Once upon a time....

I wrote a long response to a statement made by a Christian on a discussion forum I frequent. I decided not to post my response in that forum, since it contains a great deal of speculation and theorizing, and I'm no philosopher. I'll post my reply here, though, mostly just because I can. I owe a debt to Carl Sagan for some of the ideas on the genesis of the God-concept presented herein, and to Ayn Rand for a great deal of the other stuff. I know that there are some rough spots, which I hope to iron out in time.

********


A Christian says, refering to the Fall of Man: "The tree was put there for one reason. To allow Adam and Eve to have the ability to follow their own will instead of God's. By giving a commandment against eating that tree, God allowed Adam and Eve to choose whether to obey Him or not. This would be the creation of free will."



True, the tree was put there for a reason: because the story of creation in Genesis is a story, the story of Man's fall, the tree, the fruit, the snake, the first man and woman, are all parts of a story. They are literary devices, metaphors, symbols. In a poem you might hear mention of a rose. Since you are reading a poem you already know that it's probably not just a rose. You know that the rose is more than likely a symbol for something greater, something more abstract, like beauty, fidelity, romance, love. You know that in a poem a dove might symbolize peace, that an eagle might symbolize freedom, and so on.

You also know that in a work of fiction, particularly poems, fables, or myths, frequently things don't operate the way they do in the real world. Animals often have human characteristics, they think, talk, feel, wear clothing, even walk upright. Sometimes plants and inanimate objects are personified to achieve a desired effect. Anything is possible in a work of fiction. If the author wishes he can draw from his imagination and invent his own creatures, even his own worlds for them to inhabit. He can invent monsters, extra-terrestrial beings, even gods, to suit his purposes. Or he can take real animals and real people and invest them will any type of supernatural ability or power. Anything goes.

When we encounter a narrative which contains behaviors and actions which do not correspond in any way with what we know of reality: when we encounter a being who creates a universe from nothing, who creates another living being from the dust, and still another being from the rib of the first being, who can invest trees with magical properties, who can make fruit which is able to impart the capacity for greater wisdom and understanding---we know that we are in a made-up world, a world which is fabricated with the intent of telling a story with a message that pertains to reality, a message which may, or may not, have some lesson for real people in a real world.

When we encounter in any narrative a snake that can speak, we know that we are in a made-up world; when we hear that two of every animal species on earth can be contained in an ark constructed by human hands, we know that we are in a made-up world; when we hear of a woman being turned to a pillar of salt, when we hear a fanciful and poetic reason for the appearance of rainbows, particularly in this modern age when we have discovered the real reasons rainbows appear, we know that we are in a made-up world, a world where all things are possible, where any explanation for any sort of phenomena whatsoever is acceptable, even expected: the world of imaginative fiction, the world of fable, of allegory, of myth.

When we read a story we willingly suspend our disbelief (Coleridge) and accept the story on its own terms in order to enjoy it and take meaning from it. If I were to read the Genesis story today for the first time, and if I had no idea that millions of people actually regard it as a factual account of real events, I would probably enjoy it somewhat and take various meanings away from it, though I would certainly disagree with what I presumed to be the author's intentions. I understand the theme of Genesis, which essentially boils down to Might makes Right. People cannot be trusted to govern themselves. Knowledge is power. An ignorant people are a governable people. The common man's only necessary virtue is obedience.

But while I understand this as the intended theme, I have the advantage of being born into the modern age and am able to determine the actual meaning, or purpose, behind that theme. History has demonstrated that such political ideas cannot work on a large scale. Human beings are a thinking, rational, deductive species. They will not be kept in the dark for long. They will discover the hidden agendas of their leaders and set about exposing them. The climax of Genesis--- the Fall of Man, his expulsion from Paradise, his supposedly corrupt nature--- is a literary device, a fictional contraption which attempts to make irrational and immoral ideas seem plausible by fabricating imaginary punishments for wrongdoings which in reality are nothing less than virtues: the desire for freedom and autonomy, the desire for knowledge, the desire for strength and self-reliance.

In a very definite sense, however, given the time when Genesis was composed, there is a certain degree of practicality in the creation/fall of Man myth. The author(s) of Genesis were of a tribal people, and the security of any tribe depends on maintaining and increasing its numbers, and, more importantly, on strong leadership. The problem I have today is why on earth people would feel that the same sort of fear-mongering, self-mistrust, self-contempt, the same sort of backwards reverence for an invisible deity who has never been observed by any of the five senses in the last two thousand years (and who has probably never been observed, period), is necessary for the continued welfare of the human species? Why do we persist in cultivating this us-versus-them mentality? Why do we continue to labor under the fear of being punished by an ancient tribal deity for our actions? Why do we persist in our futile hope that this mystical being will save us from the inevitability of death and oblivion? Why do we continue to wage war with one another over the various ways we choose to recognize and pay tribute to our imaginary supernatural benefactors and saviors? What has religion ever done except to cause division and hatred among people? Do religious people possess a greater moral character than those who are non-religious? History and day-to-day experience tells us that the answer is No.

But be that as it may. As I was saying, the prosperity of any tribe is largely dependent upon strong leadership; but there are always the proud and ambitious upstarts, the young bucks who are naturally driven to challenge their leaders. The best way to keep this constant threat in check is to make the leader seem invincible. He's immeasurably strong as well as being a paragon of virtue. He has only your best interests at heart. Then it naturally follows that any opposition to this incarnation of the Good must necessarily spring from Evil. Convince the Sheep that any suspicion or mistrust toward their leader is either the result of external influence (enter Talking Snakes, demons), or an internal fault or sickness (enter Sin). To ensure that the sheep will accept this as the truth, make certain that wrongdoers are punished, rebellions crushed, subversive murmurs and seditious whispers silenced (enter Standard Issued, Black Booted, Iron Fisted Force).

Let me indulge in some pure speculation for a moment. Let's say the Tribal Leader suddenly dies, and his successor has not yet established any depth of trust in the members of the Tribe. Anarchy and disorder seems inevitable. The leader's wife or mate, let us imagine, has a clever idea, since she's having a difficult time keeping the young bucks in line: Your leader is dead, but he isn't gone. In fact, he came to me last night in a dream and told me that he is living in the sky, invisible, yet a thousand times stronger (enter god, or gods). He is watching us. He is watching You. He sees everything. He can even see into your mind, into your thoughts. Stay in line. Obey the new leader (enter Divine Right of Kings) as you would obey Him. Keep the tribe together and increase. You can't run from Him. If you resist His will He will punish you. He will punish you with certain death. If you obey Him, you will go and live in the skies with Him forever and always.

The crux of the problem, however, for Authority, is how to ensure that the flock will remain ignorant enough to accept this pack of lies and hence be content to remain sheep. People are a curious lot. They want to learn things, find out how things work, gain knowledge; and eventually they could conceivably gain enough knowledge to instruct themselves that the lies they hear from the Authorities (enter priests, clergy) are just that: lies. Solution? That's simple: just lie to them some more, and not only that, tell them such grand and rotten lies that they will eventually hold themselves in such contempt they won't care about seeking knowledge or understanding things. All they will want to do is survive, obey the rules of the game, and go to the sky when it's all over.

Teach them that their virtues are sins. If they feel pride in themselves, tell them that pride comes from Evil. If they wish to grow, learn, attain a higher understanding of the world around them,---fill that world with demons first, and if the demons don't keep them in check, tell them that they don't have to go out in the world to encounter a demon. A demon has come to them and saved them the effort. A demon who turns everything upside down: pride, ambition, desire, curiosity, enterprise, all of man's essential virtues, are in fact manifestations of the evil planted inside him by a meddling demon, a gremlin, a chimera. If a man feels good about himself, about his life, this is a sure sign that he is infested with evil. Demon, or Original Sin: they amount to the same thing.

It's an unforgivable psychological trick that worked then and continues to work now, a mind game that makes perfectly decent human beings proudly confess to an inner corruption, a corruption that is complete and absolute. It's a vulgar lie that needs to be strangled, killed, and forgotten.

********

God is a metaphor for Authority. Adam and Eve, for Sheep. Authority wants to stay in charge, enjoys the power and prestige, the acclamations, the praise, the glory. Knowledge is power. Deny access to knowledge, deny access to power. The Talking Snake is portrayed as a liar, but in reality (meaning, how the Snake's words pertain to and/or reflect real circumstances in the real world) he is telling the truth; or at the very least, a truth, which is: the Big Kahuna fears you and wants to keep you down. He is actually working for God (not from the God character's perspective in the context of the story, but from Authority's POV in reality): In the story, God wants A&E to make the right choice so that they may live with him forever and always in blissful ignorance; in reality, the Authority needs for the Sheep (A&E) to make the wrong choice, so that Authority is spared any guilt over keeping the Sheep under his heel.

Remember: this is a story, a fable, a literary contrivance intended to cosmetize certain political, ethical and moral ideas. Adam and Eve didn't make the choice. The author(s) of the story made the choice, and naturally, since the purpose of the story is to cast blame on all of Man's (Sheep's) virtues and portray them as grievous faults so that they learn to hate and mistrust themselves and therefore become more easily duped and led by the nose, the choice made by Man (Sheep) (represented by the fictional characters, Adam and Eve) is.....you guessed it: the wrong choice . Thus they get evicted from their idyllic environment (intended to instill the fear of being ostracized by one's peers, thereby losing the security of the tribe) and lose that one-on-one, in-the-flesh relationship with God (intended to instill the fear of disappointing, and therefore being estranged from, the Leader (living or dead-but-not-quite-dead).

Knowledge is good. Knowledge is power. There is nothing evil about enjoying your life. There is nothing wrong with saving your mind for a conception of God that might actually make sense, that doesn't require you to hate and mistrust yourself; a conception of God without all those human foibles like jealousy, wrath, vengeance, or those all-too-human desires like the appetite for praise, glory, power, and Dominion.

Tom

The old Lie

Suicide bombings, on average, probably aren't acts of desperation or self-sacrifice. A good deal of these people are religious fanatics, and to willingly die in the act of taking out a few infidels is really an act of cool-headed self-promotion. I would even go so far as to call some of these bombings purely selfish acts, with nothing glorious or heroic about them, though they are no doubt tragic. I'd also say that there is probably something of the suicide bomber in any soldier who truly believes, deep down, that he is risking his life for the glory of God, and that such an act will be pleasing to his God.

I was born at West Point, raised in the area, and all my life held military people in high esteem, and in some way, I suppose, I still do, though my feelings and thoughts on the matter have changed somewhat over the past two years. To speak ill of American soldiers, or any soldiers really, still makes a part of me feel ashamed and ungrateful. I've had an easy life. But wait, saying something like that, without doing at least a little explaining, could give people a picture of me which is highly inaccurate, so here goes: I don't mean that I have been sheltered, spoiled, over-privileged, or anything remotely like that. I come from pretty humble origins and I'm a blue-collar guy straight down the line.

What I mean by "easy" is that I have never been in any serious financial difficulty, I have not had to literally struggle to survive, though like anyone else I have my share of burdens and challenges. I've had to work, and I consider that a fair deal; but I've never had more than one job at any given time. I am also good at living within my means, and maybe that's partly because I'm a bit of a homebody and don't have any expensive hobbies or interests. My most prized possessions are my books and my music collection.

By easy I also mean that I was lucky enough to be born in a country where a workingman can survive and even live in relative comfort. Despite all the assertions to the contrary, this is still possible in the US. The fact of the matter is that a great many people simply don't know how to handle money, they don't know how to live within their means. And I'm sure that a significant percentage of people who become "down and out" are either lazy or just plain irresponsible: they can't hold a job for an extended period of time, or they squander their money on any number of frivolous activities, material extravagances (like paying nearly half their monthly wages on car payments), or mind-altering amusements.

And a great many people in general need to realize that there is no obligation to reproduce. If you can barely sustain your own existence without undue stress and worry, don't have children. Or, limit the number of children you have. I find it difficult to sympathize with people who have four or five children, and in many cases a great deal more than that, and then complain that they cannot makes ends meet. Child-bearing is an enormous responsibility, and it's plain that to some people it's not only that but a largely unrewarding burden, financially and emotionally.

I also have it easy as far as a general sense of safety and security: I live in a country where war is a thing people get on planes and fly off to. I was never in the military myself, and I realize how presumptuous it is of me to judge the purpose or behavior of any person who has been in combat, or even anyone who has done military service. I'm not a mind reader. I don't know for sure what compels the average G.I. or the suicide bomber. I can only go on the information I have and come to very general conclusions.

What is almost certain is that the idea of God is a major impetus behind some acts of patriotism or nationalism. In the US it is blatantly obvious that a great many people cannot make any real distinction between their faith and their love of country, which I consider to be an extremely dangerous state of affairs. Because of the general prosperity in the US, and because most Americans are Christian, it is naturally assumed that there is an obvious connection between the two, and in my opinion this is the most dangerous and disturbing thing about the United States.

Take a President like Bush, who is routinely and shamelessly careless with the seriousness of his office, who uses religious rhetoric at every opportunity, who seems to have no understanding of and/or no respect for the separation of Church and State, you mix that with a population which is not only notoriously nationalistic but which has suddenly been awakened to the reality of being vulnerable to the rest of the world, and consider that the greater majority of these people are steeped in their religious traditions already: you've got a giant, nervous and volatile herd on your hands.

That isn't to say that religious faith is bad and atheism is good. Recent history has shown that atheists can be dangerous idealogues too, and can wreak their own brand of bloody havoc on the world; and certainly there are religious people who are not highly nationalistic or patriotic, don't act like sheep, are intelligent and civil and humane. Probably, most religious people are decent and humane and only want what's best for everyone. What bothers me about American Christians, particularly the right-leaning, church/Jesus/family oriented folks who are out in force everywhere, if an informal poll of bumper stickers is any indication, is the fact that they refuse to acknowledge that the political philosophies which influenced the founding fathers had precious little, if anything really, to do with Christianity.

We are a secular nation in that our goverment is secular. Whatever we are in private is our own business. And "secular", despite the lies perpetuated by Christian Americans, does not mean opposed to religion, it just means that the goverment will make no formal recognition of any one particular faith, nor in any way endorse or denounce any particular faith, and by formal I mean "official", not private. Nor does "secular" automatically endorse atheism, which is another lie from the Christian camp. The goverment cannot officially endorse atheism any more than it can officially endorse Christianity. Christians argue that by not officially endorsing a particular faith they are therefore endorsing atheism, which is false. Neutral is neutral. The relatively recent concessions made to the religiously-minded, such as the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, or the phrase "in God we trust" incribed on American currency, still do not concede to Christianity in any way whatsoever. God is God for the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Twelve-stepper, even the Sub-genius. If Christians do not wish to acknowledge that fact, that's their own problem.

I think we might progress a wee bit as a people, and by that I mean a world-people, if this invisible means of support is recognized for what it really is: a non-existent means of support. We're all we've got. And, like Frank Zappa said, maybe this really is a one-shot deal. Maybe we don't fly into the arms of our sky-daddy when we die. Maybe he doesn't pat our heads and tell us what good boys and girls we've been. Maybe there are no virgins waiting for us, or golden cities with golden streets. No rivers of milk and honey. No wings, no harps, no cloud-hopping, no angels, no happy forever and evers. I notice a lot of talk from religious folks about death, but hey, come on, the majority of Christians don't believe in death. A lot of hot air about death, but most of them don't believe it exists. On the one hand they tell me that Jesus died for me, and on the other they say that he rose up three days later. Hint: that's not death. It's a nap. And why all this talk of death when the majority of Christians believe in some form of Heaven and Hell: that all souls exist forever in some indescribable but undeniably conscious state, either in bliss or in torment?

Death is permanent. It isn't the wages of sin, it isn't what we get because of our inherently depraved natures. We don't die because we have done something wrong. Death is not a punishment, dealt out by some deathless being whose main function is to remind us of how undeserving we are of life, of happiness, of pleasure. Death is natural. It's as natural as it gets, but it's also permanent. It isn't a point of transition between life and eternal life, it isn't a dreamless sleep that is trivially short, it isn't a three day nap behind a big rock. It's oblivion, non-existence, non-consciousness. It's a permanent return to the condition we were in before we were born, which was nothingness. Death is easy to understand. All you have to do is think about what you were doing when the Pyramids were built. You weren't doing anything, you were dead. You've already been dead.

If we're going to harp on the Muslims for their willingness to go to extremes for their religion, then let's remember that a lot of American Christians are driven by the same purpose, and by beliefs which are disturbingly similar. There are certain groups of Christians, not all American but largely American, who call themselves Dominionists, or Christian Reconstructionists. The driving force behind these groups is not a respect for human rights or political freedom, but a focused and purposeful desire to turn America (and the rest of the world, if they can) toward a Christian theocracy whose sole authority would be the Bible. These groups believe that their mission is to establish God's Kingdom here on earth, and they believe that Jesus will not return until far in the future when this Kingdom has been realized. We are talking about a society under strict Mosaic Law: Old Testament law. We are talking about executions for homosexuality, blasphemy, even wayward and uncontrollable youths. Some of these warped individuals have even advocated public stonings.

I don't want to sound like an alarmist, though I suppose that's inevitable. I realize that these groups are relatively small and are considered crazy even by most mainstream Christians, but there are certain disturbing connections between the mainstream religious right in America and the core issues that drive the Dominionists/Reconstructionists: the deliberate insistence that Judeo-Christian values and/or ethics are the necessary foundation for the concepts of political freedom and human rights, which is sheer nonsense, and the equally nonsensical attempt to curtail the freedoms of American citizens by citing the supposed desires of an ancient tribal deity. The United States cannot be run by appealing to the Bible: ultimately, it will only be destroyed by such an appeal. Mosaic, or Old Testament Law, if taken literally, would be like a deadly poison if it were consistently administered in the US, or in any civilized country.

The truly scary thing is that when I talk to some Christians, they don't understand why living under Old Testament law would be a bad thing. They don't even know what would change. These dummies will deserve what they get.