# Proving God by Consensus: My Problem with the Religious Right



## RobertLevin219 (Dec 28, 2011)

A few decades ago I was awakened at seven o’clock one Sunday morning by the persistent droning of my downstairs door buzzer. I was living then in a back apartment on the top floor of an East Village walk-up that was without an intercom or the capacity to buzz visitors inside. This circumstance made it necessary for me to descend five flights of stairs to personally open the frosted-glass front door and to see who it was. 

In this instance it was two Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

At the time I bore no animus toward people who presented themselves as fervently religious. Though I deemed them delusional, I respected both their right to their delusion and their need of it. The proselytizers I encountered were more likely to draw pity from me than to provoke my ire. 

So if I had good reason to be put out by the inconvenience they’d caused me, an inconvenience compounded by the ungodly hour they’d picked to pay a call, my reaction to the elderly and finely attired black couple with soft Georgia accents who greeted me—he with a bible in one hand and a straw hat in the other; she wearing a hat bedecked with white and yellow flowers—wasn’t in the least bit hostile. In fact, while I made it clear that I had no use for the message they were delivering, I was as courteous as I could be. I didn’t want to tamper with their fantasy or hurt their feelings and when I closed the door on them it was very gently. 

But that was a while back, before religion assumed the weight and influence that it has in our cultural and political affairs and before I understood just where the so-called “True Believers” are coming from. 

We tend to allow that, unhinged as we may judge them to be, evangelicals, in their efforts to make converts or to bring “more religion” into the culture, are doing the work of a God they feel with genuine confidence to be real. Some of us might even imagine that they care about our salvation. But this isn’t what’s happening. Dealing with their fear of death, a fear exacerbated by 9/11 and the destruction of the myth of American invincibility, and wanting desperately for a God and the potential for eternal life implicit in the concept of God to exist, the real mission of these people isn’t to share a revelation but to validate beliefs they’re not sure of by securing the agreement of others. To prove the existence of God to THEMSELVES by achieving a universal consensus on the matter (the only way to achieve something like certainty about anything) is the true aspiration of the religious right.

And I mightily resent the manifold ways in which their ambition to, for starters, make a formal theocracy of America—a more than adequate means of certifying their beliefs—is already poisoning the lives of the rest of us. 

I’m speaking, of course, of their interference with a woman’s freedom to end a pregnancy and of homosexuals ability to marry one another. I’m also talking about the brakes they managed to apply to government sponsored stem-cell research and the role they played in obliging us to endure a George W. Bush for a second term (let alone what his presidency has left in its wake) because he professed to share their faith in Jesus Christ. And I’m referring as well to what turned out to be a politically pivotal quantity of Tea Party candidates that they were instrumental in electing to Congress.

And, again, none of this has been, at bottom, to the purpose of spreading a vision (which could maybe have claimed some level of legitimacy), but rather to, in their own minds, ratify by numbers, law or custom, the presence of a deity. 

Since there remains a sufficient population of heathens to challenge their beliefs and to keep their uncertainty alive, reaching their unspoken goal will only become more urgent for the evangelicals. They will get louder and more insistent. And their successes will be more pernicious. Is a President Rick Perry completely out of the question?

I should say that having a few issues of my own with the prospect of death, and quite capable myself of twisting and distorting reality in order to live in the world with a semblance of equilibrium, I can, even under the present conditions, experience some empathy for the Christian right’s agenda. (And I can also appreciate the necessity and durability of religion itself. I’m always taken aback when people whose minds I admire predict that human beings will one day “outgrow” the need for religion, as if it were merely a stage in our evolution. Like the biologists who are looking for a religion gene, they miss the point. For as long as death is a precondition of life, a need for some kind of invented deity, with a plan for mankind—and a collection of rules and practices which, if scrupulously followed, offer the promise of an afterlife—is going to prevail for a large percentage of humanity.)

But while I’m not insensitive to the evangelicals’ cause that doesn’t make its increasing encroachment on the lives of the secular any more acceptable to me. I repeat: IS A PRESIDENT RICK PERRY OUT OF THE QUESTION? No. If there was once a time when we could indulge the folks of the Christian right at no substantial cost to ourselves, that’s not the case any longer. Their quest to conscript us into their immortality project has gotten too much out of hand and leaves no room for such generosity. At this point there’s little choice but to do battle with them; to fight their actions at every turn. The consequences for those of us who live for this life rather than the next one have become too dire to let them slide.


----------



## moderan (Dec 29, 2011)

Hmm. You're inviting criticism, but you knew that already. I'm of the same mind as far as a good bit of this goes, but I deplore the stridency implicit in the repetition of the Rick Perry attempted-meme. That smacks of the technique you're decrying and imo cheapens your argument.
It's true that it's getting hard to ignore that the prevailing social agenda of the country is so Spain-circa-Inquisition, or at least one would be led to think so, for they speak in LOUD VOICES inspired by the One True Lord. But when one expresses disagreement, you're one of those "militant atheists". So.
The gloom and doom in this screed...hmm. Bombastic! So what exactly are those dire consequences?
As far as the writing:typos, there are a few. Could use another going-over and some random fine-tuning.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 29, 2011)

As they can't all be right, and all are equally sure that, with the exception of the Church of England (who will tolerate anything but other people's possession of money), only they are right, then clearly all are wrong. Extreme Zionism and Islamism run so close on parellel paths that only the names have been changed to protect the perverse, both will kill to to protect their own peace, just as the loony right will kill doctors, nurses and patients to confirm their belief in the right to life - If there were a God, he would have damned the lot of them - There is only us, flawed though we be, we are all we have...


----------



## ClosetWriter (Dec 29, 2011)

I told myself that I shouldn’t reply to this, but I have ignored the advice of much wiser men, so here goes: 

I was once on the ‘right’ myself (In no way do I mean to imply that I am now on the ‘left’). Never have I felt the need to go knock on the door of a stranger at ‘any’ time of the day. In fact, the conflict in which I saw within the doctrine of the church I was a member had to deal with this very topic. I once asked the pastor, of a rapidly growing church, why we needed to put as much effort into trying to lead people to the lord if it has been predetermined by god as to who will be the chosen ones (as the pastor was teaching us). He stared at me like a deer in the headlights, and said, “There are some good books on the subject; maybe you should read them. That left a bad taste in my mouth.

I began to look around at others in the church. I noticed that most of them seemed to be simply ‘playing church.’ There lives were much different the other six days of the week than they were on Sunday. More importantly I noticed that the ones that had a lofty bank account seemed to be welcomed with open arms. Others, who weren’t as financially comfortable, could sneeze and were asked to leave the church.

I think your post has a little more to do with the influence of those with whom you disagree than about anything else. You see them as a negative influence in the world. I think the problem is that there are extremes on both side of the spectrum. Those who stand on a soapbox and say there is no God are just as radical as those who knock on a door at 7 AM.

If you were to ask me if I believe in God I would say I hope there is. I am only human, and that disqualifies me from knowing for sure. It also disqualifies the holiest of people along with atheist since both groups are human as well. Personally, I only know what I know, and what I know is: I don’t know. I would like to believe that a just God would understand that.

I hope I didn’t offend anyone, but I know better. Sorry!

One last thing: What do you want to bet that this gets moved to the debate section of the forum?


----------



## Rob (Dec 29, 2011)

RobertLevin219 said:


> So if I had good reason to be put out by the inconvenience they’d caused me ...


I don't get why you blame them for causing you this inconvenience. Surely, it's of your own making, because you begin by saying:



RobertLevin219 said:


> I was living then in a back apartment on the top floor of an East Village walk-up that was without an intercom or the capacity to buzz visitors inside. This circumstance made it necessary for me to descend five flights of stairs to personally open the frosted-glass front door and to see who it was.


The inconvenience was down to the choice you made to live there, was it not? All they did was press the buzzer, which is all anyone might do.



RobertLevin219 said:


> I didn’t want to tamper with their fantasy ...


By fantasy, I assume you mean beliefs?



RobertLevin219 said:


> But that was a while back, before religion assumed the weight and influence that it has in our cultural and political affairs and before I understood just where the so-called “True Believers” are coming from.


I suspect, from what you've written, it's the latter that has undergone the greater change more recently. That is, your own understanding.



RobertLevin219 said:


> We tend to allow that, unhinged as we may judge them to be ...


Who is 'we'? Who are you speaking for?



RobertLevin219 said:


> Dealing with their fear of death ...


Do they fear death? In my experience, typically such people don't fear death. Some might, but in general their faith brings them a great deal of comfort not just in the course of their daily lives, but with respect to -- and at the point of -- death also.



RobertLevin219 said:


> and wanting desperately for a God and the potential for eternal life implicit in the concept of God to exist


I'm not sure whether it's your understanding that's flawed (I suspect it is) or whether you're just misrepresenting them, but I have to disagree with you again here. Typically, there's no desperation involved in their belief. It is a belief, as simple as that, and does not rely on any form of underlying desperation. While they may disagree about the finer details, God and the afterlife are fundamental.



RobertLevin219 said:


> I’m speaking, of course, of their interference with a woman’s freedom to end a pregnancy and of homosexuals ability to marry one another.


Of course, in a democracy, they're entitled to hold views that differ from other people on all issues, including abortion and same-sex marriage. But those issues aren't necessarily split down religious lines. There are plenty of people who don't hold religious beliefs who share opinions across the whole spectrum on those issues, and there are plenty of Christians who support abortion and same-sex marriage. It's not so very long ago, either, in fact it's an incredibly short amount of time really, that there wasn't widespread acceptance of homosexuality at all, let alone same-sex marriage.



RobertLevin219 said:


> Is a President Rick Perry completely out of the question?


Of course not. Welcome to democracy.



RobertLevin219 said:


> I repeat: IS A PRESIDENT RICK PERRY OUT OF THE QUESTION?


Not in a democracy.



RobertLevin219 said:


> Their quest to conscript us into their immortality project has gotten too much out of hand and leaves no room for such generosity.


Out of hand how, exactly? I don't feel as though you've made a case for this.



RobertLevin219 said:


> At this point there’s little choice but to do battle with them; to fight their actions at every turn. The consequences for those of us who live for this life rather than the next one have become too dire to let them slide.


Too dire, how? What consequences do you foresee, and why?

Overall, I thought your case was poorly presented. You seem to make leaps based on your own (limited, sorry) perception of what these people believe or want. It's more of a rant than anything, with no quotes, no references, nothing to give your assertions or conclusions any real weight. I'm not sure how you'd go about fixing it without a significant rewrite based on some kind of analysis or research, and maybe more tightly focussed around what you see as the developing political concern.


----------



## Rob (Dec 29, 2011)

ClosetWriter said:


> What do you want to bet that this gets moved to the debate section of the forum?


No reason why it should, that I can see. OP wants feedback on a non-fiction piece. That's all.


----------



## Robinjazz (Dec 29, 2011)

RobertLevin219 said:


> A few decades ago I was awakened at seven o’clock one Sunday morning by the persistent droning of my downstairs door buzzer. I was living then in a back apartment on the top floor of an East Village walk-up that was without an intercom or the capacity to buzz visitors inside. This circumstance made it necessary for me to descend five flights of stairs to personally open the frosted-glass front door and to see who it was.
> 
> .



With all the thieves combing that area a few decades ago, the sight of two Jehovah's Witnesses would have been a welcoming one to most people.



RobertLevin219 said:


> The consequences for those of us who live for this life rather than the next one have become too dire to let them slide.



Live for the moment. Whatever is heading down the pipe will be revealed soon enough--whether its eternal sleep or eternal life cannot be altered by us anyhow. "Eat, drink, and be merry," as the saying goes.


----------



## moderan (Dec 29, 2011)

ClosetWriter said:


> One last thing: What do you want to bet that this gets moved to the debate section of the forum?





Rob said:


> No reason why it should, that I can see. OP wants feedback on a non-fiction piece. That's all.



Quite right. And as long as the commentary is kept on that level, there shouldn't be any issue. There isn't a debate about the relative religious content, but a consideration of the cogency of the writer's argument and the quality of the words and effectiveness of said words.


----------



## ClosetWriter (Dec 29, 2011)

moderan said:


> Quite right. And as long as the commentary is kept on that level, there shouldn't be any issue. There isn't a debate about the relative religious content, but a consideration of the cogency of the writer's argument and the quality of the words and effectiveness of said words.



I just assumed it would because I posted an essay about how my feeling about sports has changed in light of the happenings at Penn State, and it was moved to the debate section. Not because it was written in a manner in which debate was promoted, but because people had many opinions on the subject. Just saying!


----------



## patskywriter (Dec 29, 2011)

If someone were to casually distill your (perceived) argument into one sentence, it could read: "I'm a decent person, but I choose to look down on you idiots who believe in a supreme being." Debates are easier to take seriously when the writer is able to (reasonably) examine both sides without lapsing into prejudicial statements and condescension.


----------



## Robinjazz (Dec 29, 2011)

You should have lived in the area when the sect Hare Krishna had its headquarters on 6th Street and 2nd Avenue. That group paraded through those narrow streets banging instruments and singing and shouting loudly.


----------



## moderan (Dec 30, 2011)

ClosetWriter said:


> I just assumed it would because I posted an essay about how my feeling about sports has changed in light of the happenings at Penn State, and it was moved to the debate section. Not because it was written in a manner in which debate was promoted, but because people had many opinions on the subject. Just saying!



We've had that argument many times. It never ends well. You know about assumptions. "Just saying."



patskywriter said:


> If someone were to casually distill your (perceived) argument into one sentence, it could read: "I'm a decent person, but I choose to look down on you idiots who believe in a supreme being." Debates are easier to take seriously when the writer is able to (reasonably) examine both sides without lapsing into prejudicial statements and condescension.



It seems to me that the OP wrote in that style deliberately, as if in parody of "the enemy", i.e., the religious right. And this isn't a debate, it's a piece of purported nonfiction. While your statement regarding condescension is entirely correct, imo, it is misplaced. The entire purpose of the piece is to provoke such commentary and methinks to show the level of closed-mindedness of both sides.
Could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.


----------



## Baron (Dec 30, 2011)

When Albert Einstein came up with the formula, E=mc2, it wasn't close minded of him to believe that he had found the one solution to that equation.


----------



## Ravel (Dec 31, 2011)

I wont comment on the argument - tempted as I am - as I understand the main purpose of the forum is to comment on the writing and provide feedback!

I found it well-written, provocative, engaging, easy to read. It does come across as a well-argued piece on the whole, but straying into "rant" in places. 

I am interested in moderan's last comment. Did you set out to parody the religious right and be provocative (matching their perceived style of fervour presented as argument) with your own, or is this written as a balanced and fair argument to contract with their style? It seems to achieve more of the former than the latter?


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 31, 2011)

moderan said:


> It seems to me that the OP wrote in that style deliberately, as if in parody of "the enemy", i.e., the religious right. And this isn't a debate, it's a piece of purported nonfiction. While your statement regarding condescension is entirely correct, imo, it is misplaced. The entire purpose of the piece is to provoke such commentary and methinks to show the level of closed-mindedness of both sides.
> Could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.



I think this is a straight forward theo-political thesis: the author's argument that the "religious right", in their attempt to validate their own beliefs, are a growing cause of concern, so much so that it's argued things are bordering on critical and need immediate action (undefined action which is suggested but not explained, instead merely regarded as "we must do _something_ before this gets more out of hand"). 

I see what you're saying, moderan (and what you're saying, if true, borders on brilliance, in my opinion), that it's possible the author is presenting his own argument as a form of satire, thus mocking the narration itself. But I don't think that would fall into the realm of Non-Fiction, would it? Wouldn't that be closer to fiction, as the narrative voice itself would then become a character, and not, as Non-Fiction implies, the actual voice of the author?


----------



## Robinjazz (Dec 31, 2011)

Why is it open season on Christians? From all the hate and garbage hurled at them by the left (particularly some atheists), one might think Christianity is the only worldwide religion. Far-left talk show hosts on TV earn a fine living bashing Jesus and Christianity, yet they are afraid to touch Mohammed and Islam because they fear for their lives if they do. Christians are safe and easy targets, I guess. (Or maybe the talk show hosts are cowards? Or just plain dumb?)


----------



## moderan (Dec 31, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> I think this is a straight forward theo-political thesis: the author's argument that the "religious right", in their attempt to validate their own beliefs, are a growing cause of concern, so much so that it's argued things are bordering on critical and need immediate action (undefined action which is suggested but not explained, instead merely regarded as "we must do _something_ before this gets more out of hand").
> 
> I see what you're saying, moderan (and what you're saying, if true, borders on brilliance, in my opinion), that it's possible the author is presenting his own argument as a form of satire, thus mocking the narration itself. But I don't think that would fall into the realm of Non-Fiction, would it? Wouldn't that be closer to fiction, as the narrative voice itself would then become a character, and not, as Non-Fiction implies, the actual voice of the author?




Yeah, it would be, if my surmise is correct...the device would then be metafictional. But Thompson's gonzo conceit is of the same breed, and that's marketed and nonfiction except for "Vegas"...anyway the author hasn't yet weighed in. I see people are still trying to cast this as a religious argument despite the placement of the piece indicating the author's sense of context.
Again, that's how I see it, perhaps because that's how I would have cast it.
I do see your initial point though, which is more or less "Occupy the Right".


----------



## m alexander (Jan 26, 2012)

Living in Greater Manchester I always welcome the religious sorts who come knocking on my front door, they are a breath of fresh air when considered next to who could come knocking.  At least they dont post masses of junk mail through our doors, at least they dont masquerade as offering the best deal around then when they get in you have to pay for something else first.

  They are straight forward thinkers just looking for other like minded souls and not giving false impressions so to get their foot in the door.

  It isn't the job of religions to prove the existence of God, that is God's job and if he hasn't proven himself to you only you can find the reasons for that.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 26, 2012)

My problem with the religious right is that they are wrong...


----------



## Cirrocumulus (Jan 27, 2012)

Firstly regarding the essay, I'd just like to contribute an observation that it seems as though Jehovah's Witnesses are being lumped into the same category as the religious right. As far as I understand, they claim to be politically neutral, they never endorse political candidates, and it's against their religion to vote. They are guilty of many other things, some of which you mention such as anti-homosexual beliefs, but it's good to be accurate when presenting an argument likely to be attacked.



ClosetWriter said:


> Those who stand on a soapbox and say there is no God are just as radical as those who knock on a door at 7 AM.
> 
> If you were to ask me if I believe in God I would say I hope there is. I am only human, and that disqualifies me from knowing for sure. It also disqualifies the holiest of people along with atheist since both groups are human as well. Personally, I only know what I know, and what I know is: I don’t know. I would like to believe that a just God would understand that.



I'm new to these forums, having first found this website about one day ago, and already I've found the statement made twice, that atheism claims there to be no god. You've presented it in the most reasonable-sounding way I've seen, but it still needs to be answered.

Although there are evangelical atheists who argue that there is no God, atheism does not necessarily involve the claim that there is no God. It doesn't require belief in any scientific theory. It's simply the rejection of belief in God because there is not sufficient reason to believe.

If I claimed that the reason dinosaurs are extinct is because an enormous jellyfish ate them all then evaporated leaving no trace of itself, I could then say, "Well, prove that it's not true". It's up to the person making the claim to provide sufficient reason to believe. There are many atheists who openly say they'd like there to be evidence or some sort of substantial basis for belief in God, but lacking this, they don't believe it's rational to believe. Wishful thinking isn't belief--it's not even agnosticism.


----------



## JRBurgher (Jan 29, 2012)

It was more of an endless rant than a story.  Just my 2¢.  I am not commenting on the substance, I neither found the arguments persuasive nor compelling.


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 29, 2012)

> And I mightily resent the manifold ways in which their ambition to, for starters, make a formal theocracy of America—a more than adequate means of certifying their beliefs—is already poisoning the lives of the rest of us.
> 
> I’m speaking, of course, of their interference with a woman’s freedom to end a pregnancy and of homosexuals ability to marry one another. etc



So you're happy for Christians to exist, providing they don't practice their faith; or at least areas of their faith which doesn't agree with your own personal viewpoint.
Doesn't that make you demanding 'a universal consensus on the matter' by engaging in a 'quest to conscript us into their immortality project'?  Surely that's 'poisoning the lives of the rest of us' with your dogma & decrees.


Btw : I didn't think this was a actual story, but rather somebody telling us his personal opinion.


----------



## Cirrocumulus (Jan 29, 2012)

Aren't argumentative pieces of writing allowed here?


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 29, 2012)

Cirrocumulus said:


> Aren't argumentative pieces of writing allowed here?



The only question as I see it is whether it's a writing for non-fiction, or a debate opinion piece.  I personally felt that the writer was simply stating his own opinion on a topic, which I would have put in the debate section.  Of course, whether it's in the correct section is up to forum mods; and they haven't touched it.

And before you reply, no I don't think it changes my own view on it.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 29, 2012)

Rustgold said:


> The only question as I see it is whether it's a writing for non-fiction, or a debate opinion piece. I personally felt that the writer was simply stating his own opinion on a topic, which I would have put in the debate section. Of course, whether it's in the correct section is up to forum mods; and they haven't touched it.And before you reply, no I don't think it changes my own view on it.


The statement of one's opinion is surely a valid form of non-fiction writing. It has probably been so for a few thousand years but especially in the modern era; the last 500 or so. Much of what is often termed progress, was begun in this sort of writing. As a valid authorial form, it can be critiqued as can any other piece of writing, without arguing about the validity of the opinion. Given the opinion, is the writing interesting? Gramatically correct? Spelled right? Does the support for the opinion contain logic errors? Are facts marshalled to support the opinion incorrect? A writer wanting this sort of assistance for a piece which might later be, say, submitted as an op-ed piece, would, I should think, properly post it on the non-fiction board or in the workshop. It would then be incumbent on persons replying to respond appropiately. If the author wants to argue the opinion, THEN it should be placed on the debate board. On this critique board, persons unable to respond without arguing the opinion possibly should refrain from any response. There can be, I will readily grant, a fine line between fact checking and arguing, but several responders here have managed to avoid straying over it. pp


----------



## Cirrocumulus (Jan 30, 2012)

Thank you, ppsage. It is difficult to read material which challenges one's worldview. I highly recommend to the author of "Proving God by Consensus" an article I studied as part of my psychology degree, which summarises recent psychological research on (existential) "terror management theory", and presents the results of a series of experiments in which participants read an essay which attacked their cultural worldview. In one experiment for example, nationalistic Canadians read an essay which attacked Canadian values (carefully written to avoid mention of death or death-related ideas), resulting in an increase in death-related thoughts, measured by a word-completion task (e.g. "COFF__" could be completed as either "COFFEE" or "COFFIN"). A similar experiment involving believers of creationism read a pro-evolution essay found similar results. The article is by Jeff Schimel, Joseph Hayes, Todd Williams, and Jesse Jahrig from the University of Alberta, and from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007, Vol. 92, No. 5, 789-803. The title is: "Is Death Really the Worm at the Core? Converging Evidence that Worldview Threat Increases Death-Thought Accessibilty"

Highly relevant to the piece of writing of this thread by RobertLevin219, but also anyone challenging any worldview of others. There are also some very interesting articles listed in the bibliography, on fascinating & revealing research. At least learn about "terror management theory" and the effects of worldview threat.


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 30, 2012)

Cirrocumulus said:


> It is difficult to read material which challenges one's worldview.



I'm not Christian, and others here will say I have a hatred of Christianity; so please don't incline this type of blanket statement towards my direction.  Thank-you.


----------



## Cirrocumulus (Jan 30, 2012)

Hey Rustgold, it wasn't directed at you. I see that you posted recently, and were maybe waiting for a response. I was just sharing some relevant & important material with the author, RobertLevin219 & anyone else interested. 

I did however have the impression that you were Christian. Browsing the forums more recently, I've come across other posts you've made, and can see what you mean. I largely agree with those I've read so far. 

My use of the word "difficult" was a lazy choice, possibly giving unintended meaning, and leaves out the rest of the picture (e.g. whether the reader at the same time enjoys their worldview being challenged, or how subtle the "difficulty" is). I made that statement having in mind the robust scientific research I referred to, many times replicated, including experiments testing its generalisability to different populations, so it's safe to assume it more or less applies to all of us. Making "blanket statements" about particular posts wouldn't be right however. I was in particular thinking of the nature of Robert's article itself, and the responses any such author should expect.


----------

