering swimming lessons and showing people how to cast loose the dead weight of faith that is actually dragging them under.
Aaron, I think you’re right about prison and freedom (I think there are studies on this etc), but let’s not forget that Shawshank is fiction.
Just ask Andy Dufresne. Hahahahahahaha
“Religion believes itself in the possession of absolute knowledge, applicable to all people, always, and everywhere. That’s why I write about religion, because it is an affront to human dignity and a continuing threat to human freedom.”
I am so stealing that for a sig line and Facebook post. Properly attributed of course.
Ophelia,
I don’t think the fictional nature of Shawshank is the problem — there are known problems with institutionalisation of long-term prisoners. But (i) wanting to return to prison is exceedingly rare, even amongst the institutionalised, and (ii) the biggest reason for recidivism is lack of life skills and job opportunities on release (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35263313/ns/business-careers/).
Having said that, the fact that some prisoners return to prison because they cannot cope with the outside world only strengthens the argument that people should not be thrown willy-nilly into prisons, either physical or mental, during their formative years.
Now I’m wondering if “Andy Dufresne” being the commenter somehow unconsciously primed Aaron to think of the Shawshank Redemption for his example, or if it was just a coincidence?
Could easily be a priming.
bcoppola are we FB friends?
“bcoppola are we FB friends?”
No. Want to be? Even though I mostly post silly japes?
Sure. I figure I should be FB friends with all commenters who are on FB. It seems only right!
Having thought deeply for, oh, ten minutes or so on Eric’s essay and similar observations elsewhere, I find it hard to disentangle the religious prohibitions from purely social norms when it comes to assisted dying (or assisted suicide, if you will). One obvious point is that it is still somewhat controversial even in the very secular countries of Europe. Surely not all the opposition to assisted suicide in, say Switzerland, where Mr. MacDonald’s wife was helped to die, is based on religion?
OTOH, many Western social norms, of course, have a deep basis in Christianity. In other cultures and other times suicide (assisted and otherwise) has been accepted, even thought noble under some circumstances (including circumstances we would find abhorrent as a proper causes for suicide).
All that said, I certainly agree with Eric that, under certain circumstances such as painful and/or disabling terminal disease, the decision to terminate one’s own life should be one’s own decision. However, I am not certain whether even a secular state should not make laws limiting those circumstances. I am still feeling my way through these issues as my flip opening sentence points out. And I hasten to add that, although I have lost loved ones, it has not been under the dire circumstances faced by many like Eric. Death came relatively quickly under good pain management and/or Hospice care. Put baldly, i haven’t had to confront that terrible reality.
I am. What circumstances do you think warrant suicide being outlawed? I literally cannot think of a single one, and I’ve given the matter some consideration. If someone wants to end his or her own life, the very suggestion that the state should have anything to say on the matter is bizarre to me. Forgive me if I sound like a libertarian, but we’re not the state’s property. If they want help because of it, either to remedy the condition causing the desire or to carry the desire out, I consider the state positively obligated to do all it can.
Not only that, it’s an intentional Christian allegory. Andy Dufresne (the King/Darabont character, not the B&W commenter) is Christ, and Shawshank prison is Earth. Blechh. Entertaining enough movie, but a lousy moral.
Not enough people picked that up, so Darabont’s next film (The Green Mile) basically bludgeoned us over the head with a sinless (yet condemned) supernatural-healer hero named John Coffey. Subtle guy.
Institutionalisation is a widespread problem – prison, children’s home, armed forces… People aren’t very good at structuring their own lives, especially not when there are strong countervailing pressures to conform, which easily erode the fragile capacity to be self-reliant.
BTW, anyone read this pithy summary of why we are not, in any measurable sense, rational creatures anyway?
http://hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/science-proves-youre-stupid
Goes along with things like this:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
To remind us that the human mind is far stranger than we yet grasp…
Maybe I was deficient or missing something (the god-shaped hole in my heart?)
Me too. I talk to relations of mine who seem to have all sorts of relationships with gods or knowledge of homeopathy. And the do talk to me, politely of course, as if I were handicapped when I point out they no such knowledge. Either there is a cruel god, who gives a smug few a sensus divinatus, or there’s a smug few who elevate there personal delusions and narcissism to the level of faux knowledge (granted, it’s not a few).
Ophelia, with the greatest respect to you, and your efforts afford you the greatest respect, can I say that it’s wonderful that Eric has deigned to blog? Group hug?
I suppose religion is a kind of tyranny of the mind, where the authority or sacredness of a book or religious authority invades the mind and rules over it. Political ideals can also invade the mind, such as liberty; and if a person is unreasonable, liberty too can become an irrational tyranny of the mind.
The real exception to mental enslavement is reason, which itself is a method for an individual to fight against mental enslavement. And so that’s why we’re also political, because we challenge tyranny, not only in its normal forms of physical enslavement but all its mental forms.
Accommodationists have a sort of democratic mind, where majority rules over them, even though they hold a minority view. And so in a sense they too have a tyranny in their mind, the tyranny of the masses.
Since religion only fails against the mind or reason, it turns to the next best thing: the heart or emotions. It tyrannises over the hearts of people, like a trojan horse into the mind, and empties the mind of its contents.
And so our feelings and morality are also under attack by a tyranny, but we do not have a science or methodology of the heart, and so religion still has its gauntlet grasp over the hearts of people, forcing them to feel guilty and shameful, and forcing people and presidents to bow down upon knee to the authority of religion.
Aha, I didn’t know that about Shawshank. I’ve always avoided seeing The Green Mile (switching away quickly if I stumble on it when channel surfing) because it sounded ooky and “spiritual” – I’m pleased to learn I was right about that.
After reading this article and entertaining some conversation on it, I’ve hit some cognitive dissonance. Consider it a critique against my own atheism.
The big question: am I no better than Ackerman or Ziettlow in trying to hustle believers into accepting that what they believe in might not be true? If I was to say, “Believing in a god is no better than believing in a unicorn that is invisible that orbits mars,” or something like that, sure. Yeah, that is probably no better than what they’re doing (and yes, I’ve said this in the past). Is there a way I can broach the question of faith without attempting to dismantle their freedom of choice? I’d say at the level of belief, no, but as the level of evidence, possibly, especially if it’s a claim made as a pervasive statement.
As a subscriber and avid reader (I got my girlfriend “Does god hate women” within the first few months we were dating), I respect your opinion Ophelia. Maybe this is an insight problem, because I feel like I’m on the cusp of an answer but can’t find it.
Thank Jeebus MacDonald has his own blog now. Prose like that as a mere aside! Makes one want to stand up and cheer.
Mike, interesting question. That is what some of the more thoughtful critics of gnu atheism object to.
I think what I think is that it’s more of an imposition when the reasons are bad than it is when they’re not.