Religion and Seafood
by Justin Felux
*** Note: I wrote this before Larry David made the lobster/religion analogy on that particular episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I love that show though, and I thought it was neat that he expressed such a similar sentiment.
I have noticed in recent times in my dealings with other atheists a few unsettling trends in their attitudes, demeanors, and beliefs. It may or may not be a âtrendâ in the sense that it is something new, but I believe it is something that needs to be addressed. First we must meet a person who henceforth will be referred to as the militant atheist.
Behold, the militant atheist. He fancies himself a beacon of truth, logic, and rationality in a sea of false beliefs and utter idiocy. His worldview is infallible; he is so sure of himself that his opinions seem almost dogmatic in nature. However, he has a gut-visceral hatred of anything and everything that is even remotely religious. Should he ever come upon a person of which he knows little about other than the fact that he or she believes in a deity, he will disrespect that person by default. Theists are a despicable lot, and nearly every problem facing humanity in the modern world can be blamed on theistic belief. From time to time he may even entertain the notion that he is in fact more âevolvedâ than the theist. In conversations with him, any insinuation of an idea that even remotely deviates from his narrow worldview will be met with vituperative insults and haughty contempt. One might even wonder whether it is saliva or venom that he is unwittingly spitting as he shouts, âFundie!â. Indeed, the militant atheist is a rather unsavory character. [Note: my use of the pronoun âheâ is not for brevityâthe militant atheist is almost invariably a male. I will leave it to the reader to ponder why that is so.]
This is merely a good-humored exaggeration of the kind of attitude I wish to confront. Anyone who frequently discusses philosophical or religious matters has undoubtedly encountered someone who at least to a degree resembles our caricature of the militant atheist. I myself was once the militant atheist, going from place to place proselytizing my lack of belief [sic] and turning my nose up at anyone who disagreed with me. So in a sense, I am doing perhaps the same thing the militant atheist is doing; lashing out at and confronting past attitudes or beliefs he once held, and is resentful towards because he feels he was duped. Are you the militant atheist? Maybe just a little? If so, then I am writing this just for you.
You might be wondering what any of this has to do with seafood. Well, my reaction to seafood is in many ways similar to the militant atheistâs reaction to religion. It makes me sick to my stomach. I think that all seafood tastes as if it has been glazed over with a thin layer of pond scum. I find lobster to be particularly nauseating, as it looks and feels like a giant swimming cockroach. However, even given all my reservations about seafood, it would be rather absurd for me to hate a person simply because he or she likes to eat seafood. It would also be equally absurd for me to hate the fact that some people enjoy eating seafood, which is the impersonal equivalent of the former. Just to be clear, these two statements should be juxtaposed with âI hate theistsâ for the first and âI hate theismâ for the second. It is my contention that atheists should treat religion and religious people in the same way I treat people who like seafood. My attitude is that people can eat as much seafood as they want, it is of no consequence to me. Just as long as you do not try to shove seafood down my throat, I have no problem at all.
I can already imagine some objections that the militant atheist may be having, and I will deal with them in due time. First, however, I would like to address something that is commonly overlooked by atheists, and that is religion as a positive influence on society. Once upon a time when I was still a militant atheist, I stumbled across the following quote from Albert Einstein on the web:
âBeing a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks⌠Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitlerâs campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.â
I must admit, I was rather miffed when I first read this. Einstien was supposed to be on my side. You know, the side of the smart people. Einstein certainly has a valid point though. The religious opposition to Hiltler was very admirable. I should point out also that religion is unique among ideologies in that it is so widespread that it becomes almost impossible to say definitively what any particular religionâs standpoint is on any given subject. In effect, it becomes a neutral agent. The effects of a religion are entirely dependent on its intepretation. So religion is more comparable to something like wealth or knowledge, in the sense that wealth (or knowledge) can result in things that are either good or evil, depending on how it is utilized. Later on in life, I came across another relevant quote from Noam Chomsky. Upon being asked about how he reconciled his atheistic beliefs with the religious beliefs of many of the people he associates with in popular solidarity movements, he responded thusly:
"[The subject of religion] basically doesnât come up. I mean, they know where I stand, I know where they stand. You could ask the question: How important is it to fight this battle, how important to try to convince people they shouldnât have irrational beliefs? I think itâs reasonably important, and I do it when the thing comes up. But itâs marginal to these pursuits [human rights, etc.]. I donât let it get in the way. While I think in principle people should not have irrational beliefs, I should say that as a matter of fact, it is people who hold what I regard as completely irrational beliefs who are among the most effective moral actors in the world, in many respects. Theyâre among the worst, but also among the best, even though the moral beliefs are ostensibly the same. Take, say, the solidarity movement in Central America, which I think is what you probably had in mind. To a large extent, it comes out of mainstream Christianity, based on beliefs that have had outrageous human consequences in the past, and that I think are totally indefensible. In this case, they happen to lead to some of the most courageous, heroic, and honourable human action thatâs taking place anywhere in the world. Well, thatâs how life is, I guess. It doesnât come in neat little packages.
Chomsky mentions Christian Americans who moved to Latin America to live with villagers during the 1980s (hoping that the presence of a white face would deter the many death squads). I think that these people are some of the most courageous and respectable individuals in all of history, and they were obviously motivated by their religious beliefs to do what they did. Religious charities help millions of needy people every day. Clearly, it can not be said that religion does not have a positive effect on society.
This, of course, has to be balanced against the fact that religion in some cases is also connected with very bad things. The IRA, the Ayatollahs, clinic bombings, censorship, the Crusades, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, totalitarianism, and now September 11th. The kind of religious people who engage in these activities are distinct from the casual believer, and I donât think it is fair at all to make a blanket condemnation of all theism based on these actions. It is extremely distasteful the way that many atheists have taken advantage of the September 11th tragedy and used it as an attempt to condemn all religion and evangelize their own worldviews. I have never met a theist who would not condemn religious terrorism. In fact, I have met theists who would condemn it in stronger words than any atheist I know. Many of these things, in particular the more extreme ones, likely would have happened even if religion were not in the picture. They have political or economic motives that are simply cloaked in a veil of religious fervor. However, people who engage in those things are shoving religion down the throats of other people (not to mention violating elementary human rights), and they deserve our disrespect. In fact, they are even more unsavory than the militant atheist. We may even regard them as evil. What I am saying here should not be taken in any way to be a defense of this kind of militant theism. However, I think this kind of theism is extremely rare. It is only so well-known and apparent because of how extremely offensive it is. I live in southern Texas, one of the most fundamentalist places in the United States (maybe even the world), yet of all the Christians I know (and practically everyone I know is a Christian) only two or three are of the militant variety. Even those whom I know that are âmilitantâ are only militant in a marginal senseâthey do not even compare to the likes Ayatollah Khomeni.
My defense is of the casual theist, who chooses to believe for his or her own personal reasons and does not try to force-feed their ideology to those who have no interest in it. Incidentally, this is the vast majority of all theists. These people do not deserve our contempt and they do not deserve to be scoffed at. Blanket condemnations of religion as being regressive or even evil are irrational. It is tantamount to regarding iron ore as dangerous and evil, and thus refusing to mine it simply because it may potentially be fashioned in to a bullet or a sword that could in turn be used to harm someone. It is also a subtle form of bigotry in my opinion. It can go both ways. I am in agreement with Jello Biafra when he says, âIâm not down on people who are Christians or believe in God, but people who take their own narrow interpretation of the Bible and want to force it on everyone else ⌠are as low as white supremacists or male supremacists, or any of the others. They are Christian supremacists.â, and I think it is only fair that we apply the same standard to ourselves.
So why should we treat theism like we treat seafoodism? For some people, eating seafood has positive effects on their lives. It nourishes them, it may produce a pleasant sensation in the taste buds, it may give them an occasion to socialize at the local seafood restaurant, and so on. Likewise, some who partake in religious beliefs and practices may get some feelings of fulfillment and happiness from them. It may give them a sense of purpose in life, it may give them a reason to not commit suicide, it may provide occasion for dressing up nicely and singing songs with friends in the community, it may give them a mystical feeling of oneness with nature, or any number of things. The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James is a useful reference, and is something I believe all atheists (maybe theists too) should read.
James was one of the founding fathers of the philosophy known as pragmatism. There are many shades of pragmatism, but I will be primarily concerned with his version here. In the past I have been critical of the pragmatic theory of truth. Superficially defined, the pragmatic theory of truth states that âwhatever works is trueâ, or âwhatever produces positive effects is trueâ. In the case of seafood, the pragmatic theory of truth works very well. The statement âseafood tastes super yummyâ may be true for you, but it certainly isnât true for me. However, there are obvious problems with this theory. Consider the following statements:
(i) Jesus Christ is the one and only true Messiah
(ii) David Spade is the one and only true Messiah
(i) and (ii) cannot both be âtrueâ in the literal sense, since there obviously can not be more than one âone and only true Messiahâ. The beliefs of the Christians cannot be reconciled with the beliefs of the Spadists, yet they both may very well have positive effects for people. Yet they canât both be true. However, I would argue that it may be more wise of us to regard religion not as the psychotic musings of irrational people, but a reasonable hypothesis that certain people choose to make. Many physicists believe in the validity of string theory, despite the fact that it has not yet been verified by empirical evidence. In fact, some even choose to believe string theory based on the uniformity and âbeautyâ of its equations. âBut surelyâ, you may contest, âthere is a difference between blind faith in some magical sky-fairy and science. One of them is rational. The other one isnât. Itâs just silly!â. Suppose we have in our presence a militant atheist. We shall call him Cryan Butler. The following dialogue between Mr. Butler and James is how I think an argument between the two would play out:
Butler: There is a difference between blind faith in some magical sky-fairy and science. One of them is rational. The other one isnât. Itâs just silly! The two donât even compare! Anyone who accepts the existence of something without evidence is a big dumb idiot! Claims of existence can only be verified empirically! A really smart person told me that!
James: How interesting it is, the way you condemn beliefs without evidence when your own worldview is so riddled with such things.
Butler: Yeah, right! I donât believe things without evidence! Thatâs faith, I donât have any faith! I only rely on evidence and logic and reason!
James: Is that so? This âevidenceâ you speak of, how do you know it is valid? Your appeal to evidence presupposes the existence of other things, and the validity of your own sense-perception. How do you know you are not being fooled by Descartesâ Evil Demon? You accept without question the validity of the laws of logic and mathematics. You cross your fingers and hope the principle of induction is true. Indeed, you believe there is a truth, and that your mind can pursue and obtain it. How do you know all this?
Butler: What? That is a stupid question! Everybody believes that stuff. Itâs logical and rational. You just want to believe in sky-fairies!
James: On the contrary, these are not things that everybody believes. Suppose a pyrrhonistic sceptic were to ask you how you know all this, can your logic find a reply? No! You can not prove these things in any manner that is not entirely circular. It is simply a matter of one volition against another. You are just willing to go through life trusting assumptions which the sceptic, for his part, does not care to make!
Butler: Look, this is just annoying and stupid! Everybody has to believe in logic and their senses and all that stuff! It would be too hard to live if we went around doubting everything! It would be impossible to learn stuff and trust our experiences! Anyone who doubts like that is a big retard!
James: For the record, I do not believe that David Hume is a retard. Ah, but at long last, we have realized the hypocrisy of your view. You make all of these improvable assumptions, and what is your justification? It is merely useful to you to hold those items as true. Your justification is a pragmatic one! So tell me, Mr. Butler, assuming a man finds great utility in his theistic belief, what makes your pragmatic justification for your faith any more a priori valid than his? I predict that you will not be able to give a satisfactory answer to this question.
Butler: I donât have time for this, you big sky-fairy lover! You are so full of it. I bet âa prioriâ isnât even a word! You suck! Iâm outta here!
My fictional William James may not convince atheists that theism is just as valid of an assumption as say, accepting the laws of logic. However, I think the argument is at least compelling. All of our knowledge rests on a firm foundation of assumptions. A lot of things have to be presupposed in order to make things like science and reason possible. Yet, these things are not necessary. Hidden within the assumption that our sense-perception is at times trustworthy is the assumption that there is actually something out there to sense. So in effect, we actually assume the existence of things. Our justification is just that itâs useful to us, or that it âmakes senseâ to us. Look at all the advances we have made in science using induction and empirical observations! However, we can barely give an argument for why our reasons for assuming these things is any better than the theists reasons for assuming god, since he or she may find god just as rewarding as we find induction. Again, I do not expect any atheists to think that theism is just as rational an assumption as logic based simply on this argument (I donât even regard it as such). I just think that realizing the fact that many of our beliefs about the world and the way it works amount to nothing more than blind articles of faith might make the idea that some people find it useful to assume the existence of something like a âsky-fairyâ a little bit more palatable.
There are still more reasons to treat theism more like seafoodism. One is the very fact that the attitude of the militant atheist is self-defeating. He claims that he sees the alleged injustices that religion is causing in the world, and it pains him. He wants these injustices to stop! Yet, his attitude is such that it will not convince any theist to side with him. In fact, most theists would be so put off by his attitude that even if they were presented with incontrovertible proof that the militant atheist is correct, they would obstinately refuse to accept it, simply because people do not like to be bullied and insulted. Furthermore, people who are on the fence will contrast the attitude of the militant atheist with the attitude of the mild-mannered theist and will be more receptive to the theistâs inviting tone. If the militant atheist were treating religion more like seafood, which is a much more inviting attitude, people might actually want to listen to and consider what he has to say. To me, this seems like a simple matter of common sense. Is the militant atheist unaware of it? Or is he knowingly engaging in the kind of discourse that he knows is contrary to his alleged aim of getting rid of religious intolerance? It seems the more we consider him, the more hypocritical the militant atheist becomes.
There is one more thing I wish to point out on this manner, and it has to do with the purpose of debate. Debate, in many cases, is not for the participants. The object is not necessarily to convince the opponent of the veracity of your position. When two presidential candidates debate on television, for example, they are not trying to convince each other of their cases. They are debating for the benefit of the audienceâthose who have not yet made up their minds about the topic of the debate, and wish to inquire about it. This should be the nature of most debates that deal with religious issues. I think in many cases, the militant atheists enters in to a debate with the misconception that his goal is to ultimately convert his opponent to atheism, and when it doesnât work despite all his glorious logic and reason, he gets frustrated and angry. The militant atheist should ask himself: would a fence-sitter engage me in a debate? The answer is likely no. When people are unsure of their beliefs or are still considering matters, they typically will not attempt to debate someone who has already made up their mind and very likely has more knowledge than they do. Typically, people only engage in debates when they are already sure of their opinions. I am already sure of my opinion. It may change in the future, but I am sure of it right now. For me, theism is what James called a âdead hypothesisâ. It is simply not an option for me. There is not an argument that would convince me of the veracity of theism. I could no sooner believe in the Christian god than I could believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. It would take some sort of dramatic experience that shook the foundations of my entire worldview to change my mind, although I surely admit the possibility. Likewise, for the theists who debate atheists, atheism is a dead hypothesis. It is pretty safe to say that neither of you will ever convince each other, no matter how long you debate.
Of course, this does not mean that debate and intelligent discourse on these subjects is futile. There are many people out in the world who are still unsure of what to believe, and allowing these people to see debates and hear the arguments from both sides is a good thing. And although the participants in the debate may never convince each other, debate in and of itself is a useful tool for honing various intellectual skills. I think the militant atheist fails to recognize the fact that for the theist, atheism is a âdead hypothesisâ. Either that, or it is simply over his head how anyone could possibly think differently than him (which seems rather arrogant). Whichever it is, I think the atheist would be more wise in accepting this fact, and not allowing it to get under his skin. He should realize that he is debating for the benefit of the audience, not to âwinâ. The militant atheist often gets so caught up in winning the debate that he becomes rude and angry. He then may go on to proselytize his atheism to even more theists to which it is a dead hypothesis, in a relentless attempt to make at least some of them âsee the lightâ, reducing himself to the status of a Bible thumper. An angry and inconsiderate Bible thumper, at that.
In summary, I have attacked the attitude, demeanor, and beliefs of what I call âmilitant atheistsâ. I have demonstrated why the militant atheists attitude is wrong, hypocritical, and futile. He condemns all of religion when he neednât do so, he refuses to apply the same standards to his beliefs that he applies to that of the theist, and he is rude and misguided in his relations with theists. If you are a militant atheist, I should hope that you are feeling like quite an ass right now. Even if you do not accept the rationality of theism, as I do, I think I have at least made a solid case for approaching issues of religion with a more open-minded attitude. It is a better idea to regard theism as you regard the fact that some people like seafood, while you may not. When you take the approach that the militant atheist does, that all theists are brainwashed idiots and theism is destroying the world, you actually get results that are contrary to your aims, and you do nothing to spread the blessings of freethought.
