"Men are most apt to believe what they least understand."
Michel DeMontaigne
Sunday, October 9, 2011
God's Approval Rating
Yes, God has an approval rating. The most recent (September/October 2011) "Given The Evidence" feature in Humanist magazine includes some rather odd polling/survey results. According to Public Policy Polling God has a 52% job performance approval rating. Later in the piece they cite Gallup results that indicate 92% of Americans believe in the existence of God. Anyone else see the problem with these numbers? If you really believe in God how do you come up with an approval rating at all? The supreme being hardly seems like the kind of entity you'd want to piss off. Rating a president is one thing but a being that knows your every thought and can do anything is not a being you want to cross? How do even begin to evaluate an entity like that assuming doing so is a good idea? Most ratings are essentially comparisons. What do you compare God to?
Is my wise ass crack about God as the ultimate deadbeat dad (October 1st blog post) not far off the mark from how theists view the Supreme being? Is it a matter of theist not thinking through what they really believe and why or is it that they don't believe as much as they claim to? It just seems odd and disturbingly amusing that people who accept a perfect and all powerful being and then turn around and express disappointment in that very being's competence. Has the thought not occurred that if there is even a possibility of being dissatisfied with God's performance it would by its nature indicate that God is not perfect? Not perfect = not God. Perhaps that 48% need to re-evaluate their views on God.
Is my wise ass crack about God as the ultimate deadbeat dad (October 1st blog post) not far off the mark from how theists view the Supreme being? Is it a matter of theist not thinking through what they really believe and why or is it that they don't believe as much as they claim to? It just seems odd and disturbingly amusing that people who accept a perfect and all powerful being and then turn around and express disappointment in that very being's competence. Has the thought not occurred that if there is even a possibility of being dissatisfied with God's performance it would by its nature indicate that God is not perfect? Not perfect = not God. Perhaps that 48% need to re-evaluate their views on God.
Lifeway's Bible Readers Survey
The results of Lifeway's Bible readers survey seems to be another instance of people asking for something they probably don't really want. The results include 61% preferring a "word-for-word" translation and 75% preferring a translation with "total accuracy." Assuming these individuals have actually read a bible cover to cover it would be a shock to me if they paid attention to even a fraction of what they actually read. There isn't a single book of any translation of any version of the Bible that can be read literally. The whole thing is a mass of confusing contradictions and outright refutations of reality. Most "events" and even the supposed moral lessons have two or more versions that not only don't match but in some instances nullify each other. Most of them have to be read selectively in order to get anything resembling a positive moral message. People think it promotes moral behavior but it can just as easily be read to justify any number of heinous crimes and atrocities.
As for "total accuracy", that is not even remotely possible. These readers are also very ignorant of the history of the Bible. There is no single version or translation and never has been. The multiple versions currently available are constructed from roughly 3,000 fragments. We do not have a single book of either the old or new testament that is complete. All of them have been reconstituted from a wide variety of sources. Even if they really wanted a word for word translation, setting aside the horrors contained therein, it can not be done.
As for "total accuracy", that is not even remotely possible. These readers are also very ignorant of the history of the Bible. There is no single version or translation and never has been. The multiple versions currently available are constructed from roughly 3,000 fragments. We do not have a single book of either the old or new testament that is complete. All of them have been reconstituted from a wide variety of sources. Even if they really wanted a word for word translation, setting aside the horrors contained therein, it can not be done.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Is America Moving Away from Religion?
It would be nice if it were true but I don't see it quite the way Tana Ganeva does in her Alternet piece, "5 Signs That America Is Moving Away from Religion". In the introduction she talks about how fed up people are with the "Tea Party" and the GOP, especially the manner in which they use religion. It does not seem to occur to her that she is conflating a loss of faith in the Religious Right with a shift away from religion itself. Just because people are gradually come to realize that mixing religion and politics is a terrible idea does not mean they as a whole are becoming less religious.
It also seems obvious, once you take a moment to analyze them, that the 5 signs really end up being 2 signs. Again, those two don't necessarily mean there really is a move away from religion. The first sign listed by Ganeva, "American religious belief is becoming more fractured", may help some theists realize that religion is a very personal and subjective aspect of life. This may in turn lead to the conclusion that religion should not be involved in public policy. I would certainly encourage such a process but do not think it helpful to misinterpret it as a sign of irreligion. It isn't. The last "sign" listed, "Getting married by friends", also may indicate a softening of religions influence on peoples lives but then again it may mean something else entirely. It is just as likely an interpretation that people want a more personal ceremony. Most faiths allow some choices within how they conduct marriage ceremonies but civil ceremonies offer far greater options. Part of the trend does seem to correlate with choosing family and friends as officiates. How many people have family members that happen to be clergy?
The last point leads to another distinction that should be made but alludes Ganeva. There is a difference between religion and organized religion. Many mainstream Christian denominations/sects are shrinking in membership. This coincides with a growing trend that amounts to little more than a shift in semantics. A lot of people who end up being classified as "non-religious" in various surveys and studies really are not. The tend to self identify as "spiritual" rather than "religious." What that indicates, apparently, is a move away from a specific denomination/sect. Those who claim to be "spiritual" are still religious they just don't like the term. They are still believers and therefore not "non-religious." It is this lack of distinction and confusion of labels that basically nullifies her second and third "signs." How you identify yourself is important, of course, but that does not change basic facts. If you believe then the label "non-belief" does not make sense.
Ganeva's forth sign, "Hate group that exploited religion to bash gays hemorrhaging funds", makes no sense to me. It is almost entirely focused on one group and it really does not say anything about religion in general. It is revealing only in regard to one version of one faith and even that is more about mixing politics with religion than about anything strictly theological.
It is still an interesting article and in its own way encouraging. Moving away from religion being so influential on public life is certainly a good thing. It is a positive direction for everyone, theist and atheist alike. Strengthening separation of church and state can only help guarantee freedom of thought. The sooner those seeking to use religion for political and economic gain are exposed for the scum they are the better. They may never completely go away but if we can keep them as powerless as possible society will be better off.
It also seems obvious, once you take a moment to analyze them, that the 5 signs really end up being 2 signs. Again, those two don't necessarily mean there really is a move away from religion. The first sign listed by Ganeva, "American religious belief is becoming more fractured", may help some theists realize that religion is a very personal and subjective aspect of life. This may in turn lead to the conclusion that religion should not be involved in public policy. I would certainly encourage such a process but do not think it helpful to misinterpret it as a sign of irreligion. It isn't. The last "sign" listed, "Getting married by friends", also may indicate a softening of religions influence on peoples lives but then again it may mean something else entirely. It is just as likely an interpretation that people want a more personal ceremony. Most faiths allow some choices within how they conduct marriage ceremonies but civil ceremonies offer far greater options. Part of the trend does seem to correlate with choosing family and friends as officiates. How many people have family members that happen to be clergy?
The last point leads to another distinction that should be made but alludes Ganeva. There is a difference between religion and organized religion. Many mainstream Christian denominations/sects are shrinking in membership. This coincides with a growing trend that amounts to little more than a shift in semantics. A lot of people who end up being classified as "non-religious" in various surveys and studies really are not. The tend to self identify as "spiritual" rather than "religious." What that indicates, apparently, is a move away from a specific denomination/sect. Those who claim to be "spiritual" are still religious they just don't like the term. They are still believers and therefore not "non-religious." It is this lack of distinction and confusion of labels that basically nullifies her second and third "signs." How you identify yourself is important, of course, but that does not change basic facts. If you believe then the label "non-belief" does not make sense.
Ganeva's forth sign, "Hate group that exploited religion to bash gays hemorrhaging funds", makes no sense to me. It is almost entirely focused on one group and it really does not say anything about religion in general. It is revealing only in regard to one version of one faith and even that is more about mixing politics with religion than about anything strictly theological.
It is still an interesting article and in its own way encouraging. Moving away from religion being so influential on public life is certainly a good thing. It is a positive direction for everyone, theist and atheist alike. Strengthening separation of church and state can only help guarantee freedom of thought. The sooner those seeking to use religion for political and economic gain are exposed for the scum they are the better. They may never completely go away but if we can keep them as powerless as possible society will be better off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)