Joan Chittister

[miriam_e]

What a remarkable woman she is. You will be hard pressed to find a sharper, more honest mind. She embodies great hope for us all. I can't even say I'm sorry she is religious (she is a Benedictine nun), because she and people like her may help religious people find their way out of the blindness that too commonly afflicts them. It would be good to not feel I have to stand against religion because of the damage it does. It would be wonderful to feel it doesn't threaten our survival as a species. Unfortunately that isn't so yet. It would be very cool if people like Joan Chittister could help make it so.

My only qualm is that she talked eloquently about how people of all spiritual persuasions can find common ground for tolerance and build upon a basic goodness in spiritualism, but as is so common in religious people she ignored the fact that they are surrounded by atheists and agnostics who are good and tolerant people without spiritualism. Sad that even one so brilliant as she ignores that.

One of the incredible insights she explained in the program was the second commandment, not to take the name of god in vain. I'd always felt this was a rather irrelevant commandment, but as she put it, it is central to making religion more tolerant and just. By making, for instance, homophobic pronouncements against gay people then religious people are taking their god's name in vain. They are assuming to speak for their god -- an incredibly arrogant thing to do.

She is filled with such illuminations. A very smart woman indeed.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/default.htm

Comments

[annie-lyne.livejournal.com]

You could, however, take the comment about unifying spiritualities as just that -- unifying only the disparate spiritual beliefs -- not necessarily excluding those with none or who are unsure.

You could even argue that atheism is, in some form, a "spiritual belief", viz., that no such spiritual beings exist!

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

I'll be listening to the interview again later (because I like to squeeze as much out of such cool talks as possible) so I'll keep that possibility in mind.

I have such great respect for her and I don't believe she would deliberately exclude such a large part of humanity. It is almost certainly that she is talking about spirituality in particular, as you say. However I'm reminded of some male friends I've had in the past who have defended their use of male talent and ignoring female talent. When it is pointed out to them they've often been genuinely puzzled and replied that they guess women just haven't been suitable. Of course that is wrong; they'd been quite unconsciously sexist and exclusionary. Good, honest, well-meaning people can still be sexist. I tend to think it is the same with Joan Chittister and many other good, honest, well-meaning religious people: it simply never occurred to them that atheists and agnostics can be good, true people with a moral purpose and a high respect for life. Such exclusionary religious people are certainly not bad because of that, but it makes it no less irritating to be on the receiving end of the assumption that you are a moral vacuum because of your absence of religion.

I've heard it argued that atheism is a belief, but it seems a very dubious argument to me. Atheism and agnosticism are a lack of a belief; not a belief in something.

You'd resist someone trying to define you because of your skepticism about a higher alien civilisation using crop circles to communicate with us. It is entirely natural to not believe such silliness, especially since the two guys who made the first several have owned up to it. If someone said you are a believer in non-alien crop circles you'd probably correct them and say that no, there is nothing to believe. Belief doesn't come into it. That is how it is with atheism and agnosticism. (Though I must admit I have met a small number of people who Richard Dawkins calls fundamentalist atheists who fervently believe in no god. He rejects their belief, and so do I, as being just as ill-founded as religion.)

[idealistagain.livejournal.com]

It occurred to me that maybe this has a lot to do with what seems to be our differing views about religion lately. When I was younger, my views on the subject were much closer to yours and I considered religion to be destructive, dangerous, and poisonous--the opiate of the masses, as Marx would say.

But my recent experiences (ie, the past six or seven years or so) seem to have diverged from yours. I've had the fortune to meet a lot of people of faith who were like this--tolerant, just, and truly committed to bettering society. I've met a lot of clergy who are just truly amazing people, who have been leaders and organizers in fighting poverty, taking a stand against unjust wars, all sorts of human rights issues, and so on. One of my closest friends here is an Episcopal priest, another is a Methodist minister, both strong vibrant women with sharp intellects and a deep faith in humanity. These people have never treated me differently because I'm not a Christian or because I don't agree with them theologically. They don't preach acceptance and tolerance: they demonstrate it in every aspect of how they live.

Knowing people like this caused me to re-examine a lot of my attitudes toward religion and to revisit the history that is filled not only with the oppression and ugliness, but also with numerous examples of people of deep faith trying to build a better world--people a lot like the ones I'm fortunate enough to have in my everyday life.

I feel very confident at this point in saying that religion itself is not a grave danger that threatens our survival. Sure, there are many things done in the name of religion that qualify as dangerous (and true religious people fully recognize this and are always vigilant in speaking out against it), but it is not religion that is going to destroy us.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree with you about much of what you said, while at the same time I absolutely disagree regarding the danger posed by religion.

In my more than half a century of life I have met many, many good and tolerant people -- some are religious, many more are atheists and agnostics. I find that even the best of religious people have blind spots the size of elephants, where I must not tread if I don't want to be the recipient of bad feelings. These blind spots are associated with strong beliefs, and few beliefs are stronger than those encouraged by religion.

Clearly religion itself is the problem. Did you have a look at the research printed in the Journal of Religion and Society? The version I put on my website is easier to read.
http://miriam-english.org/files/religion_ill.html
Religion correlates directly with a sick society. It really is a bad thing. People are amazingly fond of making all kinds of excuses for religion, but nobody can escape the fact that it is sick and encourages damaged thinking. Even all the religions themselves agree on this -- they just think it of the other religions.

Some people are good, some less so. If they are very good they will, to some degree, be able to withstand some of the damage religion wreaks. If they are bad then with religion as a shield they can accomplish any kind of evil. But even normal people tend to become perverted by religion in small and large ways.

The fact that there are plenty of good atheists and agnostics completely invalidates religion's great claim -- that it is the path to morality. Nobody needs religion in order to be good. What possible use then is something that can be such an awful corrupting influence?

...there are many [bad] things done in the name of religion... but it is not religion...

This is one of the things that mystifies me about religion and apologists for it. How can people possibly say that? Religious people bomb buildings, shoot doctors, wage religious wars, burn "witches", block truth and science, yet others say "Oh but those people aren't doing those things for religion!" Yet if you ask the people who do those dastardly things they unhesitatingly claim a religious purpose. Why do people excuse such behavior? It is because they can't face the truth that the evil really is religion itself. (They wonder, "How can something that feels so good be that evil?" I say, "Ask a junkie.")

The religion meme has not survived for thousands of years without developing a pretty impressive bag of tricks. Religious people can turn themselves inside out to avoid questioning their belief. Many are even happy to question every other thing around them. Why does questioning religion feel like a deathly threat to their existence? It is the meme. This is how it survives.

Once upon a time we had the luxury of weaving coccoons of fantasy around us with the help of such self-perpetuating memes. Unfortunately the crazy religion meme is too dangerous for a powerful species like us. If we don't outgrow fairytale belief systems we may threaten everything along with our own survival.

[idealistagain.livejournal.com]

You make some very good points. I agree with a lot of what you say.

But what a reading of history shows me is that when one takes a broader view and gets away from the topic of either being for or against religion, the real danger and the real evil come from people who believe they have some unique grasp on ultimate truth and that all who disagree with them are somehow flawed.

The scary thing about fundamentalism is that it does indeed have its own consistent internal logic; it is merely the premise that is faulty. If you DO believe that it is in fact true that you alone know ultimate truth and that there is something wrong with anyone who doesn't see things your way, it is not a huge logical jump to justify discrimination and worse.

I place atheists in this category. Yes, it is true that atheism itself is nothing more than a lack of a belief in deity. But you can't advocate for a lack of belief; at the point you start advocating, it becomes not a simple lack of belief, but an ideology. And there is also a strain of atheists that don't simply lack belief in a deity, but in fact believe THAT there is no deity. That's fine; you can believe whatever you want, but again, the latter position does start to fall into the realm of ideology.

Yes, fundamentalist religious people believe that those who follow other religions are sick and twisted. But fundamentalist atheists also believe that of people who follow any religion. Its the same thing--my belief is absolutely right and yours is wrong and if you can't see that its because there's something wrong with you. And then these fundamentalist atheists will fall behind the excuse that "oh atheism is just a lack of a belief". Again, one advocates for beliefs, not non-beliefs; advocating for non-belief is a nonsensical concept, akin to division by zero. This hiding is corrupting the meaning of atheism, just as fundamentalists of other belief systems corrupt those belief systems to their own end.

I always consider myself against fundamentalism of any form. I do not believe that anyone has any unique grasp of absolute truth, and that includes scientists. In fact, I'm skeptical that there is such a thing as absolute truth in the first place.

I am, above all else, always a skeptic, always questioning everything, including myself and my own beliefs. I'm not going to say that that is the only way of guarding against the dangers of fundamentalism, but it is certainly a method that I find effective.

In addition to constant skepticism, I also believe that one should always take care to distinguish fact from personal opinion. Too often in things you write about religion, I see this line being blurred and that is always something that sets off a red flag in my mind.

Also, placing labels on the opposition ("apologists" and so forth) is a logical fallacy and does nothing to strengthen your case.

Again, I do agree with you that there's a lot of potential for religion to be dangerous. The danger is even greater when those who would be in a great position to urge caution start undermining their own credibility through ideological-driven fallacies.

And there is also a limit to those with a lot of formal education who are not conscious of the limits of their knowledge.

CORRECTION

[(Anonymous)]

And there is also a limit to those with a lot of formal education who are not conscious of the limits of their knowledge.

That should read:

And there is also a danger when those with a lot of formal education are not conscious of the limits of their knowledge.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

It is important to be a skeptic about everything, but don't be misled into using theoretical arguments to equate two positions that are practically speaking very different. Atheists are not theoretically equivalent to religious people. I know very many atheists (Australia is a much less religious country than USA), but off-hand I can only think of one who is a fundamentalist atheist. (I, and most other atheists who talk with him, consider his arguments slightly annoying.) On the other hand I know vast numbers of fundamentalist religious people.

Many religious people have incorrectly labelled me a fundamentalist atheist, but I would concede the existence of gods in an instant if there was any evidence for their existence. I've even written stories which assume the existence of one or more gods. Like the overwhelming bulk of atheists I dismiss the claims for a god as simply fairytales, but would be perfectly happy to accommodate any actual evidence.

You can't simply consider atheism as equivalent in some way to religion. The two are entirely different. One starts from a belief and justifies everything else with the belief as the starting point -- even for religious moderates. The other simply doesn't have the belief. Many have said to me that I believe in the non-existence of a god, but that isn't true. I almost don't care. If it would stop hurting us I'd leave it alone. The only reason I speak out about against religion is for social justice.

Religion is visiting great damage upon our societies and is currently involved in a desperate grasp for more power and control. Theocracy is an alarming threat to every thinking person on the planet. I consider it an annoyance to feel that I have to speak out. If it wasn't for this immediate danger I would consider religion simply a complete waste of time and effort and would be happy to leave people to their silly fairytales. But it has come to the point where it is too dangerous. Good atheists need to speak up and say "Religion is not the source of morality -- in fact it is the source of much that is bad."

apologist n A person who argues in defense or justification of another person or cause.

It is not just religious people themselves who argue that religion is good. Many non-religious people believe that religious belief is a good thing. Even my non-religious Mum (who I love) feels this way. Those people are correctly called apologists. It isn't a logical fallacy to mention them. It is a simple fact.

The fact that there are good people who are religious doesn't work as an argument that religion is not a social ill. It is like arguing that the flu is not a disease because some people survive fine. The only way to decide on such things is to look at the evidence rather than anecdote.

Do read the research I posted. I'm uploading an interview with the author of the article. If you find it a grind to read the article (it is a very dense article) then the interview might help. This research utterly demolishes the case for religion in the simplest way. It simply looks at the evidence for religion's claim of being a good thing for society. It is amazing that nobody has actually bothered to look before.
Phillip Adams interviews Gregory Paul 2005-10-04.mp3 (http://miriam-english.org/files/Phillip%20Adams%20interviews%20Gregory%20Paul%202005-10-04.mp3)

[idealistagain.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to clarify that I do intend to review the research you've sent me. My not having done so to this point is not due to a lack of interest or any desire to ignore your points; it is simply because of being tied up with other tasks that have real-world deadlines that have to take priority.

I wouldn't say that my intent in this discussion is to defend religion. I've even gone to great lengths to point out that I do agree with a great deal of your views. I simply feel that some things you say cross the line from legitimate argument into unjustified attacks. I am not trying to prove that religion is necessarily good, but rather countering your point that it is always bad.

But OK, I don't want to simply pick nits, so I'll even grant you for the moment that I'm accurately an apologist. Even so, I still feel that label is a fallacy in this context, because it is simply labelling other people without doing anything either to advance y our own position or to disprove any position held by someone else. Even if not a fallacy, I fail to see the usefulness of the term; at best, it seems irrelevant. At worst, its an unfair categorization because it places my views within a box ("apologist") that could easily lead to wrong conclusions, since, in reality, there is probably not very much similarity between my views and those of other apologists and a label itself says nothing about my individual viewpoint.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

:) Okay. I was a little mystified at your disagreement with my use of the word "apologist". It wasn't actually pointed specifically at you, though you were included within its compass. Your reaction surprised me. Perhaps it has different connotations over there than it does here. That's why I checked the dictionary, to see if I was missing something. Perhaps it is something in the culture. Over there "atheist", from what I can ascertain, carries connotations of deceitfulness and amorality. Over here it just means someone who doesn't believe in a god. Over there perhaps apologist means more than the dictionary term would indicate. Perhaps it does here too. I'll have to ask around.

It was just a throwaway word. Here's why I included it:

I've been recently talking with friends who defend religious people's desire to believe nutty stuff if they want and to thrust it upon the rest of us. It had bothered me that this is part of why religion has such a grip. If people would resist being forced into pretending to pray at certain events, or would not accede to religious fervour in forcing children to attend scripture classes, or would speak out against religious statements that we are a religious nation, then we would have a better chance. We need to stand up for ourselves and say that we don't go along with childish fables.

My friends demurred, saying it was too hard and some even said that they felt it was good for some people to have a belief to cling to. This bewildered me. The evidence is that these beliefs are unhealthy. It smacked of an incredibly patronising attitude to say that these people are not doing any harm and that they shouldn't be jarred out of their comfortable delusion by revealing that we around them are largely atheist.

If all the atheists and agnostics stood up and said that it was stupid and they weren't going to just let religious people have their way all the time then we might actually be free of it. There would still be religious people, but we wouldn't have the nonsense constantly thust upon us anymore. They would know our position and hopefully would see theirs as less tenable. I don't believe religious people should be forced to hide their beliefs, but it annoys me that many atheists and agnostics willingly hide their own and make patronising excuses for religious people. ("They're so inferior they might crumble without their beliefs.")

That was what I meant when I mentioned apologists. My original point stands without including the word, but I don't feel it loses anything by adding it. The intention wasn't to label you, but to add an extra extent to the problem.

I'm sorry if you felt offended by it. That certainly wasn't what I wanted.

After all that, here it is again without the word:

...there are many [bad] things done in the name of religion... but it is not religion...

This is one of the things that mystifies. How can people possibly say that? Religious people bomb buildings, shoot doctors, wage religious wars, burn "witches", block truth and science, yet others say "Oh but those people aren't doing those things for religion!" Yet if you ask the people who do those dastardly things they unhesitatingly claim a religious purpose. Why do people excuse such behavior? It is because they can't face the truth that the evil really is religion itself. (They wonder, "How can something that feels so good be that evil?" I say, "Ask a junkie.")

See what I mean? People would excuse religion by saying that those who do those horrid things are not the face of true religion. Yet if you ask those hateful people themselves, they do indeed consider religion to be their direct motive. The problem is religion. In fact the most damning of all are moderates themselves. The only way they can be good and tolerant people is by actively disbelieving most of their own religion.