Letting Go of God 2.0

   This discussion is my reaction to a video posted elsewhere on this board of Julia Sweeney's monologue about her reaction to her Catholic upbringing and about her eventual atheism, Letting Go of God. That's the 1.0 version.  She made the video in 2006 long before some events that will certainly change the outlook of many people on that subject. So the over two hour video might be a terrible waste of air data for you. You might take a peek anyway for what it reveals about the state of things of that time. She is a very expressive person and despite her confusion with "poetry" can be rather poetic herself.

   When I was in third year elementary school my teacher said, in front of the whole class, that I was "eloquent." As a joke I gasped and pretended to hurriedly look up the word. It means "expressive." The episode was not rehearsed, but it could seem that way, couldn't it?

   Sweeney's Letting Go of God begins with her meeting some proselytizing Mormon's and their set of beliefs remarkably inconsistent with history.

   She then demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of history herself. She has an abhorrence of the barbarism and cruelty in the Old Testament as anyone these days should, but she seems to blame that on the god of the Bible. It is a common mistake children make to believe that the world of that time was barbaric and cruel because the god of the Bible ordered it that way. However is was the god of the Bible who began, slowly, civilizing that world. Slaughtering infants wasn't something the god of the Bible invented. It's what people in those barbaric times did as a matter of course. Human sacrifice was considered "normal." It took centuries upon centuries obviously to develop a society that opposed such practices. At some point a person of faith could excuse himself from his duty of slaughtering infants since he could leave such things to the god. These days no one needs to do that. It is also a common childish mistake to expect a god to make everything perfect with a "snap of his fingers" or in an instant. Even adults can have difficulty understanding the concepts of free will and the first sin of partaking of the knowledge of good and evil. The world we know is imperfect, but it is a fallen world. It's imperfect because people can choose to be evil and they sometimes do. It is imperfect because nature here does not regard human life, and humans do not sufficiently regard nature. The main reason many people are atheists is that they fail to understand the world was a very different place long ago and nothing like the small portion of the modern world they know.

   As also often happens with many atheists there is the turning to science for answers. Sweeney mentions a fascination with Deepak Chopra, but soon learned his "science" didn't really have any answers spiritual or scientific. I agree, his "science" doesn't. I believe she failed however to see how much other "science" similarly has no use, if any.

That's my point here. By "letting go of god 2.0" I meaning letting go of the "god" you have made of science.

   Step one on your journey is realizing that faith is not a disease. Another common reason many people are atheists is that they have come to consider faith as a disease that they have escaped by becoming atheists. When informed theirs are just as much as beliefs as anyone else's they can become argumentative and irrational. Calm down. You have faith. We know you do. Faith can be a good thing. Faith saves the time, expense and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. Faith is efficient. Science would do well to be so efficient. Your faith, although not in any god, has served you well enough in many cases. So admit you have some.

   Of course there are those times in history when the "faithful" hook up with the wrong leaders. It can be the result doing just what they are told without enough critical analysis. Sometimes the leaders are more to blame because of their trickery. Atheists notice that happening in some religions, but don't realize that even "science" can mislead.

   There is step two. Faith in science can be as harmful as any other faith and worse. Of course it isn't really "true" science any more, it's just faith in science. That point however is lost on the people who don't realize theirs is a faith. True science settles disputes certainly, but only in those cases where certainty is obvious. The boiling point of water is settled. No one argues it. It is not an issue. There are no weblogs, "Water at standard pressure really boils at 109 degrees centigrade, here's why." Issues in society only become issues because there is no scientific solution. Issues in society become issues because people do not agree what the problem is. If people can't agree what the problem is, science is useless to help.

   Marijuana is harmful. It severely impairs the ability to process large quantities of text. Yet "science" isn't telling anyone about that problem. Engineers are not typically experts in communication by text, especially the kind of text that deals with the human motivations, human conflicts and means of human resolutions. They can be very good at solving problems with no humans in them, that's all. That doesn't really require much text.

   Step three is mastering the art of enforcement. It is an art, not a science. Insisting how "logical" you are is not working since you are not really very logical. Depending on government to enforce all necessary truth can be "easy" insofar as the government doesn't really need to make any arguments. Depending on religion for enforcement can be difficult because the system of rewards and punishments can turn out to be -- as many faithful adults know -- rather remote. Religion requires a better development of reasoned arguments for "enforcement."

   Government enforcement of marriage law isn't working. Too often government becomes fishermen telling farmers how farm, farmers telling fishermen how to fish, and people with no children of their own telling parents how to raise their children. Marriage has become "obsolete" in a sense because when government manages every little detail anyway it makes no difference where you sleep.

   Similarly private property managed by government isn't private property anymore.

   A very effective tool of persuasion can be giving people cause to reconsider their views. For a long time science could do that. It no longer does because people have too much faith in science. Lately much significant truth has escaped them. If you are wrong about how life begins from nothing, you probably should and will reconsider many of your beliefs about science and society as well. This goes for all people with a trivial and superficial understanding of biology whether they consider themselves scientists or not.

   Just let it go. Science is not god. Science cannot replace god.