At 01:59 PM 6/14/2005, Carl Remick wrote:
>>From: "Dennis Perrin" <dperrin at comcast.net>
>>
>>Personally, atheist disdain doesn't really bother me. I view it as a form
>>of despair, esp when it's expressed through insults or, if one is feeling
>>generous, condescension.
>
>How interesting. IMO, it's *religion* that is a form of despair
I was thinking about this. I didn't like it at first, but then I read something which reflected that conclusion I'd drawn in this convo already -- and apparently it is a kind of standard way of thinking about these differences. The way the author, below, casts the debate, he's reiterating what you're saying. Religious adherents often seem to hold a view of human beings as impoverished in some way. Really, just not a lot of faith (har har) in humans or nature, so there must be something more. This is called supernaturalism: the belief that there is something beyond nature/society orders the world.
"It is not difficult to understand that, whereas a theist may express such a faith in a god, an atheist or a humanist may also claim to have such a value-center that gives meaning and direction to life. This value-center would be a faith in the possibilities and potentials of "humanity." Inasmuch as many religions have humanistic concerns and dimensions, there will be overlaps in outreach to those in need and in the interpretation of meaningful response. ...
Those who accept and those who do not accept supernaturalistic beliefs will enjoy the same or similar feelings of awe and wonder as they view a sunset, a magnificent forest, or the broad rolling prairies....The difference will be in the interpretations. The supernaturalist will interpret these experience with reference to a deity, the nonsupernaturalists will see them as manifestations of nature. The experiences will be the same or paralleled; the interpretations will differ. Perhaps both can be interpreted as "spiritual" experiences in one case with supernaturalistic overtones; in the other resonating with wonder and awe, but without the supernatural."
(but note: I'm a little uncomfortable with this since I don't think CGEstabrook or Chip holds such a view of human nature. sure don't exhibit it on this list.)
The Scared and Profane
Now, why does speaking of it in the language of nature (or mere slabs of meat) offend the supernaturalists?
I've had students become really offended when we talk about the sociology of religion. They believe their views have been profaned. How dare anyone reduce what they label "religious" or "spiritual" with the word society or nature? (Which is what I was saying to M. Pollak. You can't talk about the scientific understanding of religion to some folks because their identity is so wrapped up in seeing themselves as associated with the sacred that anything that challenges that view is labeled "profane".
So, for instance, to speak of religion the way sociologists often do, showing how --as John Thornton did re: drugs -- that all of this can be explained by natural processes that have gone on for ages -- or as Yoshie did when she brought up the language of "disciplining minds and bodies" -- is to defile the experience, to reduce it to "mere" nature, to mere society, to, as DP put it, mere slabs of meat.
It is, alluding to Max Weber, removing the "charm" from the experience -- because it is removing the supernatural and replacing it with explanations that move entirely from the natural/social.
In which case, I don't think the chasm can ever be bridged between the two approaches.
Now, for Jeffrey:
I think you were wrong to think what the scientist meant was that people were too stupid. If someone is religious, they're likely a supernaturalist. If that means that the scientist believes that there is something other than nature creating the laws that nature exhibits.
In which case, why doesn't the scientist just set about studying God? I mean, if this is what you really believe, then why not set out there to show that something supernatural actually orders nature's laws? Why settle for merely figuring out the laws of the Big Guy in the Sky? Why be just an engineer (not to denigrate engineers!) But really, isn't the scientist who's religious in that sense settling for much less than she really believes. Why not use science to seek god or the supernatural or the beings from another universe that made us
For RAvi: Or maybe the scientists who say they are religious don't really believe in it at all. MAybe like being patriotic, they are religious because that's all they know and have never really bothered to explore it any further. Or maybe they just enjoy the community which religion provides them. Or maybe they do it to make their spouse happy. Or advance their careers. Socialize. Get out on Sunday. Have some help raising the kids. Maybe when they say they are religious they mean they're not _really_ religious -- in the way it is more of an identity politics. Maybe they just like the moral teachings or the community or whathaveyou and Buddy Freddy's Buffet Religion style, don't really believe in god?
I think I disagree with the scientist quoted insofar as I think he fails to understand how easy it is for us to compartmentalize.
As I recall, I had to teach a book on Chinese and Americans by someone named Hsu. I was TAing for an intro soc course. Hsu said that USers don't get is that the Chinese compartmentalize in a way that USers don't -- or think they don't.
Which may answer Ravi's and Yoshie's question. Maybe it's a cultural tradition that is already perfectly comfortable with sep. the two whereas Western forms of religion -- that monotheism/imperializing tendency--is ill-prepared for such a thing?
On second thought, the more I think about it the more the scientist that got Jeffrey's back up is right:
How can you be a really good scientist if, in fact, you don't really believe that the explanations for what is going on in the world is contained entirely within nature?
If, as a sociologist, you ultimately believe that we are going to hell if we sin (or whatever) then why bother to adhere to a discipline that shows us why we're moral in a way that has nothing to do with god and everything to do with people?
Can you be a really good scientist, in the sense that it's a calling, something you really really find joy in, if, in fact, you really don't believe it? I mean, if you really believe in god, again, why not study how it is that god exists, how god created the universe. Why not set about using science to pursue what you really believe: that there's a god or something beyond nature that created nature?
Why settle for second best? If you're settling, like a person who wants to be a novelist, settles for writing ad copy, then are you truly motivated in the way that I could feel about sociological problems and the discipline I just love?
As a scientist, I can now understand what that guy might mean. People who really love the science wouldn't settle, would they? (NOw, as leftists, we can say: oh but there are so many reasons they might have to.... But this guy ain't, as far as I know, a leftist , so we shouldn't expect him to think in those terms.)
Finally, I misquoted the Roger Dodger thingaroo. It's too good not to pass along:
Roger: You can't sell a product without first making people feel bad. Nick: Why not? Roger: Because it's a substitution game. You have to remind them that they're missing something from their lives. Everyone's missing something, right? Nick: I guess. Roger: Trust me. And when they're feeling sufficiently incomplete, you convince them your product is the only thing that can fill the void. So instead of taking steps to deal with their lives, instead of working to root out the real reason for their misery, they go out and buy a stupid looking pair of cargo pants.
on that note, Bellah said something spot on about the "deprivation thesis" to explain why people are religious or spiritual or what have you. "Everyone feels deprived of something, so you've got a theory that explains nothing because it explains everything."
Kelley
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin