{"id":152,"date":"2014-02-04T04:24:08","date_gmt":"2014-02-03T22:24:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/?p=152"},"modified":"2014-02-04T04:24:08","modified_gmt":"2014-02-03T22:24:08","slug":"the-halo-of-faith","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/2014\/02\/04\/the-halo-of-faith\/","title":{"rendered":"The Halo of Faith"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"164330_1830910295118_1402804_n\"<\/a>Have you ever had a friend in an abusive relationship?\u00a0 We feel love and compassion for them, but also a mix of disgust and impatience.\u00a0 How could they settle for such an unworthy situation?\u00a0 How can they not see it the way others do?<\/p>\n

The answer, of course, is that our friend is on the inside.\u00a0 We\u2019re not.\u00a0 The view is always very different from the outside.\u00a0 This is one of the arguments for religious faith, that you can only understand it when you already have it.\u00a0 It\u2019s a gift, like being in love, that we don\u2019t have to explain to those who don\u2019t have it.\u00a0 We can\u2019t explain it.\u00a0 If they had it, they would understand.\u00a0 Believers want to say that we commit an error when we critique faith without having it.\u00a0 Let\u2019s call this the Faith Fallacy.<\/span><\/p>\n

But this is also what makes faith a problem in society.\u00a0 We live with people, so our motivations and decisions should follow rules that are communicable to others.\u00a0 When they aren\u2019t, we are not really in relationship and there is no contract between people; our actions and the reasons for them appear more like the weather.\u00a0 Our friends need to know what drives us, but there is nothing negotiable in religious faith.\u00a0 It\u2019s a unilateral position that others simply need to accept or navigate around.\u00a0 It\u2019s anti-social.\u00a0 In relationships, our reasons have to be mutually understandable and negotiable.\u00a0 These are not words that describe faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

Back to our friend.\u00a0 Let\u2019s say she\u2019s a Christian.\u00a0 That places her in relationship with Yahweh and Jesus.\u00a0 What do we know about those guys?\u00a0 Lest we fall victim to prejudice, let\u2019s get all our information from our friend.\u00a0 When I ask Christians what they believe, the most common thing I hear is this:\u00a0 \u201cJesus died for our sins\u201d.\u00a0 This statement is full of assumptions, so \u00a0let\u2019s unpack it.<\/span><\/p>\n

First, \u201cJesus died for\u201d implies that vicarious atonement is possible and desirable.\u00a0 Yet we never do this in our culture.\u00a0 When a crime is committed, we punish the perpetrator.\u00a0 No one can come forward and volunteer to do time for another.\u00a0 That wouldn\u2019t be just or fair.\u00a0 To see this, all we have to do is replace the cast of characters with humans.<\/span><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s say you are justly accused of a crime.\u00a0 You await punishment, but the judge, in his mercy, tells you that he has decided to let you off the hook.\u00a0 But he\u2019s not going to just forgive you.\u00a0 He still requires that someone be punished.\u00a0 In fact, he\u2019s going to arrange the torture (let\u2019s say with leatherworking tools) and death of his own son, an innocent man, so that you can go free.<\/span><\/p>\n

Are you grateful?\u00a0 Perhaps, but we would also be repulsed at the injustice of such an arrangement.\u00a0 And we would be concerned about the young man.\u00a0 And we would question the morals of the judge.\u00a0 At minimum, this is a dysfunctional ruling that wouldn\u2019t survive on appeal.\u00a0 At worst, the judge is off his nut and should be committed himself.<\/p>\n

Second, we have \u201csins\u201d.\u00a0 What sins did Jesus die for?\u00a0 His sacrifice was for everyone, so what sins has a 3 month old committed?\u00a0 Or a disabled 20 year old who has never been out of her bed or off her ventilator?\u00a0 The usual theological explanation is Original Sin, or the \u2018curse of Adam\u2019.\u00a0 Adam was disobedient, so we are all responsible and must be punished.\u00a0 Again, we just don\u2019t do this in our culture.\u00a0 Guilt does not flow down the generations, or from one person to another.\u00a0 It may have in some cultures, but this idea is certainly outdated, to say the least.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ah, but wait.\u00a0 We are committing the Faith Fallacy.\u00a0 We are looking at this arrangement from the outside.\u00a0 When we view it from the judge\u2019s point of view, it\u2019s a beautiful, compassionate sacrifice of incredible mercy.\u00a0 If you would only buy into it, you\u2019d see it that way, too.\u00a0 And you would wear miniature leatherworking tools around your neck and kneel before giant leatherworking tools in prayer and erect enormous leatherworking tools on the pinnacles of your buildings, all in honor of this immeasurable and poignant sacrifice.\u00a0 Did I mention that I\u2019m sacrificing my own son?\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>That\u2019s, like, the most loving thing a father can do.<\/em><\/p>\n

How do we react to such an idea?\u00a0 It depends on our vantage point.\u00a0 From the outside, it\u2019s clearly malignant.\u00a0 When we\u2019re inside, the view is very different.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Lawyers, doctors, judges and police officers sometimes recuse themselves from working on cases because they are too close to them.\u00a0 We all recognize that personal or family involvement can prejudice us in ways we can\u2019t detect or resist.\u00a0 In religious faith, this wisdom is reversed.\u00a0 Here, the prejudice and loss of perspective that come from being too close are declared to be virtues.\u00a0 In fact, they are requirements to get on board with certain ideas at all.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This is why I say religious faith requires a halo.\u00a0 Not the angelic kind, but the rigid metal ones that screw into your skull to hold your head in one position.\u00a0 If you shift out of that position, the appearance of your belief will change radically, often in ugly ways.\u00a0 So, it is vital that we keep our vision fixed in just the right way so that<\/span><\/p>\n

Vicarious atonement appears just and fair.<\/span><\/p>\n

Torturing and killing an innocent man seems loving.<\/span><\/p>\n

The option of simply dropping the charges against us without a blood sacrifice is not even noticed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The whole Christian project depends on Yahweh\u2019s bloodlust, but it equally depends on this fact being invisible from the inside.\u00a0 A blood sacrifice is simply required, but the focus is on God\u2019s mercy in punishing Jesus in our place.\u00a0 \u201cYou don\u2019t know Him like I do.\u00a0 He doesn\u2019t want to punish us.\u00a0 He\u2019s actually a really loving guy.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This is why stepping outside the faith and asking questions is bad form.\u00a0 Religious faith is a sort of hologram that disappears when you shift your perspective.\u00a0 It relies on a fixed vantage point that is only available when you already believe it.\u00a0 Faith has evolved several companion behaviors, like a posse of lampreys accompanying a shark, that deflect and discourage analysis from the outside.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

One is taking offense.\u00a0 When someone asks a reasonable question, but one that comes from the outside, believers often take offense.\u00a0 This hijacks our existing cultural norm of courtesy.\u00a0 People are conditioned to back off when they offend someone.\u00a0 But asking a question from the outside of faith is not offensive, it is reasonable.\u00a0 But it is reasonable from the social perspective:\u00a0 \u201cI want to understand you better, so I have a question about your faith.\u201d\u00a0 But believers aren\u2019t operating from a social perspective; they are inside their faith.\u00a0 Misapplying \u2018taking offense\u2019 is a ploy, like a squid squirting ink.\u00a0 They weren\u2019t offended; they were flat-footed.\u00a0 You asked a question for which they had no answer.<\/span><\/p>\n

James Carse says that \u2018belief is where thinking stops\u2019.\u00a0 It has to be.\u00a0 Belief systems are closed systems of answers.\u00a0 That is one of their main offerings:\u00a0 \u201cBelieve this way and you\u2019ll have a complete worldview; your search is over.\u201d\u00a0 Bombs of curiosity coming from over the horizon have to be deflected, and misapplying \u2018taking offense\u2019 is a survival tactic.\u00a0 To the frustrated believer, they shouldn\u2019t have to deflect outside inquiries.\u00a0 It\u2019s only necessary because there are still some poor souls outside their bubble.\u00a0 It\u2019s a pity, but nonbelievers can never understand what they have.\u00a0 The only answer to questions from outsiders is \u201cyou\u2019re not supposed to ask such questions\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another is willful ignorance.\u00a0 Now, there\u2019s nothing wrong with ignorance; we all have it.\u00a0 Recognizing our ignorance is the beginning of knowledge.\u00a0 But willful ignorance has nothing to do with that.\u00a0 Its aim is to preserve a belief in the face of contrary evidence.\u00a0 We all do this, too, to some degree.\u00a0 In science, we have mechanisms like peer review, repeatability and double-blind studies to counter human weaknesses.\u00a0 But willful ignorance avoids those corrective measures, too.\u00a0 Beliefs are selfish this way.\u00a0 They want only to survive and they have evolved defenses for self-preservation, facts be damned.\u00a0 And getting along with others has to be secondary, too.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Fielding outside questions is built into science.\u00a0 It is actively discouraged in religious faith.\u00a0 Science promotes open standards, while faith sprouts walled gardens that are inherently, and by design, inaccessible to outsiders.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Which approach is most helpful on lifeboat Earth?\u00a0 There is one scenario where faith is socially feasible:\u00a0 when there is only one faith.\u00a0 If everyone were Muslim, for example, then the walled garden of faith would have no outsiders.\u00a0 If everyone were Christian, it might work, but we would still have to settle on which Christian sect to choose.\u00a0 And notice I said \u201csocially feasible\u201d; religious social systems are feasible, but autocratic.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is no solution involving religious faith that is compatible with a free civilization.\u00a0 To live together, our worldviews must be accessible and understandable to others.\u00a0 Scientific Naturalism offers such a worldview.\u00a0 Religious faith spawns myriad, incompatible ones.\u00a0 Persisting in faith means walling ourselves off at a time when we can only survive by working together.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Most religious believers are in dysfunctional relationships with abusive gods.\u00a0 The gifts of faith are great, but come at an even greater price.\u00a0 Believers have been trained not to see things from the outside.\u00a0 To rejoin the wider world, they need to step outside their faith so that they can share, and answer, our concerns.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Have you ever had a friend in an abusive relationship?\u00a0 We feel love and compassion for them, but also a mix of disgust and impatience.\u00a0 How could they settle for such an unworthy situation?\u00a0 How can they not see it the way others do? The answer, of course, is that our friend is on the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/enoughsenough\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}