Today we are joined by the venerable athiest, science-lovin’, feminist blogger Jen McCreight who has a thing or two to say about skepticism. She takes Dan to task for his lack of critical thinking while interviewing a recent guest about female ejaculation.
So, the calls today are all viewed through the cold, hard prism of science. This all BEFORE the rapture proved to be a non-event. That took courage.
Call us up:
206-201-2720
Check out Jen’s magnificent blog: at www.blaghag.com.
Today’s episode is brought to you by Netflix. For a free 30-day trial, go to netflix.com/savage.
Comment on this episode at www.thestranger.com/lovecast
Re: the HIV+ guy, listeners should be aware that outing someone’s HIV status can also be a prosecutable offense in criminal and/or civil court, so people need to be careful around this, as the law hasn’t really stabilized on the issue and varies dramatically between jurisdictions.
Everybody should read her awesome blog post roundup of the G-Spot science.
Amazing work by both of you. This is why the internets is great.
Great to hear Jen on the podcast – she was right to give you a hard time, Dan, and you were right to acknowledge that.
I’ll also add that I’m another woman who experiences some sort of female version of “blue balls” if I’m extremely aroused and unable to either have sex or masturbate. It’s like a pulsing ache that won’t go away, and it’s both painful and extremely irritating! It only happens under very specific circumstances (I have to be *really* horny) but when it does, it’s awful. It would suck to have to deal with that on a regular basis.
To the caller in Episode 241, get your son circumcised. Not only is it aesthetically pleasing/looks better, it’s just generally cleaner and all around more, what’s the word, nice. Ask yourself this: do you really want your son’s dick to look like Snuffleupagus?
We do need more Jen McCreight on this podcast.
Nice podcast. To women who describe themselves as feminists, but for whom the STD-reduction argument for male circumcision works: How would you feel if someone somewhere showed that female circumcision reduced the incidence of some STD? Would that seem like a reasonable argument for female circumcision?
Jen was great! Please have her back, Dan.
@7 As if this was hard to figure out, male and female circumcision are not interchangeable. One supposedly lowers pleasure somewhat and makes men less likely to catch infections, and hey, maybe we shouldn’t be so cavalier about doing it to kids, it’s a grey issue. And the other is a misogynistic hate crime. Fuck off.
Do not circumcise your kids. You are cutting a newborns genitals! How can this be okay? Why take the chance that something could go horribly wrong? For YOUR own preference? How do you know that their future partner won’t PREFER it uncut. Lots of people do.
@8 Wow. I guess you’re one of the folks I was directing that toward. I would argue that it is not a grey issue … We are mostly comfortable with one, because it’s our cultural tradition (and, I agree, it is not a misogynistic hate crime), but they are both on the continuum of forced genital mutilation.
The equivalent of male circumcision on a female body would be to perhaps trim down the labia majora. The equivalent of one of the more typical types of FGM on a male body would be to cut off the entire head of the penis.
Both circumcisions and FGM (calling it “female circumcision” confuses the issue) are instances of cutting off parts of genitalia without (in most cases) the consent of the person being cut. I think they should both be eradicated.
Additionally, it’s perfectly possible to choose to be circumcised as an adult – let men make the decision for themselves when they turn 18.
RE: circumcision, I have an opposite concern from the caller. My son is uncircumcised, my husband is circumcised. I worry about the day that my son asks about it and we have to explain that beloved Grandma and Grandpa cut off part of Daddy’s penis when he was a baby. Or ditto about a circumcised friend’s penis.
I can’t explain the decision to circumcise because I see little reason for it. I’m afraid it’s going to horrify and freak my son out that doctors cut off parts of penises. Thankfully, the differences between Daddy’s penis and son’s penis are now so numerous that I don’t think he’ll zero in on that difference before he’s old enough to think in shades of grey and social context.
But wasn’t male circumcision promoted in the 19th century as a way to discourage masturbation and decrease sexual pleasure?
There’s some very slight scientific evidence that circumcision means a cleaner penis with slightly less risk of infections of all kinds. Or the circumcised-is-prettier argument. But that’s not enough for me. Gonna teach my kid good penis hygiene and safe sex and hope he gets a lot of enjoyment from his genitals.
@10 They’re on a continuum, yes, but far, far apart on that continuum as #11 shows. My feelings towards male circumcision are of course colored by growing up in the US, but also by the fact that FGM is orders of magnitude more severe and impactful on the person’s life. I’m completely fine with our culture reevaluating it’s stance on male circumcision, but equating male circumcision with FGM is ignorant, sexist, and just factually incorrect.
YES! A SKEPTIC! I’m really glad Dan took the time to re-examine the outlandish claims made by that misinformed guest. Well done, Dan! =)
@13 I think there’s a misunderstanding here, allow me to be nosy internet-style and try to clear it up. No one is EQUATING circumcision with FGM. The poster, like the podcaster, was using that as an example of an EXTREME of genital mutilation to make a case for how the LESS extreme non-consenting mutilation of male genitalia is not justified for cultural or even health reasons. Forcing men’s genitals to conform to an aesthetic image is on the sexism continuum, too, in a way; social ownership of men’s bodies. The point that feminists should stand up for men’s rights, too, is valid. It’s kinda like how gay people need to support kinky straight people, because sexual (and gender) liberation is what’s at the heart of the matter for all of us, and it’s always good to increase your allies. =)
@13 … “equating” etc. … which I did not do. I said they were on a continuum, which you agreed was true.
@11 … the most accurate equivalent to male circumcision would be something ranging from a partial to a complete hood-ectomy. Trimming the labia would be equivalent to trimming part of the scrotum, at least if we’re talking about analogous tissues. The male equivalent of the most horrific kind of FGM would be complete removal of all external genitalia.
Any argument that male circumcision is OK because it isn’t that bad implies that a milder form of FGM would be acceptable … I don’t think any of us would support that.
OuterCow: There’s no daylight between you and me on the subject of FGM, although I get the sense that you wish there was.
@14: Nicely put.
Jen McCreight was wonderful! You should have her back on the show. I love hearing a science-based skeptical analysis of topics that are too often the subjects of urban legends and confirmation bias.
@14 Nosy bastard! Ok, that was indeed very helpful, ty.
@15 Your #7 comment interchanges the two, but I see better what you’re saying now. But “Any argument that male circumcision is OK because it isn’t that bad implies that a milder form of FGM would be acceptable … I don’t think any of us would support that.” is not true. If FGM was actually as relatively minor as male circumcision is, and we grew up in a society that condoned it, I see no reason to think we wouldn’t be just as fine with it as male circumcision.
We agree on the continuum thing, you just appear to think they’re a lot closer together than I do on that continuum. I do apologize for the “Fuck off” comment though, I do see now that I was misconstruing your argument.
Only cut weiners for me, thanks. But I totally support your right to a have a penis that wears a turtleneck!
@18: No problem.
My understanding is that in some parts of the world, FGM is approximately analogous to male circumcision in the U.S. — partial to complete hood-ectomy — and I certainly don’t support that. I understand that this is still not the same … we don’t use rusty knives or broken glass to circumcise boys at age 13 without anesthetic. (Once again: I am emphatically against FGM in all forms.)
My point is this: There are different kinds of FGM, and we recognize them all as abhorrent, even the least horrific of them. There isn’t any “Hey, that’s pretty much OK except for …” We recognize it as without any merit or justification.
So, yes, many of us would probably not readily understand the problem with it if we grew up with it, but it would still be wrong.
And I don’t have much patience for the medical arguments. I wouldn’t have a problem with dirt under my fingernails if you pulled them all out. Not to mention the significant reduction in the incidence of hangnails and fungus. (I am consciously avoiding more loaded examples.)
OK…odd that a biologist doesn’t know this, but let’s put this to bed once and for all:
No, we don’t all start off as girls. We start off as proto-hermaphrodites. Before sexual differentiation takes places, a fetus contains a complete set of structures that can develop into a uterus, vagina, and Fallopian tubes and another complete set of structures that can develop into the vas deferens and epididymis.
Now, it is true that in the absence of masculinizing hormones, the ducts that would develop into the vas deferens and epididymis regress all on their own and the ducts that would develop into the uterus, vagina, and Fallopian tubes will do so, but that doesn’t make the fetus a “girl.”
We start out as hermaphrodites.
And to afanofcut, let me respond in kind: Don’t get your son circumcised. Not only are uncut cocks more aesthetically pleasing, they’re just generally more functional and nicer. Do you really want your son’s cock to look like a strangulated chicken?
Regarding the STD argument for circumcision: The increased risk for STDs among uncircumcised men is small…smaller than the risk women have for developing breast cancer. If we are going to flay a young boy alive without anesthesia (and make no mistake: It is flaying him…the foreskin is usually not detached from the glans and must be literally torn away before it is cut off) for the miniscule reduction, why are we not performing radical mastectomies on infant girls in order to save them from the horrors of breast cancer?
To OuterCow: You seem to have forgotten that one of the prime reasons that the vast majority of non-Semitic males are circumcised is because it was considered to be a means to reduce masturbation. So the reasons for male and female genital mutilation are the same. If it’s a violation of women’s sexuality to do it to her, why the double standard?
@OuterCrow TY for post 18–agreeing to disagree and admitting where you misunderstood makes you a much better person than most in your online etiquette at least (text lacks tone and context apart from what the reader inserts and assumes, so it’s important to try grasping things from as many perspectives and staying respectful instead of being a self-righteous jerk that too many trolling type knowitalls are). I agree wholeheartedly with the circumcision points made in #21 especially but also in 20… because ultimately, while as parents, religion and the puritan idea of being as sexless apart from baby making as possible to stay “holy” allow us to mutilate infants with no anesthetic in a way that is just plain awful (while our infection risk due to circumcision is small, the difference in STD rate between circ’d and uncirc’d in the US and other sanitary nations–actually even in places with mediocre to poor water but modern technology like India–complications from circumcisions botched and/or infected are greater and longer lasting than the tiny difference in unprotected STD transmission (face it; unprotected sex and STDs equal STDs… the idea that being cut will save you is the very kind of BS that anti-masturbation campaigns toss out, without scientific backing btw, to keep having people mutilate their kids)…
If a guy wants to be cut, let him DECIDE to; I can decide to reduce my breast size, too… and btw, afanofcut, don’t know who you’ve been screwing, but uncut are by comparison AMAZING feeling from the female perspective. They glide smoother, last longer, and all in all make for better experiences than the tight skin on cut folks… having dated someone who had a botched circumcision in the USA, he can’t have sex w/o condoms or it is extremely painful, so when he wants kids… he’s looking at having an operation to finish it–it also looks really weird. I wouldn’t trust a doctor to automatically know what the best look will be for that dick. The uncuts I’ve seen are far more beautiful and sensual looking than the veiny, less-smooth cut ones (and I mean less smooth when erect in particular–even dildos have squish to them; it shouldn’t ACTUALLY be like a bone with just a bit of skin… we like them fleshy!
Okay atheists, I’m going to explain this to you in a way you can understand:
Religions are just like men. Just because men have used falsehoods and fictions to systematically oppress women for thousands upon thousands of years, that doesn’t mean I can’t let one flagellate me and still get something personally rewarding out of it.
Good show Dan/Jen. Really enjoyed it.
OK – on the discussion: the circumcision argument in the US context is really unsceptical – and it would be great it if became so.
So:
1) Here in Europe, mostly we get circumcised for medical reasons only. ie when it is clinically indicated, then sure. But it isn’t routine except for minority religious groups. Strangely our partners seems to deal with this just fine, and maybe it’s just the familiarity, but I don’t notice the smell either. Funny that.
2) There is a small but measurable risk of death from circumcision: every year, a small number of babies are discovered to be haemophiliacs during the process and die as a result. If that were you as a parent, getting it done for cultural or aesthetic reasons, I wonder how you’d ever sleep again? We should surely all believe in evidence based medicine now: cutting off a foreskin appears to be a medical procedure. Medicine requires this procedure in a very small number of cases only – the rest are nonsense.
3) Bugger it. That’s enough surely? Don’t do it folks unless your doctor tells you that it is needed. Or you are a male adult and you choose to have it done to yourself.
Cheers,
Jimmy Boy
That religion/spirituality discussion got pretty damned dismissive. I do think it’s useful – probably necessary – to be skeptical about everything (even a person’s own skepticism), but I don’t think person shouldn’t be labeled ‘silly’ or ‘wrong’ or be dismissed outright just for being a part of a religion or for having spiritual interests or beliefs. They may very well be thinking critically about their beliefs (plenty of people do, and I certainly wish more religious people would), but STILL find those beliefs to be valid for them on a personal level and useful in their life (helping them to understand themselves, to figure out what their philosophy is about the world, to find a community of people to relate to and find support with, etc., etc.).
Does everything really have to be scientifically provable in order to be of any valid use for a person? Do art, literature, and music have to be rooted in hard science in order to be valid and useful for informing a person’s world-view, connecting them with others, etc.? Philosophy and psychology aren’t hard science. Are they invalid? Does everything that might help a person to formulate a world-view that works for them as an individual have to come from scientific fact? Science is not always sure of itself and it changes and evolves, and truths (especially personal truths) aren’t only revealed by facts.
Everybody is different and what helps one person to find their place in the world (skepticism and science for one person; religious participation for another; inklings of spiritual dabbling for another; a combination of any of the former for another person; something entirely unrelated to all of the former options for yet another person) may not be what works for someone else. I absolutely think people should critically analyze region, particularly because it’s one of the more dangerous tools for persuasion, manipulation, and mass-control if participants do not think about it and question it. But there’s no reason to dismiss everything that’s not scientifically provable as silly. To do so would not show critical thinking about the potential functions and uses of things outside of direct scientific provability. Just because something is not scientifically provable does not mean it’s invalid or that it’s attempting to invalidate science. Rant over.
Dear Dan: Please don’t have an atheist on your show to explain why those silly religious people are so darn stupid. There are plenty of intelligent people out there who also have religious beliefs. This show was just plain insulting.
Sorry, implying that there are different kinds of truth (however you define that) is a cop-out; in fact that’s what started the whole affair in the first place. Essentially, if there is such a thing as something that can’t be studied scientifically on some level, to all intents and purposes it may as well not exist, since we can’t study what we can’t detect. In addition, since this is a show about sex and relationships, anything that distracts from empirical study is actually counterproductive.
As for the question of it being insulting, tough. If you’re not willing to examine your beliefs from a reality-based standpoint, you’ve got nothing to say in this situation.
re: female ejaculation – listen to this!
http://dodsonandross.com/podcast/2011/04…
Science is a religion. To believe science will, or is even capable of, providing all the answers is a faith. It’s ok to have a faith! We all believe something. But please, acknowledge that your faith biases you as much as any other.
Hey Mr Bleeto – says you, eh? So science is a religion?
Let’s see now.
1) Ability to change position in the light of evidence: Religion – No; Science – yes – it is built into the fabric of the concept;
2) Is rational: Science – yes; Religion – clearly not;
3) Requires faith (that is – belief in things that have no evidence for them): Religion – by definition, yes; Science, by definition, not.
Sience may provide ‘all the answers’ but I’ve never met anyone who thinks it likely…because there will always be more questions.
But what other method is there for knowing what is true and what is not than checking verifiable facts? Shall we take the word of some strange men in dresses? Shall we just believe whatever feels good to us? How can we know what is true other than checking it?
Your argument is an (old and tired) exercise sophistry.
Hi dfgafdgfd,
Can you not see that there is a world of difference between the truth claims made by religion (generally on pain of eternal damnation if you get them wrong) and art, literature and music, which make no such. What facts are there to test with the arts? Whether Jesus Christ died and rose again is a truth claim – that ultimately should be tested. It’s either true or it isn’t.
Philosophy and psychology aren’t hard science.
Where they make truth claims they become hard science. And where they don’t they don’t add much to anything at all.
You have presented a classic false equivalence there.
So religious people who get upset when religion is contemptuously dismissed might understand how those of us who have so dismissed it, view the whole business.
Here’s how I see it:
Religion is a a great big, money making, guilt driving piece of charlatanism: generally it makes a bunch of very big claims which have zero evidence. People are often damaged in direct proportion to how involved they become with religions. In addition, religion harms minorities, causes war, persecution and murder (and always has). It opresses women in particular. And it lies constantly. Worse, it lies and impacts public policy – and it does so by design. I can’t think of anything more damning to say than that.
So if you want to be religious, well go ahead. But…you are tainted by association. Your bed fellows include some deeply unpleasant people and practices. Reasonable people will continue to call those people and their unpleasant practices.
Cheers.
I’m an athiest and a big fan of science.
I wouldn’t call science a religion, but there is certainly a degree of faith involved. Our perceptions and understanding of the world can often be faulty and biased, and occaisonally scientific findings that we thought were as good as proven turn out to be wrong. We don’t really KNOW how it all works. Science helps point us in the right direction, but, let’s face it, we are a bunch of feeble little specks in a vast universe. We can’t even predict the weather on our own planet very accurately. I just think we should have a little humility when it comes to the supposed human capacity for “logic” and “rationality”.
I don’t think people are stupid or pathetic for using spirituality or religion to answer existential questions about their lives. Religion causes a lot of problems in the world, that’s for sure, but I don’t think intolerance of any and all religion is a good way to combat those problems. It just encourages the religious to be even more reactionary.
I think Dan kinda blew off the caller who was wondering whether his kid would one day feel uncomfortable or self-conscious if the uncut state of his penis was different from other kids’. Dan totally disagreed that kids noticed each other’s penises. Nonsense. Boys change in locker rooms together, get ready for the pool together, etc. My stepson is 26 and uncircumcised. When he was about 12/13/14, he was so uncomfortable with being “different” that he asked his dad to look into whether he could still go through the procedure. That passed with time, and, as far as I know, he’s happy with what he’s got now. I’m not saying that this alone is a reason to circumcise your kid, but Dan could acknowledge that one issue that goes into the decision.
With “that passed with time, ” I meant my stepson’s self-conscious feelings about his uncut penis. Not sure if that was clear.
Dan,
Ugh, please don’t have that hypocritical twit back on the show. She was there to challenge you on some ignorant commentary on a previous podcast, but then calls a religion “silly”; a religion of which she is admittedly ignorant.
Look, I get that as a culturally Catholic atheist, you have a narrow view of the variety of religious and spiritual experiences of the rest of the world. You said that you didn’t feel any pull to seek out another religion when you left Catholicism. Your guest so contemptuously surmised that only silly people with mortality anxiety could be drawn to religious practice. Some of us however, feel drawn to express the awe of the numinous, and communion with spirit/the divine/invisible friend(s).
I am really shocked that you chose to dismiss Wicca as something silly. Especially when Wicca is a sex positive, woman positive, queer positive spirituality. Wiccans aren’t out at the polls trying to take away your civil rights. Wiccans aren’t denying your rights to marry, adopt children. Wiccans aren’t beating the shit out of trans people in a McDonalds either.
So, way to go in perpetuating more misinformation about a minority religion. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you’d shit on people who are, on the whole, supportive of all the things you believe in.
To the lady with the Wiccan boyfriend,
First, not all Wiccan traditions use the kiss in initiations, but those who do it is really important to them.
Second, you might want to talk to him about it, ask about the meaning to him, let him know your problems with it, etc.
a few comments on squirting!
– squirting is NOT always accompanied by orgasms.
– it IS possible to pee while you’re sexually around so yes you can pee instead of squirt.
– there are “love blankets,” that are completely waterproof can be used to save your bed and furniture. you can finally feel liberated and free to squirt as you please!
– preventing squirting (especially for prolonged periods) can be used as torture if anyone into BDSM is looking for a new idea. perhaps this is like the female equivalent of blue balls!
dinosox – I understand your points – I really do: I was profoundly religious for 30 years.
However, my exposure to the world of rationalism has brought me up sharp and taught me to challenge some of my very basic assumptions.
For example: I now think it is arrogant to believe lazily things for which there is no evidence. I think it is much more humble to say (as science does): this is what we think we know – but when new evidence comes along we will change our view. It is an old canard that science claims to know everything, or to have absolute truth. Science regularly changes and refines as new evidence is made available. That is the beauty of the paradigm: it has a self correction mechanism built in.
Religion really does not.
So sure it’s not perfect: we go long periods with scientific sacred cows that are eventually sacrificed. But when that happens, it will be at the altar of rationality, with a test tube in one hand, and the weight of hard gathered, repeatable empirical evidence in the other – not some god-driven agenda hiding sneakily in the back ground.
So I also, respectfully, disagree with accomodationism to religion. Religion has had a free pass – for ever. The religious squeal loudly if challenged: “you can’t say that: it’s offensive!” But intrinsic to the practice of almost every religion (and yes, I’d absolutrely include Budhism in there) is division, sectarianism, violence, exploitation and opression.
I believe the only way forward is to stay focused on the substance, ignore the distraction of the tone trolling which the religious nearly always introduce – and continue to point out that, as has been noted so many times, without evidence, truth claims can (and should in fact) be ignored.
I’m not that sorry if this offends: somehow some offense is needed, given the distance we have to travel and how easily offended some people are. I too used to be offended by people challenging my irrationality. But I am profoundly grateful now to those who ignored my whining and calmly continued to focus on susbtance and point out the paucity of my arguments.
Hi Tonja: does Wicca make unsubstantiated truth claims?
Just wondering…
Leave Wiccans allooooooooooooooooooooooooone!
Naked smooching? Cool! Where do I sign up?
On the other hand: consuming what your priest assures you are the blood and flesh of your God, then going back to your seat to worship the device on which he was tortured to death? I’m sorry, but that is just beyond sick.
JimmyBoy: Like! Religious extended family, but not raised religious. Spent way too much time trying to accommodate, and now have no patience for accommodation. Which is not to say that I have no patience for religion, just for aggressive, evangelical ignorance.
The touchy conversation about religion and science is far more interesting than the touchy conversation about circumcision.
@Jimmy Boy – Could you give me an example of what you mean by unsubstantiated claims?
It is difficult to describe Wicca (and other neo-Pagan faiths) to someone with an Abrahamic faith POV, but here are some highlights:
Wicca is a religion of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. There is no holy book, no prophesies. Practice is what makes someone Wiccan, not belief. Wicca is also loosely organized and decentralized. Wiccans have no pope, no bishops or other religious authority. Religious groups or covens are small, independent and autonomous.
Also, Wiccan holidays are based on an agricultural calendar – observable cycles in nature. I’m not sure what came first – the religious observation leading to a reliance on science or if it was a grounding in science that led to particular religious practices which honor the physical sciences, but science is embraced. I can’t think of a single Wiccan who doesn’t accept evolutionary theory and other physical sciences as givens.
Does that answer your question?
A specific answer to Dan and Jen’s implied rhetorical question about why every educated, smart and rational person isn’t an atheist…my own, very personal reason: 4 years ago my only child, a first grader, died suddenly.
Before: Having rejected childhood christian ridiculousness in my teens, become a quasi-agnostic adult (not realy caring enough to commit to pure atheism).
After: I need some kind of meaning and hope in my life to live with this; after a lot of searching gravitated to my own agey buddhist mix.
Perhaps it’s complete bullshit, but I figure I’m allowed. And if you’ve never lived through a child’s death, let alone your only child…well, your judgment doesn’t mean much. Find someone whose kid dropped dead to discover a whole new level of pain that essentially never goes away.
Dan — it was great to hear Jen on the show, I thought she added interesting insight into the show.
As to science being a religion .. BULLPUCKY. True enough science doesn’t know it all, nor does it always get it right. But science looks at evidence and then makes conclusions, unlike religion that starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence. And here is the KEY difference, when science encounters new evidence that disproves prior conclusions, it discards the prior conclusion in favor of the new evidence based conclusion. When religion encounters evidence that disproves it’s conclusion it discards the evidence in favor of it’s concluion.
Viola…
I’m sorry your child died. I’m also sorry that embracing silliness as truth makes you feel better.
Oh, and fuck you for asserting that people who have not suffered through your particular pain are qualified to comment of the validity of your particular bullshit.
Viola, my father died when I was fifteen. He died because my family has a terrible history with cardiovascular problems, he was a smoker, and he never went to the doctor when he had his first heart attack, nor did he tell anyone that anything was wrong. Science gave me answers while my minister just patted me on the knee and patronizingly said that “God has a plan.” Science gave me far more peace than the idea of a white haired old sky fairy who kills randomly for secretive, unknowable reasons.
Jimmy – comment 31 – that is one of the best summaries of religion i have seen – good work.
@Viola
For some reason, trying to spout nice platitudes to someone who has revealed something tragic over the internet just feels empty and hollow. I tried two or three versions of an opening paragraph with an ‘I’m sorry for your loss’ theme, but they all sounded hollow and inadequate. The sentiment is there.
You’re certainly allowed. I think if you quizzed Jen and Dan, they’d both have freedom of conscience and expression at the top of the list of things that they value – including when they are extended to positions they disagree with very strongly.
So I don’t think anyone on the secular/atheist side of the fence is ever going to tell you you’re not allowed to hold zany beliefs.
That doesn’t mean that we’d put your beliefs and their justifications beyond scrutiny, however.
I’m sure that there has been times in the past where a mother’s child died, and that this caused her to lose faith – because any universe constructed to be fair, or to follow the laws of Karma, could not be so cruel as to allow an innocent child to die: To such a grieving mother, perhaps only an indifferent world, or a world commanded over by an evil God, would make sense.
I can understand the need to find meaning and hope. But it is not only possible to find these in the absence of wacky metaphysics – we’re actually better off doing things that way.
Ironically, I’d like to use the religious metaphor.
Founding hope and meaning on unsubstantiated metaphysics (Gods, afterlives, karma, reincarnation, etc) is the man who built his home on a foundation of loose soil. It was easy to shift, and he built his home quickly.
Founding hope and meaning on substantiated, evidence-based reasoning (naturalism, for example) is the man who built his home on a foundation of stone. It’s harder work than building a home on loose soil, but the foundation is stronger.
When a hurricane came through the land, the home of the man who built his home on soil was obliterated. But the home of the man who built his home on stone held true because it was locked firmly on a strong foundation.
I doubt anything can compare to the loss of a child. However, there will – doubtless – be future pains and sufferings in your life. In that respect, Buddhism has things bang to rights.
So what happens if something else happens. Perhaps you’ll get breast cancer, as my mother recently has done (she’s responding very, very well to treatment, however – we caught it very early).
To me, understanding that life is fleeting and that the bad things that happen are not sent to us intentionally means that we can still strive, and expect to succeed, to make and enjoy a better life for ourselves and the people around us.
The absence of an afterlife or a reincarnation cycle has caused me to re-evaluate intuitive assumptions about what makes something meaningful – with the conclusion that something doesn’t have to last for ever in order to be meaningful. Life and consciousness don’t last forever, but they still hold meaning and consequence so long as they do. Meaningfulness, purpose, value – these things are a consequence of existence, not eternity.
For a while there, before we had the results back from my mother’s surgery, I was very concerned that she would die.
The fear, the stress, the anxiety, the sense of very-nearly-already-grieving were all very heavy burdens.
The fact of the matter that my mother still existed, and would always have existed, and that she loved me and I her… That took the edge off the anxiety and the fear.
It didn’t remove them, and nor should it – we should experience anxiety, fear and grief at the prospect of the loss of a loved one. But it made them bearable.
And I was able to bear them all the stronger with the knowledge that the worldview that enabled this was based on rock-solid evidence and not an unsupported, fluffly, metaphysical narrative that, in your own words, perhaps might be complete bullshit.
And I didn’t have to try and reconcile and understanding for why a loving God would visit my mother with such a debilitating illness, or what she could have done in her life (or any past life) that would justify that level of karmic retribution.
No.
I had real answers, and a real plan of treatment, and a real understanding of the risks involved.
And I had a real worldview, that provided me a real means of coping with the stresses of life.
There are better foundations to a worldview than ‘I needed hope and meaning, and this was enough’.
Start with evidence and reason. It is a stronger foundation, and once you’ve done the hard work of digging in the hope and meaning will flow as natural consequences.
Or, you know, TL;DR, what the fuck do I know, preachy little secular atheist trying to give a sermon online. Arrogant little prick that I am. Best to be ignored and dismissed, yes?
^_^
Much ado about squirt.
Viola, I have friend who lost her faith when her child died. Death is the only thing we humans have in common… our friends, our loved ones, our parents, and sometimes, tragically, our children, die. Then we ourselves die. Death surrounds us.
Please don’t pretend that you have some unique insight into religion because you have experienced tragedy and loss in your life. Do you realize how many people have?
Everyone has a right to their own beliefs, and you have a right to yours, and that would be true whether your son died or not.
That doesn’t mean it’s right to derail a perfectly civil religious debate on a thread by telling everyone to shut up because you’ve suffered a loss.