Settling for Good Enough

How many people would bother going to the same dramatic performance week after week when they expect the writing, staging, and acting to be average? Why waste the time and money on theatre that is only "okay"? Most of us don't settle for mediocrity when it is going to cost us something. Unless, apparently, you happen to be religious and the performance is church.

"Clergy Contribution To America's Wellbeing Ranks Below Military, Doctors, Scientists, Engineers: Survey" brings up a number of interesting results. The one that jumped out at me is that only 52% of weekly churchgoers said clergy contribute "a lot" to society. These are presumably the same people who in other surveys and studies insist that religion is either the most important or one of the most important aspects of their lives. Think about that for a moment. It is so important that only slightly better than half think the primary figures in delivering the service actually contribute a lot to society. Why/how is it important? And, why do the other 48% keep going?

I'm not really sure what such a result really means but I do have some suspicions. I have pointed out before that I am reasonably sure that most religious people either don't really believe what they claim, at least not as fully as they think they do, or they have never bothered to critically examine their own beliefs. I fail to see any other rational explanation for why people would settle for such mediocrity on matters they themselves claim are so important.

A Year Late and Still Garbage

DiDonato never ceases to demonstrate just how much of a misnomer Science on Religion is for his Patheos blog. Last week's post "Why atheist scientists bring their children to church" seems like a complete waste of time. It isn't just that he is reporting on supposed finding that are over a year old, it is more notable that the research he notes was shoddy crap when it first appeared and it hasn't been improved upon.

I commented on the this "research" in a previous post of my own ("Atheist Scientists and Religious Traditions" December 10, 2012).

Christ?mass ConFusion

It never ceases to amaze me how clueless and credulous the average Christian can be. The holiday season inevitably leads to a heavy dose of all sorts of ridiculous pieces on Christmas and Jesus. All of them contain massive amounts of sentimentalized delusions. Most scriptural scholars, many are themselves believers, will freely admit that the odds of Christ having been born in December is virtually zero let alone being born specifically on the 25th. Nearly every aspect of Christmas has its origin outside Christianity. Yet, every December we are deluged with the same types of stories that inevitably lead to various groups of Christians whining about either not having the season go the way they want or bemoaning the various hassles that they themselves have created.

If you want to celebrate the "birth of Christ" and forgo Santa and the "secular" intruders on the season, go ahead. No one is stopping you. If you don't want to shop, bake, clean, or have company, don't. No one is making you do those things. And if you want to recount for the zillionth time the nativity story, go ahead. Don't assume, however, that the rest of us are interested or have to show any care for it.

And for the record, fighting over the true nature of Christ and the details of his life is just plain stupid. He never actually existed. You can make up whatever you want. You can find a passage in the New Testament to support just about anything since it is alternately vague, contradictory, and incoherent. So when someone says Christ was ______, just nod and grin. You are both right and wrong. Once again, Christ is a myth. Get over it.

PS
It is also rather ironic that both camps of whiners fail to see that, just maybe, if they spent more time enjoying the Holiday Season festivities with their loved ones and less time bitching they might end up living the ideals they claim the season is about. Personally, I don't care if they want to treat it as some type of metaphysical superstition laden birthday party. For me it is all about spending time with family and friends. It would be nice, however, if the various disgruntled Christians complaining about the season as it is would take a long look in the mirror and shut the fuck up.

Atheist Scientists and Religious Traditions

I've come across Elaine Howard Ecklund previously and can say I'm not impressed. She comes across as a pleasant enough person but she really does not know much about one of her favored topics, Atheist Scientists.

It will probably takes some time to get a copy of her latest work (with Kristen Schultz Lee) in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , "Atheists and Agnostics Negotiate Religion and Family." I can get it free through a library database if I were willing to wait a year (publisher has a 12 month "embargo"), which I'm not. I will find a copy.

In the mean time the brief review I have read leads me to think it is probably as sloppy as her previous work.  There are a number of things implied in Physorg.com's piece on her latest article that don't add up. The title itself has implications that I'd be shocked to find were accurate to the answers given by the scientists Ecklund and Lee interviewed. The statement that scientists "embrace religious traditions" does not seem to be supported even by what little is described. It sounds more like these individuals feel pressured by the prevailing culture to participate. That is not the same as embracing something. I also want to see their specific responses since I find it hard to believe any atheist let alone a scientist would view religion as a "source of knowledge." I can see them commenting on it being a source of tradition, sense of community, or comfort.

There is also an interesting embedded video clip that reveals her own ignorance and bias when it comes to atheists. She seems to be genuinely shocked that atheist scientist are not "against religious people."  I have never come across any atheists that are against religious people. Many of us may be opposed to religion but that is not the same thing. Most of my family and friends are religious. I love them dearly and would not want to change them. The institution of religion is despicable. I loathe it's doctrines and its grip on society. I would love to have the majority, including my family and friend, to come to that realization but I would want them to come to that realization on their own terms.

PZ Meyers has commented on this article as well. He makes a pretty good point about how Ecklund skews her findings. He notes that her own findings only note 17% of the interviewees participating in religion.  So the truth is that the overwhelming majority of atheist scientists reject rather than "embrace religious traditions." That, of course, is never emphasized by Ecklund. It seems obvious to me that all her conclusions on atheists is a result of preconceived notions and ulterior motives rather than the data she collects.