When asked why I became an atheist I usually answer with a stock standard answer like, "There just isn't any imperical evidence for the existence of god and there are far more likely explanations that fit the facts and evidence that is available and these explanations do not require the existence of god to work,"
This statement might well be true but it doesn't actually convey any of my personal or emotional experience with coming to terms with living in a universe without a god in it. In truth my loss of faith was driven not my intellectual needs at all, but by emotional forces at work within me.
To understand why it felt so unbearable being a Catholic one first needs to understand the concept of cognitive dissonance. Notice that the feeling doesn't have a specific name, instead they just refer to it as involving a mixture of secondary emotions like: anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment and stress. However, none of these secondary emotions adequately describes the primary feeling. I have adapted the term 'discogia' to describe this feeling.
As a young Catholic I spent a great deal of time worrying about whether or not I would go to hell if I died. See, although many people say that I was a quiet well behaved child I nonetheless knew better. I had frequently lied to, stolen from, harmed and decieved many people (including my own family), albeit these were petty crimes typical of a child in retrospect. However, it was very clear to me that I had committed serious crimes and injustices to other people. God was very clear on this and he watched everything that I did and he knew my thoughts so I couldn't lie to him. I had no explanation for my actions except that I was evil. Therefore I was going to hell. When I confessed my sins to the priest he assured me that my sins were not that important and I would be forgiven.
This is where I started to feel discogia creeping into my life in a big way.
See, god hates sin, god is perfect, god created man, god created hell to punish sinners and god loves us. Why then would got create man in such a way that his natural tendancy is to sin? Then after he has sinned throw him into a lake of fire to burn in torment for all eternity... but still love him?
Also, if god created man why make him capable of sinning so easily? If he was perfect and all powerful surely he could have at least done a better job? As for free will this puzzled me the most because I was in love with science at the time and science could predict the future, albeit in limited ways, but the fact that science works at all implies that free will can't actually be free.
I remember being in grades 5 and 6 worrying frantically about this problem. I tried over and over again to write stories that were original... but everything was copied from something I'd seen, read or heard before... all I was doing was reproducing somebody else's ideas and mixing them with another persons. The creativity needed to produce truly free will didn't exist. In retrospect the knowledge and power needed to achieve free will is on a scale well beyond human capability. The conclusion was stark... I was just a machine. Worse than that, a sinful machine doomed to hell... because apparently a loving god had created me this way just for this purpose.
At the time my solution was clear, become a priest so that I could get on god's good side and it would all be ok. Although... god wasn't exactly someone I felt comfortable trusting either. I had been very disturbed by the angel of death killing all of egypt's first born. In mass I had heard that god asked Abraham to kill his only son as a sign of faith, true, he stopped him but later on God would actually kill his only son and I never could understand why he did that. God was actually scaring me quite a lot. Could my father kill me like god did? Just to make a point about how far he could go? Or what really confused me at the time was why would god deliberately forced his son to get himself killed (it is mentioned in the gospels that Jesus had the option of escape but god pushed him into it) then get angry with humanity for killing his son?
The feelings of discogia just got worse and worse as I grew older. But I didn't want to give up on god. So I started off by deciding that the old testament was garbage and focussed only on the new testament... then I started to get bothered by inconsistencies between the gospels which could only be explained if the writers weren't perfect/inspired by the holy spirit but just ordinary men. In which case they could have got it wrong. I also remember being bothered by Jesus' complete lack of a comprehensive schema or world view. His message was devoid of detail and practical advice. By my teenage years I had come to realise how childishly simplistic the words and messages of the bible were compared to the sophistication of later authors. I had to wonder if these were learned men at all writing it.
So eventually I turned to deism. God existed, but it was not for me a mere mortal to interpret his will. Then gradually the importance and role of god in the world grew less and less as I dealt with each remaining instance of discogia by putting in place scientific and rational ideas that dealt with the facts better than the religious one - although by this stage I was in university studying philosophy. When I started philosophy that's when I started gaining serious ground on the overwhelming sense of discogia that I had been ensared in. But that's still too simple an explanation for an emotional level.
It hurt.
Losing god in my life hurt me a great deal... it must have taken me 1,000 steps to get from Catholic to atheist. I was a wiccan in between and a pagan between that. For each step I removed one unpleasant feeling of discogia and replaced it with a sharper more painful realisation of my limitations, mortality, ordinariness and insignificance.
To become an atheist I had to give up these things:
That I was special and unique because I was part of a brilliant plan.
That my body was a work of art, not a randomly arranged set of genetic instructions.
That I would live after death.
That I would eventually see my friends and loved ones again.
That I could achieve anything because god doesn't make junk.
That there was justice in the universe.
That I would always be rewarded if I did the right thing.
That there was such a concept as a 'right' thing.
That I was loved no matter what I did.
That humanity was being looked after and cared for from above so it would all work out in the end whatever happened.
That good things will just come to me if I wait for god to deliver them.
^ That's an awful lot to lose. It hurt. It hurt so much one month I just couldn't sleep at all from fear of death. It hurt because religion had been my iron shield against insecurity in my life. Once I lost that shield I felt tiny, helpless and small. Becoming an atheist was not a quick, easy or effortless task. In this short passage I cannot describe how painful it was. I wasn't suicidal, rather the opposite... I was scared of stepping outside my door in case a car hit me on the foot path and it was all over.
Life after god was only painful to reach because I had had my hopes raised to outrageously high levels by religious education beforehand. If the feeling of discogia hadn't been so awkward (it wasn't painful, just awkward) I never would have given up on religion because those defences against uncertainty were wonderful.
So, for me, I became an atheist not because I thought more clearly than others... but because I felt more strongly than others. I find it awkward telling people that's there's no god or religious dogma is bad. Not because I don't believe it... but I know that every time I say it I'm pushing someone down another of those 1,000 steps that eventually leads to peace of mind... but every step hurts a great deal too and unlike god, I wouldn't wish that pain on anyone.
Showing posts with label insecurity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insecurity. Show all posts
23 December, 2009
20 December, 2009
Sex... Why are we so hung up on it?
Recently I saw this video clip on the Daily Beast:
Apparently, the Governor has a relationship with an escort and it's her fault.
Once again, as an atheist I feel it is my duty to strip away all of the dogma on how human beings are supposed to engage in sexual intercourse with each other and expose the prejudice here. When women label other women as 'sluts', 'whores', 'prostitutes' or whatever, they are living out what happened in the Stanford Prison Experiment. They feel once a women is publicly labelled as a slut that they can vent their repressed anger, jealously and frustration onto her. Why? Because they know they can get away with it.
This is immoral. Religious people often attack and demonise homosexuals and Jews for the same reasons. This is one of the things that upsets me most about religious people - they use the prejudices written in their dogma to justify the dehumanisation and venting of their frustration onto them.
I feel as an atheist I have to acknowledge that I have many feelings that are anti-social. Sometimes I get angry with beautiful people because they're shallow... sometimes I get angry with them because I'm very jealous. I believe that's part of being human I don't feel diminished in dignity and purity by admitting that I have destructive thoughts and feelings sometimes.
The majority of the women on this talk show appear to me to be angry with Mz. Dupree not because she had sex with lots of men but because she is beautiful, earned a lot of money doing something she enjoyed and managed to mingle with the creme-de-la-creme of society seemingly without any effort on her part. These are not good reasons to hate someone and the women on The View should feel ashamed not Mz. Dupree.
That said, I do find Mz. Dupree's sweeping generalisations about men irritating as she is only talking about her clientele and dating preferences not all men.
Conclusion, we often define mental illness as simply attributes some people have that we don't like. We invent reasons why their behaviour is bad after we've decided it is bad*. We then tell them it is their fault and their responsibility to change themselves when they can't really help being who they are. It is a twisted savage way of thinking.
* If you think that this is preposterous try this thought experiment: find a quality in a person that society considers 'good' then pretend that it's bad and think of reasons why it could be bad. You'll probably surprise yourself thinking about all the reasons why you could hate the 'good' things about some people.
Apparently, the Governor has a relationship with an escort and it's her fault.
Once again, as an atheist I feel it is my duty to strip away all of the dogma on how human beings are supposed to engage in sexual intercourse with each other and expose the prejudice here. When women label other women as 'sluts', 'whores', 'prostitutes' or whatever, they are living out what happened in the Stanford Prison Experiment. They feel once a women is publicly labelled as a slut that they can vent their repressed anger, jealously and frustration onto her. Why? Because they know they can get away with it.
This is immoral. Religious people often attack and demonise homosexuals and Jews for the same reasons. This is one of the things that upsets me most about religious people - they use the prejudices written in their dogma to justify the dehumanisation and venting of their frustration onto them.
I feel as an atheist I have to acknowledge that I have many feelings that are anti-social. Sometimes I get angry with beautiful people because they're shallow... sometimes I get angry with them because I'm very jealous. I believe that's part of being human I don't feel diminished in dignity and purity by admitting that I have destructive thoughts and feelings sometimes.
The majority of the women on this talk show appear to me to be angry with Mz. Dupree not because she had sex with lots of men but because she is beautiful, earned a lot of money doing something she enjoyed and managed to mingle with the creme-de-la-creme of society seemingly without any effort on her part. These are not good reasons to hate someone and the women on The View should feel ashamed not Mz. Dupree.
That said, I do find Mz. Dupree's sweeping generalisations about men irritating as she is only talking about her clientele and dating preferences not all men.
Conclusion, we often define mental illness as simply attributes some people have that we don't like. We invent reasons why their behaviour is bad after we've decided it is bad*. We then tell them it is their fault and their responsibility to change themselves when they can't really help being who they are. It is a twisted savage way of thinking.
* If you think that this is preposterous try this thought experiment: find a quality in a person that society considers 'good' then pretend that it's bad and think of reasons why it could be bad. You'll probably surprise yourself thinking about all the reasons why you could hate the 'good' things about some people.
15 December, 2009
Atheism and Marriage
This is a big topic and not really one I can do justice to here. But I thought I might throw out a few daring and challenging ideas today. Also, if anyone wants me to write about a particular topic feel free to email me and I'll see about writing an atheist perspective on it.
So let's start. Firstly, every atheist I know has a different opinion on this topic so don't think I'm representing all atheist. Rather in the spirit of the Rabbi's (See first post) postulation that atheists strip away all dogma and idolatry I'm going attempt to strip away all dogma away from the institute of marriage.
Firstly, what is marriage? Many people have different ideas but the best I've heard is apparently from Emmanual Kant (although I've extended it a little): Marriage is a legal agreement between a man and a woman whereby each consigns the access rights to their genitals to the other person for the purpose of reproduction, child-rearing and determining inheritance.
Well the first question that comes to my mind as a liberal is, "Why would anyone be so willing to give up a right? For that matter one that includes access to their body and who gets all of their valuables when they die?"
Now traditionally, and still in many parts of the world, marriage is arranged for the couple and they have no say in the matter. So in this case marriage is simply enslavement forced onto the individuals and the stronger of the two is the master.
So what reasons would a person choose to get married for if it was a free choice?
I'm sure there are more, but in the 5 minutes I was jotting this down during lunch I could only think of these 5.
1. Raising children in a safe, secure and supported environment.
2. Financial security in case of sickness, old age and imfirmity.
3. Emotional security against loneliness, abandonment and depression.
4. Love, because you care for someone at least almost as much as yourself.
5. Guaranteeing the paternity of the offspring and the inheritance of property through the family name.
Now, none of these arguments are very strong. Yes, sure, people might get married for a number of reasons, probably a combination... but if none of these reasons are good ones it begs two questions: why get married at all? OR Why not reform marriage into an institution that you'd like to be a part of?
The problems I see with these arguments are summarised below:
1. About half of families are not safe, secure and supported environments due to neglectful parenting, stupid parenting and poor parents. Even if one parent is attentive the other can just as easily be completely neglecting them. Also, same sex and defacto couples are just as capable providing (and neglecting) children with a safe, secure and supported environment. Because it works maybe 50% of the time I am tempted to say it has moderate strength as an argument then again would you join any other social institution if there was only a 50-50 chance of getting benefits after investing so much time and money?
2. This is actually not a bad argument. Give up a little freedom in return for knowing that if you lose your job, get sick or succumb to depression there will always be someone else there to share in your misery and help you out. Kind of like a third parent. However, the only problem is that no-fault divorce is legal now and so these agreements wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on. But in other countries were divorce is difficult this is a good deal, at least for the men that is.
3. This is similar to the first one except, unlike unfortunate events in ones life that one doesn't have control over, in this situation one can just have friends and an active social life and they don't really need to give up access to their genitals to get it.
4. I really do like the idea of love... but I haven't yet seen anyone actually love someone as much as themselves. For example, if you are a man and you care for the maximum benefit of your wife you will know that a varied and exciting sex life is often important for her happiness. Also, the genetic diversity of her children is a concern for her on a biological level so how many men actively encourage their wives to have multiple sexual partners and a different paternity for each of her children? While still supporting and raising them as though they were his own? Also, how many men are encouraged by their wives to go out and impregnate as many women as they can to fulfil their biological desire to spread their seed? Clearly in a marriage such satisfaction of the other person's desires cannot be met so both parties decide to mutually limit what desires they can actually have fulfilled. So both parties put themselves in uncomfortable anxiety producing situations... such sexual repression is bound to be unhealthy and to appear in other forms such as infidelity, homosexuality, porn addiction, pedophilia, anger, anxiety driven sleep loss, desire not to be home or with their spouse, etc...
If both parties are asexual then I suppose it would work very nicely for them. But what about the children?
Otherwise, if you really loved someone that much... why would you make them suffer through marriage only to eventually divorce them?
5. This one probably makes the most sense. A man might feel uncomfortable about whether or not his woman's children are his own so he'll take her into his house where he can keep her better under surveilance and the institute of marriage can act as social pressure to keep her from abandoning him or sleeping with other men and thus helping to reassure him that his progeny actually inherit his property. What the woman actually gets out of this situation isn't so clear though. As this arrangement is clearly assymetrically in favour of the man so let's just consign this idea to the patriarchal past.
So... what am I saying? End the institution of marriage? No, I am not saying that at all. If traditional marriage works for you then you don't need to change anything. But if traditional marriage isn't enough or is too much then I believe there is no reason why we can't use our natural human inventiveness to come up with a creative solution.
Firstly, it is not wrong to expect more out of marriage, it is a feeling and it ought to be respected. Also, often demanding more isn't a bad thing. Often it leads to improvements and innovations that people more content would never have invested the time and energy into developing.
My personal take on how we should redesign marriage is to come up with a solution that meets all 5 of the previous arguments for a marriage and see how well it goes in addressing those.
One alternative I've considered is a 'quaple' or a marriage of four people.
A quaple is a group of 4 adults (any combination of sexes) who decide to pool their emotional, financial and biological resources into raising children in a safe, supportive and secure environment and taking care of each other's needs.
1. With four people raising children there is a lot more space for discussing parenting ideas, learning from each other, having the right parent nurture the right child in the right way. Help them with their homework and explore their interests. They can also provide more income and greater resistance to financial hardship thus a more stable environment for the children.
2. 4 incomes versus 2, or more realistically 3 incomes versus 1, provides far more financial security.
3. It is harder to get tired of the lifelong company of 3 friends than only 1.
4. There is no law of nature that says a person can only fall in love once in their life or that they could only love one person adequately. While such a devotion can be touching it actually reeks of insecurity and personal weakness. If your life centres around one particular person... what happens if they die or decide they don't love you anymore? Simple: total breakdown. Conversely if you depend on just one person, and they can't always be there to give to you, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment. A strong person loves many people because they are loved by many people. They might give less individually but overall they give and receive the same amount but with the security of consistent support and not occasional support. If you are a jealous person and must control(/have) someone (all to yourself)... then that is your fear for yourself speaking, not your love for them. Confusing them is a common mistake for atheists and non-atheists alike.
5. OK... I don't think men will ever have it this good ever again. Though really, it wasn't a good system for the men anyway on a spiritual level. Insecurity about whether or not ones seed will be passed on in ones children is another form of insecurity. I think it is like insecurity about death. You can stay up all night worrying about it but it won't change the fact you're going to die. You can control and chain up your wife at home with a 24 video surveilance system on her... or you can accept that whether or not your sperm makes it into the mix for the next generation doesn't really matter on three grounds:
1. There are close to 7 billion people who already share 99.9% of your genetics.
2. You won't live to see the future so you can't know if your children live, die, succeed, fail or commit murder etc...
3. In the future genetic engineering will remove all diseases from people and designer babies will be normal. The days of 'your' genetics being special in any way are numbered.
So really, this is an insecurity like any other: it is learned and it can be unlearned. Once unlearned it will free one to experience much more fulfilling emotions.
Honestly, the fact is that quaples are better than couples in all counts of practicality. The only real problem is that we often lack the social skills to have one good friendship in our lives... much less three. It is a frightening idea thinking about all of the arguments and conflicts you could have with three people: all of them ganging up on you for example. However, if one has good social skills and a good sense of empathy then it is possible to do it. And hey, good social skills and empathy are good precisely because they allow one to work in such complicated social structures as a team or a quaple. Why? Because team work always beats individual ability. The champion team is better than the team of champions.
So let's start. Firstly, every atheist I know has a different opinion on this topic so don't think I'm representing all atheist. Rather in the spirit of the Rabbi's (See first post) postulation that atheists strip away all dogma and idolatry I'm going attempt to strip away all dogma away from the institute of marriage.
Firstly, what is marriage? Many people have different ideas but the best I've heard is apparently from Emmanual Kant (although I've extended it a little): Marriage is a legal agreement between a man and a woman whereby each consigns the access rights to their genitals to the other person for the purpose of reproduction, child-rearing and determining inheritance.
Well the first question that comes to my mind as a liberal is, "Why would anyone be so willing to give up a right? For that matter one that includes access to their body and who gets all of their valuables when they die?"
Now traditionally, and still in many parts of the world, marriage is arranged for the couple and they have no say in the matter. So in this case marriage is simply enslavement forced onto the individuals and the stronger of the two is the master.
So what reasons would a person choose to get married for if it was a free choice?
I'm sure there are more, but in the 5 minutes I was jotting this down during lunch I could only think of these 5.
1. Raising children in a safe, secure and supported environment.
2. Financial security in case of sickness, old age and imfirmity.
3. Emotional security against loneliness, abandonment and depression.
4. Love, because you care for someone at least almost as much as yourself.
5. Guaranteeing the paternity of the offspring and the inheritance of property through the family name.
Now, none of these arguments are very strong. Yes, sure, people might get married for a number of reasons, probably a combination... but if none of these reasons are good ones it begs two questions: why get married at all? OR Why not reform marriage into an institution that you'd like to be a part of?
The problems I see with these arguments are summarised below:
1. About half of families are not safe, secure and supported environments due to neglectful parenting, stupid parenting and poor parents. Even if one parent is attentive the other can just as easily be completely neglecting them. Also, same sex and defacto couples are just as capable providing (and neglecting) children with a safe, secure and supported environment. Because it works maybe 50% of the time I am tempted to say it has moderate strength as an argument then again would you join any other social institution if there was only a 50-50 chance of getting benefits after investing so much time and money?
2. This is actually not a bad argument. Give up a little freedom in return for knowing that if you lose your job, get sick or succumb to depression there will always be someone else there to share in your misery and help you out. Kind of like a third parent. However, the only problem is that no-fault divorce is legal now and so these agreements wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on. But in other countries were divorce is difficult this is a good deal, at least for the men that is.
3. This is similar to the first one except, unlike unfortunate events in ones life that one doesn't have control over, in this situation one can just have friends and an active social life and they don't really need to give up access to their genitals to get it.
4. I really do like the idea of love... but I haven't yet seen anyone actually love someone as much as themselves. For example, if you are a man and you care for the maximum benefit of your wife you will know that a varied and exciting sex life is often important for her happiness. Also, the genetic diversity of her children is a concern for her on a biological level so how many men actively encourage their wives to have multiple sexual partners and a different paternity for each of her children? While still supporting and raising them as though they were his own? Also, how many men are encouraged by their wives to go out and impregnate as many women as they can to fulfil their biological desire to spread their seed? Clearly in a marriage such satisfaction of the other person's desires cannot be met so both parties decide to mutually limit what desires they can actually have fulfilled. So both parties put themselves in uncomfortable anxiety producing situations... such sexual repression is bound to be unhealthy and to appear in other forms such as infidelity, homosexuality, porn addiction, pedophilia, anger, anxiety driven sleep loss, desire not to be home or with their spouse, etc...
If both parties are asexual then I suppose it would work very nicely for them. But what about the children?
Otherwise, if you really loved someone that much... why would you make them suffer through marriage only to eventually divorce them?
5. This one probably makes the most sense. A man might feel uncomfortable about whether or not his woman's children are his own so he'll take her into his house where he can keep her better under surveilance and the institute of marriage can act as social pressure to keep her from abandoning him or sleeping with other men and thus helping to reassure him that his progeny actually inherit his property. What the woman actually gets out of this situation isn't so clear though. As this arrangement is clearly assymetrically in favour of the man so let's just consign this idea to the patriarchal past.
So... what am I saying? End the institution of marriage? No, I am not saying that at all. If traditional marriage works for you then you don't need to change anything. But if traditional marriage isn't enough or is too much then I believe there is no reason why we can't use our natural human inventiveness to come up with a creative solution.
Firstly, it is not wrong to expect more out of marriage, it is a feeling and it ought to be respected. Also, often demanding more isn't a bad thing. Often it leads to improvements and innovations that people more content would never have invested the time and energy into developing.
My personal take on how we should redesign marriage is to come up with a solution that meets all 5 of the previous arguments for a marriage and see how well it goes in addressing those.
One alternative I've considered is a 'quaple' or a marriage of four people.
A quaple is a group of 4 adults (any combination of sexes) who decide to pool their emotional, financial and biological resources into raising children in a safe, supportive and secure environment and taking care of each other's needs.
1. With four people raising children there is a lot more space for discussing parenting ideas, learning from each other, having the right parent nurture the right child in the right way. Help them with their homework and explore their interests. They can also provide more income and greater resistance to financial hardship thus a more stable environment for the children.
2. 4 incomes versus 2, or more realistically 3 incomes versus 1, provides far more financial security.
3. It is harder to get tired of the lifelong company of 3 friends than only 1.
4. There is no law of nature that says a person can only fall in love once in their life or that they could only love one person adequately. While such a devotion can be touching it actually reeks of insecurity and personal weakness. If your life centres around one particular person... what happens if they die or decide they don't love you anymore? Simple: total breakdown. Conversely if you depend on just one person, and they can't always be there to give to you, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment. A strong person loves many people because they are loved by many people. They might give less individually but overall they give and receive the same amount but with the security of consistent support and not occasional support. If you are a jealous person and must control(/have) someone (all to yourself)... then that is your fear for yourself speaking, not your love for them. Confusing them is a common mistake for atheists and non-atheists alike.
5. OK... I don't think men will ever have it this good ever again. Though really, it wasn't a good system for the men anyway on a spiritual level. Insecurity about whether or not ones seed will be passed on in ones children is another form of insecurity. I think it is like insecurity about death. You can stay up all night worrying about it but it won't change the fact you're going to die. You can control and chain up your wife at home with a 24 video surveilance system on her... or you can accept that whether or not your sperm makes it into the mix for the next generation doesn't really matter on three grounds:
1. There are close to 7 billion people who already share 99.9% of your genetics.
2. You won't live to see the future so you can't know if your children live, die, succeed, fail or commit murder etc...
3. In the future genetic engineering will remove all diseases from people and designer babies will be normal. The days of 'your' genetics being special in any way are numbered.
So really, this is an insecurity like any other: it is learned and it can be unlearned. Once unlearned it will free one to experience much more fulfilling emotions.
Honestly, the fact is that quaples are better than couples in all counts of practicality. The only real problem is that we often lack the social skills to have one good friendship in our lives... much less three. It is a frightening idea thinking about all of the arguments and conflicts you could have with three people: all of them ganging up on you for example. However, if one has good social skills and a good sense of empathy then it is possible to do it. And hey, good social skills and empathy are good precisely because they allow one to work in such complicated social structures as a team or a quaple. Why? Because team work always beats individual ability. The champion team is better than the team of champions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
