An example of how the Christian meme can mess up your thinking.
November 28th, 2005 by LesI was tooling around on Elwed’s blog where he was commenting on a Christian blogger by the name of John Bartlett who was ruminating on an atheist bumper sticker he had seen the other day:
“Proud to be an Atheist”
..was printed on the bumper sticker I followed for several stop lights a few weeks ago. It was on a pick-up truck driven by a man in his mid-30’s. I guess it shouldn’t shock me, but yep… it shocks me that someone could believe there was no God. As I followed his truck on my way home from work I just prayed for him. I didn’t know what else to do (although I did think about getting into a wreck with him so that I could try and work God into the ensuing conversation). I wanted to talk to him to see if I could reason with him.
If only he knew what I and so many others know to be true.
...
I feel such a passion for this. I’m totally serious here… I was actually trying to figure out how I could talk to this guy! If I didn’t think he’d punch me for wrecking his truck I probably would’ve done it!
That’s some pretty bad gotta-proselytize jonesing going on if you’re actually considering getting into a traffic accident just to try and convert someone. Mr. Bartlett later says he wouldn’t ever actually cause a wreck just to preach in the comments that follow the entry, but then why claim in the last sentence that he was totally serious and only stayed his hand because of fear he’d get punched out?
Why the big desire to try and convert others from so many Christians? I used to just write it off as them following what the Bible says in terms of going out and witnessing to others, but when you get passionate statements like the one from Mr. Bartlett there has to be something more to it than just following God’s directions behind it all. It’s things like that which make it a lot easier to accept the theory that Christianity is a particularly virulent form of meme. It’s not enough to be content in the feelings of wonderfulness that such a deeply held belief brings about, they have to validate their beliefs by convincing others to join in on the delusion. They tell themselves they simply want others to know the immense peace and love and happiness a relationship with Jesus brings them, but if they were so damned content they wouldn’t need the external validation their witnessing is meant to bring about. I suspect, though I can’t prove it, that it’s lingering doubts about the stories they’ve bought into so completely that brings about this behavior.
During the course of give and take in the comments Mr. Bartlett asks the following question: “If you had the cure for cancer wouldn’t you shout it from the rooftops too? Someone else responded with the quite true statement that anyone who did have the cure for cancer wouldn’t need to shout it from the rooftops so long as other scientists could replicate the experiments and confirm the claim. Besides, there are already thousands of people who claim to have the cure for cancer out there who have just as much evidence supporting their cures as Mr. Bartlett has for his God. When they can back it up with something more than “I know in my heart that this is true” then I’ll stop to listen, but until then I’m not buying what they’re selling.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:08 am
Honestly, I haven’t a problem with anyone who does believe, but nothing will infuriate me faster than someone who feels that my life is lacking because it doesn’t include a belief in god/Jesus/heaven/hell.
Who is anyone else to tell me I’m missing out? Maybe I don’t see it that way. Maybe I’m happy to be free of all of the trappings of religion that turn a lot of otherwise sane people into bigoted zealots. Maybe I’m happy to live my life as a good person without some big fat book telling me so.
And it infuriates me further when, upon hearing about my nonbeliever status, someone tells me “God loves you anyway, even if you have turned your back on Him” or “I’ll pray for you.”
Keep your prayers! I don’t want them! Look at all the atrocious things people have visited upon each other over the last several thousand years—and all in the name of “God”.
No, thank you. I want no part of any of it.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:47 am
Well, it’s probably as unfair to armchair psychologize that proselytizing Christians do so because of insecurity as it is to armchair psychologize that atheists are that way because they’re really just angry at God for something that happened to them ...
(It is almost certain, given human nature, that both diagnoses are true for some individuals. But as general statements?)
Note that, from an orthodox Christian standpoint, spreading the “Good News” is not (just) about making people feel happy. It’s about saving folks from an eternity of torment and punishment. There are Christians who firmly believe that (I don’t, myself, but, then, I’m not all that orthodox), and so consider it a duty and a kindness to push the Gospel and prayer on others, even when unwelcome.
Unfortunately, for folks who hold that view, the only way it can be proven is after death (which some might consider “convenient”), so the scientific proof for cancer analogy is difficult for them to follow through on.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:57 am
The need to convert people has nothing to do with knowing the peace, love and happiness that a relationship with Jesus brings.
If that was the objective, it would be as incomprehensible and pointless as you suggest—the spiritual equivalent of “I like chocolate mint ice cream, and if you don’t currently agree, then I’m going to yell at you until you do.”
Nor does it have much to do with the bible telling people to go forth and witness. Sure, the bible does say that…but not just for the sake of witnessing—again, that would be incomprehensible and pointless.
The reason that Christians witness, pray for the unconverted, go to great lengths (including risking their own lives as missionaries) to try to engage those who have not heard or accepted Jesus is that they really and truly believe that Jesus is the one and only path to salvation and eternal life.
To those who believe this, it is only natural that the saving of ONE soul is worth any amount of effort it takes. It’s not about power, or influence, or “my opinion is better than yours.” It’s about saving the most valuable thing in the universe.
And before anyone jumps on me..I am talking about paradigms. I understand that many here (and elsewhere) don’t feel that Jesus is the only path to an eternal life…or even that there is such a thing as an eternal life.
I’m saying that those who do believe it, must naturally follow certain actions that go with that belief.
By the same token, those who don’t believe it must naturally view those who do (and the efforts they go through) as quaint, pushy, offensive, etc.
And as a final comment….none of this in any way justifies the existance of the “religious right”: Pat Roberson’s calls for assassination of foreign leaders, and an attempt to teach ID in schools. That’s politics, pure and simple, using religion as both cammoflage and a weapon.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:00 am
Damn… ***Dave scooped me.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Not that I want to plug elwed’s blog (Darwin forfend!), but here’s another of his posts which may or may not appertain to the topic at hand.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:57 am
Ah, zilch, that link will not work.
Here’s another version of it:
http://www.i4m.com/think/parables/mary_john.htm
November 29th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Thanks, elwed. After posting it I realized it couldn’t work. Story of my life…
November 29th, 2005 at 11:27 am
The strongest human motivation is fantasy. This is just an example that helps prove this theory. Also consider that the divorce rate in the U.S. is approxiamtely 50%. We don’t marry the person we see, we marry a fantasy of what we want to believe he or she will become. Then reality sets in! Consider the O.J. trial. Consider that we re-elected both Clinton and Bush!!! How much money does Disneyland make in a day? etc, etc.
November 29th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Les, that post read like an op/ed in a magazine. Do you write pro at all? That was a very eloquent analysis. I totally forgot what I was reading half way through.
Kudos to you.
Jamie, I can’t speak for the rest of the forum but you could have been describing my life and my feelings about Christianity and religion in general.
Great posts.
Regards,
Deoxy
November 29th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Since I’m tossing links about, it’s time for another rendition of The Tale of the Twelve Officers.
November 29th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
freethoughtmom has an interesting challenge in one of her comments there:
Can you imagine if John’s wife, Jennifer…
...actually spent ten minutes considering that she might have been psychologically abused at a young age of ten into accepting the god meme.
Is it unrealistic to believe that she, or others like her, could honestly shrug off, for just this short amount of time, the indoctrinating opinions she was fed and consider merits of alternate points of view with an open mind?
It’s likely they couldn’t play the “Devil’s Advocate” for even five minutes. The religion has been designed to inspire guilt in such a venture and God does not appreciate free-thinking.
Still, it happens every day….
Oh and thanks for the links elwed and zilch; I really enjoyed those.
November 29th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Scientists wouldn’t shout it from the rooftops because joy, love, anger, and jealousy don’t affect them. Only chemical imbalances in the brain causing neurons to fire do.
I think the funny thing about humanity is we can’t help but exist in circular reasoning scenarios. I think it is a testament to our finiteness. God exists because He says He does is just as circular as Science works because it proves itself. No matter what way we cut it we will always chase our tails to find meaning and understanding.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
***Dave and J1, thanks for commenting on this. Your insights, as always, are very helpful.
Deoxy, I’ve never written anything professionally as far as I’m aware. I’m just a fairly decent amateur with too big of a mouth that isn’t afraid to use it.
Theocrat, methinks you need to read up on the scientific method again. No one is claiming that science proves itself.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Les,
Gödel pretty much put that idea to rest.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
If I ask “why does science work?” Wouldn’t the answer inevitably require the use of a scientific method?
November 29th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
At the risk of offending Karl Popper, no.
The scientific method is a protocol for the acquisition of new knowlegde, in particular with regards to nature, that is designed to maximize reliability and confidence into the results. There is a significant sociological component to the pursuit of science, too. Scientists are vested in their pet theories and any hypothesis or theory that leaves the beaten path is likely to face an uphill battle. If a new and different understanding of nature happens to yield a model of higher accuracy and improved predictive power, it will eventually prevail.
Science as we know it works because certain fundamental assumptions about nature seem to hold. One of these assumptions, informally put: Nature works the same way regardless of location and time. Thus, science assumes that an experiment repeated under identical conditions will yield the same result, without fail. The scientific method exploits this assumption.
Conceivably, the scientific method could still be applied if only weaker versions of these assumptions would hold and arguably, that’s precisely the predicament that the soft sciences find themselves in.
You may want to read up on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. While they technically apply to systems of formal logic only, I’d be very surprised if they would not apply to science per se.
November 29th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
It’d be funny to watch Derrida deconstruct your defense. I don’t know why… I’m sick… I got nothin.
November 29th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
For some, maybe. Les, I’d be awful surprised if this guy just truly wanted others to experience what he is feeling. Here’s my take on many of the folks that are gripped by the feelings the guy described above:
Imagine eating a kickass dessert at a restaurant. You love it. So you order a second one. Then you go back for more the next night. And you get some to go. Pretty soon, you’re at home cooking it for your friends. You invite them over to taste this dessert that tastes so wonderful to you. Next thing you know, you’re in the restaurant telling folks you have never seen before or will again, hey you need to order some of dessert X, killer stuff.
Obsessive? You bet. Likely to get on the other diners nerves? Possibly. Inspired by insecurity to spread the word about [feel in what makes you feel so good]? Nope.
November 30th, 2005 at 12:48 am
He was afraid of getting punched!?
Okay, if he’s right and Christ died for our sins and he is going to heaven because he believes and we’re all going to be deep fried for eternity, how do you think people who were actually martyred are going to treat him? Or Jesus Himself? “Yeah, Stephen there was shot with arrows, these guys were stoned to death, I got crucified, and you, you were afraid of getting punched. So, your name for eternity is St. Nancy Boy. Now get out of my office.”
November 30th, 2005 at 12:57 am
November 30th, 2005 at 1:20 am
Theo, you have something- you have us. And probably lots more.
I hope you’re not really sick. If you are, get well soon.
As for Derrida- it might be mildly amusing to watch him deconstruct Les (as he decomposes- he died last year). But meaningless. Why anyone takes Derrida seriously is beyond me. He’s the William Dembski of philosophy- possibly brilliant, often entertaining, but mindbogglingly wrongheaded. Just my humble opinion.
November 30th, 2005 at 1:43 am
Oops- I meant elwed, not Les. I often confuse geniuses…
As far as the motivation of fundamentalists to proselytize- I suspect that Consi and Les are both correct, to different extents, for different people. Spreading the good news, obeying the biblical call to witness, saving souls from eternal torment, confirming the fantasy- they are not mutually exclusive. Of course, some Christians seem to be trying extra hard to live up to their caricature among muggles.
But I agree with Dave that it’s unfair to impugn the motives of all believers- many, if not most, of them, really do want to spread what they consider the “good news”. If you saw someone hanging from a cliff, you would offer them a hand, and if they said “not interested, thanks”, you might still be inclined to try again. The fact that muggles are not really hanging from a cliff, or at least not from the cliff believers imagine, is not apparent to the believers.
So what can we muggles do? Meet gentle persuasion with gentle dissuasion, rhetoric with skewering, and infringement of liberty with legal defense. And hope, as they hope, that they will come to their senses someday.
November 30th, 2005 at 2:18 am
What a psycho (referring to that “Christian Underground” whacko)!
November 30th, 2005 at 5:47 am
For all I know, his post is fiction designed to lure atheists into conversation. If not, then I’d say he was completely serious in his post and backpedalled when faced with adversity.
Viral marketing, eh.
November 30th, 2005 at 6:24 am
Theo said:
Then Sadie said:
Hmmm, I think Theo’s actually got it close to right here. Picture this: You’re on an island (like the characters on Lost) with a bunch of other castaways. You can’t stay where you are, you have to decide on one of the two paths on the island. Now, you are absolutely positive, for whatever reason, that one of the paths leads to safety, the other path leads to certain doom. Wouldn’t you being trying to convince the others to take the safe path with you?
That might be a slightly better metaphor of the Christian mindset. Annoying as hell to those of us who don’t believe, but I can clearly see why they do it.
November 30th, 2005 at 8:01 am
Meme’s are such persistent little entities! They never give up!
I explored them to some extent in my book “God-101” (what the church doesn’t want you to know)
November 30th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
I absolutely cannot believe some people. The need to force their beliefs on others is why I can’t stand religous people. Trying to get an atheist to believe in god is like telling an amputee that if they believe, their missing limb will grow back. Insane. You believe in god? Fantastic, just don’t shove it down everyone else’s throats.
November 30th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
You believe in god? Fantastic, just don’t shove it down everyone else’s throats.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:59 am
Hey, leave my name out of this…
December 1st, 2005 at 1:17 pm
It was meant in the best possible way, I assure you.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
“Why the big desire to try and convert others from so many Christians? I used to just write it off as them following what the Bible says in terms of going out and witnessing to others, but when you get passionate statements like the one from Mr. Bartlett there has to be something more to it than just following God’s directions behind it all.”
Christians do these things because they know that everyone who has no faith in God will go to hell. The idea upsets them so they try to get other people to believe.
September 10th, 2006 at 5:21 am
If only they were benign.
September 10th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Correction: They do these things because they believe that everyone who has no faith in God will go to hell. They confuse that belief with knowledge and that’s their first mistake.
September 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Also, it appears that, by going out and proselytizing to the world, they may in fact be trying to convince themselves of their religion’s veracity.
To illustrate: I have a lot of gay friends, and a few years ago one of them had a straight roommate who would constantly allude to his heterosexuality, regardless of the topic at hand. Finally, my friend Joey asked him, point-blank, “Who are you trying to convince, us or yourself?”
December 21st, 2006 at 11:28 pm
I know it’s been a while since the last post, and it’s possible that nobody will read this, but as a former Christian I’d like to offer my opinion. Yes, I think that there are a number of Christians who proselytize out of goodwill towards others. And, from experience, I know that some do so out of doubt.
But for some, it’s simply a rush of adrenaline or a chance to build up their status as an evangelist. Think about the excitement of successfully convincing someone of a belief! It’s a big accomplishment. On top of that, many Christians believe that they will have more treasure in heaven if they’ve converted lots of people, and even more so if they die in the process. And with every convert they notch, evangelists become more and more confident that what they believe is true, which ties back into the insecurity notion.