Monday, May 28, 2012


                                      On Humility and Entitlement



A common attack on the character of Atheists and self- pronounced secular people has to do with their lack of humility, otherwise labeled: arrogance. The arrogance to defy the God that gave them everything (wished for or not); the arrogance to trust their own human mind to grasp reality, to make “right” and “wrong” judgments, to criticize religious teachings and religious authority.

Non-believers are hence accused of feeling entitled to those verbalizations and behavior for which they do NOT deserve according to the devout. 

Which made me wonder about the kinds of entitlements “humble piety” entails: 

Those who win the lottery, who get out alive from car accidents, shootouts,  wars, calamities involving casualties, feeling that they are “better” people, hence more entitled to have been saved than the less fortunate; 

Creationists who believe that the universe was created for them, other forms of life being mere instruments for Man’s pleasure;

Nations and sects feeling entitled for a preferential treatment by God as ”chosen people” entitled to guide and control other lives, define their roles, their diet, sex and family-life;

Or entitled to God’s blessing (“God Bless America”, or “god bless my team, not the other”);

Fundamentalists who feel entitled to a piece of land, to a “holy” city, or  to take lives and blow away building and school-buses of those who are not entitled to live or to own that land or city;

Huge real estate properties feeling entitled to public services without paying their share of the cost (taxes);  

The list is longer, but above all I am impressed by the devout entitlement to claim that the above conduct is in line with TRUE morality, without having to provide any reasoning or shred of evidence beyond stating the entitlement as a fact.  

Sunday, May 6, 2012

                                      THE PLAUSIBILITY OF RELIGION

How do religious belief systems continue to survive in spite of their groundless claims? 
How do any weird ideas last in today's world of Internet explosion of information, scientific knowledge and technology?
Peter Berger, a sociologist who extensively studied religious institutions, found that belief systems must be rooted in a plausibility (or believability) structure. They must be nested within a social/affiliative community.
The community of believers makes the difference between an idiosyncratic spoof or delusion and an established religion.
 People willingly accept bizarre ideas as long as enough other people do.
 They especially look to others to define ambiguous and uncertain situations. 
 The 'meaning of life', 'the beginning and the end', 'good and evil' are taken by sacred belief systems, as well as 'what's right and wrong' and 'relationships to others'.
 The absoluteness attributed to religious beliefs gives special relief to those who can't tolerate a high level of  complexity and uncertainty.
Plausibility is reinforced by "sacredness" and by tradition. music, rituals and a variety of highly arousing emotional experiences act as 'absorbants", or as hypnotic means to enhance a sense of realism or "truth"and mystery at the same time.
Tradition and rituals are repetitive experiences which make those beliefs increasingly familiar, therefore believed as true.   
Once those belief systems are "hammered" into one's mind, they take a strong hold, reinforcing themselves with persistent inertia.
 They will hold on to validating explanations and company, will defend their closed boundaries and will reject unfamiliar data that may challenge its absoluteness.
And finally, the shepherd and the sheep. If the belief system defines the "self" and the community becomes ones collective- self, religion gets the strongest assurance to its survival.       
   






Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Who Will Get The Second Chance?

                                                                                  by:      Ayala Leyser,  8/16/11

Again a case of infant abandonment, this time in the cold, under a tree, at birth. The mother is a refugee who felt shame to tell her family of her out of wed pregnancy, unaware of any support systems,  overwhelmed. Granted,  Ms. Sung needs help and deserves compassion.
Is it relevant though to the claims she makes?

Her prison term interrupted home visits with the foster parents. The baby does not recognize her anymore. Anyone who’s a bit familiar with child development realizes that a baby forms its strongest bond during the first year of life. The stability of parents presence in the young child life is  crucial for a normal healthy development.
 The boy’s foster parents advised her to give him up as this was in his best interest. She felt that they were robbing her son from her. Her family is calling to give her  “a second chance”.

The story on the front and inside page of the Chicago Tribune shows her in tears in prison. The story is about her, based on a translated interview with her. Are we missing something though?

Some years ago, working on a women’s ward at a psychiatric hospital, I would testify in court, in similar cases of custody. Lorna, for example (not her real name), abused a child already. During her incarceration she gave birth to a baby, who was placed in a foster home but maintained her parental rights. I have heard about parental rights on and on, but can’t ever recall citing the child’s legal rights.  The DCFS was familiar with Lorna’s history. I was familiar with her mental illness and immature personality.  She told me that she will never give her baby for adoption. That she wants to play with the baby like a doll.
The hearing took place when the baby was a few months old. DCFS requested the judge to deny the woman her parental rights so he can have a chance, get adopted and  be raised in a steady relationships  by mature loving parents.
They handed him Lorna’s  history of abusing a previous child, and her psychiatric diagnosis (schizophrenia ), which consisted of a serious impairment in reality testing and functioning. The report indicated that she was not able to take care of herself, let alone of a helpless child.

The judge scanned through the papers but seemed more interested in speaking to her. He asked her if she will let the child get adopted . No, he is mine” she replied, as the judge hurried to console her promising to not take the baby her away, but to postpone decision for next year’s hearing.  “Perhaps by then you will be better and able to take him home” he said. That compassion to the inapt mother meant depriving the baby from the chance he deserved  to bond with a permanent parent for the first critical year of his life.

Countless of custody cases are guided by the same mentality, only few, such as the famous Baby Richard fiasco come to the public attention.
The child is a commodity. The issue at hand focuses on parental rights to own this commodity.
The story in todays’ paper is likely to enlist a good deal of sympathy for Ms. Sung, who feels “robbed” by the suggestion to let go (even when that means that he will be better off raised by someone else). The question that should always weigh the scale is with whom is the baby likely to have the best life he deserves to have. It is who will give the abandoned baby the best second chance? Instead, a mentality of preference for parenting as ownership rather than as a responsibility focuses on the abandoning parent’s second chance.

Is Ms. Sung a victim of a sexist, chauvinistic culture?
Most likely. Yet, the child’s life is not meant to “fix” parents’ ills, to fill any voids, to make-up for parents’ mistakes, to fulfill their needs, or to be an instrument for any of their goals, fantasies and expectancies. The child’s life is for the child, and owned by him.
The child has no choice but to be born. He is not consulted in the least. Hence from the moment of conception, the parents must bear the full responsibility for his life and wellness, and always preparing for  independence and life skills so they can graciously let go.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Seven Degrees of Separation from Faith

The House of Faith is often a welcoming host. Whether raised into it, seduced or convinced, the lure of afterlife, the certainty and absoluteness of its claims, the rituals, the embracing social community, good business good politic, one feels embraced by this wide-shouldered,  promising host.   
Once in the House of Faith, however, the door slowly slams shut.  
Odd. After-all, Faith is supposed to be something you either feel or you don’t, just like love, hate, or compassion.
 Faith though, tends to “stick around” long after we think it out.
 Some people who went through this exit process compared the separation to a bad divorce. Their testimonials shed some light on a few Faith-embedded  memes which stand in the way of the detachment process.

  1. Lover’s rejection: 
The meme that Faith is a special gift, with which comes an obligation is implicitly and explicitly reinforced through prayer. Losing Faith in some congregations is like returning a gift, like a slap in the face of the giver (God) and of the community embraced and bonded by that Faith. It’s a package that wraps commitment and obligation rather than:  “It’s a gift, feel free to use it as you like, and here is the return or exchange receipt in case it doesn’t fit you…”
Therefore, walking out on Faith, usually entails sacrificing social acceptance and approval by the community on which it is contingent. Fundamentalist communities tend to regard minor “adjustments” of Faith as an act of defection, a serious betrayal calling for penalties ranging from shame to physical harm. Common to less fundamentalist denominations, is schism within the family, ranging from shunning to “we don’t talk about “the topic” sort of acceptance bordering on denial.  

  1. Ultimate Reality otherwise unavailable.

  The meme that only Faith reveals the unequivocal Truth cannot be proved nor   refuted. Access to the Truth requires a surrender of any resistance (= critical thinking). Faith denounces the efficacy of Reason as incapable of providing certainty and spiritual understanding of what is and what’s right. The trap here is that to get any closer to capturing the essence of the Ultimate Truth, one needs to  surrender her Self first.
Not too many people can explain what’s meant by “ultimate Truth” or by: “Reality beyond reality”, but the vaguer such promising wholesome concepts are, the stronger their attraction. Yet, failing to grasp these slippery ideas tends to  intimidate one into believing that she lack “spiritual  depth” . 

  1. Remedy doubt by praying all the way back.

Entertaining doubts is attributed to either the work of the devil, or to human lack of attention, straying or resistance. Doubt stands as a flaw of character, ranging from vanity to sin. It can only be conquered via hard prayer and a conscious refusal to listen to the nagging skeptical voice in your head.  The trap here is that the presence of doubt is not addressed as a potential flaw in Faith, rather, it is attributed to a flaw in the Self. Therefore doubt has no credibility and should be eradicated by the very same Faith it doubts.  The remedy: When in doubt –pray.  This indoctrination  to get it “out of the head”,  by  repetitive prayer is compelling.  As a form of self- hypnosis it is likely to numb the critical Self  by praying all her    way back to acceptance. This practice resembles what some psychotherapists call: “Fake it till you make it”.
 This practice may be agonizing, as she may feel “locked in”, guilty or frustrated about her inability to shut off her resistance and pray “the right way”. Sometimes she carries on in denial or stays in the closet.

  1. Faith as a necessary moral supervision.

 A widely popular belief in the  necessity of Faith for  moral development explains why many agnostic parents of young children who claim no faith themselves, still raise their children into a Faith. The belief in the necessity of Faith for moral and social survival often deprives the pious from entertaining optional moral supervisors such as natural conscience and compassion, or social contract, norms and laws. Since Faith entails a feeling that one has nowhere to hide from God’s piercing eye, accompanied by a potentially eternal harsh punishment it is believed to be the most invasive and effective supervision possible.
Therefore, loss of faith is regarded as an act of insubordination, deification and moral disintegration.  Similarly, a secular society runs the risk of social chaos. The meme that lack of Faith implies human autonomy hence moral fragmentation, seem to have widely replicated by the story of the forbidden Fruit. That influential story has made an irrational, yet powerful equation of with Morality Obedience.

  1.  Faith as the ultimate emotional crutch.
Quite often, after a debate with a believer in which the argument is lost, she brings up her conviction in the critical role of Faith in her emotional survival. She may provide several examples to demonstrate the way Faith has carried her   through rough times. She doesn’t need proof, as without her faith, she feels, she is likely to lose hope and fall apart.
     This sense of Dependency (on Faith) is reinforced by causal attributions of omnipotence and of ultimate benevolence, followed by a sense of bottomless gratitude to God for everything (natural), from waking up in the morning to being able to escape a fire that claimed other lives, not hers. It often entails a belief in being in God’s grace, or on his “preferred” list. Those attributions tend to be self- centered,  ignoring less fortunate folks who didn’t make it to safety, while maintaining faith in God’s absolute benevolence. When bad things happen to the pious, they are blamed on straying thoughts, impure intentions, weak moments of doubt, or slacking on the display of gratitude and devotion.
 Hence, in spite of a mixed bag of life experiences, the attribution is always to a God who takes care of her and on whom she can and should depend as long as she lives. That feature of Faith as self- feeding by a selective attribution pattern, making detachment increasingly more difficult to achieve.
In addition to the sense of dependence, Faith does provide a relief from uncertainty, a cognition not well tolerated by most people. Therefore Faith may indeed lower uncertainty-related anxiety although some religious based certainties may be quite scary.
Last but not least powerful is the emotional attraction of the After-life, a myth that seems to stem from  human eternal struggle with the tragedy of forced departure. Separations (from what is) have always been difficult for human- kind, let alone the idea of the ultimate separation from life. For many, abandoning Faith means facing an inevitable morbidity, giving away any comforting fantasies of Self- continuity or reunion with loved ones. Unsubstantiated as those ideas might be their appeal keeps the flocks in. 

  1. Pascal wager, or “maybe somebody knows something…” 
Blaise Pascal pointed out that:  "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation …"
What if God does exist? What if Hell exists? Since God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved, it can’t be ruled- out. The cost for disbelief can be substantial, while not subscribing to Atheism appears to be non-consequential.
Hence, Pascal suggests, it is safer to stay in the House of Faith just in case.
As a reform Rabbi explained to me : “My faith is a cheap insurance policy…it’s not about what’s right…it’s about authority and trying to go with the flow…Billions believe…are they all wrong? What makes you so sure? What if he does exist and is listening to our conversation Now? Perhaps we should stop before he gets pissed…”

  1. PFSD ( Post Faith Stress Disorder):   Familiarity and Hypnotic induction.
The idea of  a Monotheistic God  has been widely embedded in Western Culture, as well as in the Mid- East, with replicating memes (images, stories, rituals, norms, language) that kept invading the collective mind (culture) under the radar.  The more familiar some (implausible) stories became to the conscious and subconscious mind, the more credible they turned out to be.
 Separation from a familiar situation has never been easy for Mankind. Quite often one prefers to stay within a familiar context just to avoid the pain and uncertainty of separation. Similarly, the human brain gives preference to familiar rather than to foreign information, endowing familiar stories with a sense of realism and conviction. Hence Many Christians will brush- off old Testament or Quran stories as fairy-tales, while accepting the  virgin birth, and Jesus resurrection as a historical fact. Jewish pious may discard the“ Jesus walking on Water” story as fiction, while accepting Moses parting the sea story, and all monotheistic believers regard the Greek Gods epics as pure mythology.
Rituals, communal bonding, incense, music, prayer, carried out repetitiously, are the mechanisms by which religious memes replicate and operate. Being highly hypnotic, they invade the mind at a deeper state in which the boundaries between reality and non- reality are blurred.
 Under those states imagined or preached scenarios become vivid, “alive”, and sometimes carved in memory as a subjective experience.
Images, olfactory memories, emotions associated with Faith are likely to stick around for an indefinite stay. It’s the “defector” who is the host this time around, rather than the House of Faith.
 Tom, for example, an ex- Catholic friend, discarded the idea of Hell as irrational and primitive. No matter, he admitted to suffer from flashbacks years after he left the church. His upbringing and Catholic education seem to have given “Hell’ an illegal yet permanent residence in his mind.
Other ex-Catholics admitted feelings of shame and images of Hell creeping in whenever they violate what they previously were taught was sin; masturbation being a common one. People who left other religious denominations compared their inability to shake off emotional and visual memories to flashbacks.
.
The term PTSD refers to past visual memories or emotional responses being experienced in new, different situations and time.  PFSD (Post Faith Stress Disorder) is my response to  Faith outlasting its expiration date.

 It is ironic that Faith, widely regarded as a virtue, has been employed with practices of mind manipulation and control to such an extent and success.













Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Confront or not confront: That is the Atheist's question...

The struggle for assertive self expression and demands seems to have started when Atheists began to come out of diffrent church holes, mostly having read Dawkins': The God Delusion, and Hitchens': God is Not Great.
Atheists started to group in public and became a vocal group. And since not much is written in stone for the God Free, Atheists tend to be outspoken, challenging "common knowledge" and ancient moral guides.
The Pious have been fiercely kicking back, sometimes with Inter-Faith unity against the Faithless threat.
Under the influence of the Ghost of Blasphemy, many feel offended by Atheist's assertive stance and criticism. And in a backlash, Atheists once again are debating whether they should or shouldn't "confront" Religion.
Confront? Harsh word! could mean calling for a sword fight; Out for a good bar fight... perhaps storming into a church some Sunday morning disrupting a good-old cermon? Or maybe just a  Door -to-Door preaching with The God Delusion under the arm?
If that is what the word means, I agree, not cool at all.
But who's up for that?  Besides, most Atheists are not in the greatest shape for that sort of "confrontation".
What self-criticising Atheists have really meant by "confrontation"  is open criticism. Perhaps by "confrontation" they mean: demanding and suing for separation of church and State, no tax, other exemptions and favors to those who claim to worship a God. Perhaps "Confrontation" means accusing Bible followers of discrimination and regressive laws; Halting promising Stem-cell research that might give hope to people suffering from a variety of presently incurable diseases; Pointing to the immoral and senseless treatment of the right to marry and divorce. Does "Confrontation" refer to criticizing Catholics who can "annul" their 25 years of marriage- with- children so they can remarry, yet view sex outside marriage as a sin, and at the same time would deprive gays from their wish to institutionalize their committment? Should Atheists not protest the senseless military law by which a category of recruits should hide their sexual identity, and pretend to be what they are not...the list is long.
Offending? yes. Quite often a discussion with the pious ends abruptly with something like: "...you think that I am stupid, You are arrogant to think that you can understand how God works, to criticize God's word...but nobody can. I know that because I am not bound by reason alone. I have Faith...and you can try and insult me and God...but you are the one who lives an empty life and will go to Hell..."
Now I don't know too many Atheists who call others "stupid". It is inferred though when Atheists demonstrate that those who just "accept" that it means a refusal to think critically. Calling on  inconsistencies or lack of evidence, often proves to be intimidating enough for some believers who  feel "stupid".
Should Atheists be more concerned with disturbing the Pious emotional status quo  and abstain from challenging unexamined claims and moral judgment?
I am afraid that's too risky. Acceptance has shown us time and time again, how vulnerable it can make good people. Vulnerable  to mind manipulation including abuse, atrocities and violation of human rights. Acceptance kept Catholic boys and girls silent and scarred for years, about abuse behind the cloth. It still keeps many Catholics from marching to the Vatican and taking it over.
Moreover, In a tight, modern, complex society we are extremely intertwined and interdependent on each other, whether we like it or not. When the far right votes or buy votes, all bear the  consequences.
Atheists have no choice. To keep quiet and "polite" would be irresponsible and uncaring. Everyone is effected, hence, can't afford the wait for the culture to change by itself. As it stands, Atheists are the voice of progress. If anything, they could get louder. Perhaps sometime we would be able to catch up with some Western European societies and lower the voice...