Voices
17 June 2006 by Raindogzilla
The man with his finger on the button, the most powerful man in the entire world, believes his Adult Imaginary Friend put him there.
“‘Just in the past few months,” Bartlett said, ”I think a light has gone off for people who’ve spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he’s always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.” Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush’s governance, went on to say: ”This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can’t be persuaded, that they’re extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he’s just like them. . . .”
snip.
“This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,” Bartlett went on to say. ”He truly believes he’s on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.” Bartlett paused, then said, ”But you can’t run the world on faith…”
I’m still waiting for that DSM revision that lists “talking to god” as a symptom of , hopefully, a disorder requiring instant and involuntary commitment. I’m waiting for Napoleon the Fourteenth’s “men in the little white coats” to come take the dimbulb away. Of course, I’m also still waiting to wake up and have this last six years of American politics be a bad dream- and to be condemned by someone as a heretic.
17 June 2006, on 4:13 am
Link, please?
17 June 2006, on 7:51 am
Nothing is more dangerous than *faith* driven decisions and actions. NOTHING! And of course the scope of the danger increases with the power and/or influence of the *faithful*.
Fortunately most *religious* people do not run their affairs on faith. They may say they have faith in god and *his will be done* BUT in what practical sense? Their faith is a faith in word only – they are too rational and sane to really live by their own professions. And thank *heaven* for that! Else we would have to intervene a lot more when some *religious* nut withholds medical care from their unfortunate child. Yup – for most *faithful* sane people in free societies the old *god helps them that help themselves* cop-out serves them quite well.
To me *Moral Sane People* whether theist or atheist, make decisions on what to do or not do by:
(a) applying their real world values (formed by empathy, fairness, etc.) to individual *situations*
(b) to arrive at pros and cons (net positive or negative values for alternatives)
(c) and then opting for the course of action that produces the greatest overall value in a given situation
I am not knocking *religious* people who because of tradition, twinges of comfort, community, subconscious fear of estrangement from family, etc. chose to cling to their allegiance to *god* and/or *the church*. Characterize yourself however you want, as long as you leave your faith at the doorstep when you deal in the real world in which we ALL have to live.
My problem is that REALLY faithful (theist or atheist) people are neither (in an overall sense) *moral* or *sane*. They are DANGEROUS!
And trolls out there: Do NOT try to use your twisted illogic to say that we all live by faith. No! I have trust that my wife loves me because she has proven it so many times in so many ways. I have trust in my doctor because he has compassion, facilities, education and experience, and seems to use them well. Etc., etc.. That is informed trust – NOT faith. Get it through your thick heads. Faith is simply and adequately defined as thinking something is true or will happen without any evidence (historical or contemporary) to rationally and reasonably support the belief. Blind faith is thinking something will happen when there is solid evidence to say the contrary!
17 June 2006, on 6:11 pm
“… That’s also why errror is inconceivable, when when asked Dubya is unable to discover any mistake he’s made as President. And of course that must be so in service to a deeper exigency. It is His will that put one in the position of the most powerful man in the world and He must have done so because He had something special in mind. …”
from http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html
17 June 2006, on 7:16 pm
ConcernedJoe said:
“Do NOT try to use your twisted illogic to say that we all live by faith. No! I have trust that my wife loves me because she has proven it so many times in so many ways. I have trust in my doctor because he has compassion, facilities, education and experience, and seems to use them well. Etc., etc.. That is informed trust – NOT faith.”
At the risk of being thought a troll, I’m going to argue that faith is not the problem. Whether I call my belief in my wife or in the rising of the sun each day faith or trust doesn’t seem to make any difference. I could be entirely wrong about my wife (or the sun might explode today), just as I would be wrong if I thought God was telling me what to do. Xians think that their faith in God IS informed trust. All these relationships are based on something similar – we may as well call it faith as trust. This suggests to me that blaming faith for the crazy actions of Bush and others is a mistake.
What ConcernedJoe means by ‘really faithful’ (a problem for both atheists and theists) is fanatical, and although faith is part of fanaticism, it is not the cause of the problem. What are apparently extremes of faith (like making foreign policy by instinct) are actually due to other defects in people, like greed and hunger for power, which in combination with faith become really dangerous.
In fact, the article on Bush makes this very point, in the quote from Jim Wallis:
”Faith can cut in so many ways,” he said. ”If you’re penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it’s designed to certify our righteousness — that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There’s no reflection. ”Where people often get lost is on this very point,” he said after a moment of thought. ”Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not — not ever — to the thing we as humans so very much want.”
And what is that?
”Easy certainty.”
It is what people want that is the problem – power, certainty, the answers – not faith. Blind faith or religious faith are just what we get when we combine faith, which we all have and need, with our desires.
17 June 2006, on 8:38 pm
Thanks for your thoughts Ian. I see your point on *fanaticism*. And having *faith* in ones opinions (be you atheist or theist) clouds your rationality seriously. CCoupled with greed etc… yup dangerous mixture.
However I think we still differ. Again I stand by my simple definitions and NO — believing the sun will exist or that my wife loves me are not founded on faith.. but are informed premises based on known physical observable facts, and the weighing of probabilities of sudden unforseen deviation from the facts. The beliefs are not *certain* but the beliefs are sufficiently grounded so I can act rationally in the real world. I think faith (as I defined) IS very different and IS a root cause very very poor and dangerous thinking .. and it IS the main driver of fanaticism.
We are all prone to filter out facts to fit our mental model of things.. BUT people less prone to accepting things on faith make better decisions, etc. and are better able to act situationally in a humanistic caring way.
Maybe it is semantics and Ian maybe I would simply say *Blind faith or religious faith are just what we get when we combine faith [beliefs], which we all have and need, with our desires [things we think our beliefs dictate that we must pursue and promote]. *
Thanks for listening.
17 June 2006, on 11:33 pm
Faith in something such as the sun coming up every day is based on millenia of empirical evidence and, with the notable exceptions of Chicxulub, maybe Karakatoa, the oddly timed eclipse, and weirdos who live above the arctic circle, it’s a pretty safe bet. Faith in our significant other is love- emotional, chemical, and even a little empirical- and not everything has to be dogmatically defined and completely known. Hell, if everything were wrapped up tight and shiny, it’d be boring.
18 June 2006, on 12:02 am
ConcernedJoe and Ian;
You guy are both right, really. I think you’re arguing over minutae rather than the issue. Lemme tells ya hows I sees it…
I don’t think Bush is sincere with his usage of faith. I’ve always thought, since Dubya’s “jeebus” comment during the 2000 rethuglican primary that it was nothing more than a cheap ploy to play on xian emotional underdevelopment to breed a loyalty to Bush.
Rove targeted xian evangelicals with the help of Ralph Reed.
I mean, come on; the man doesn’t have an original thought in his head; he needs Reed and Rove to propagandize.
He spews talking points disguised as emotion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, is religion part of the problem? Of course. If the mythology didn’t exist, people wouldn’t buy this bullshit.It’s what Hitler did. That’s how he got his foot in the Chancellor’s door so he could steal the German Government to do his bidding.
A crutch of society is a tool of corruption. Especially one based on something a fleeting as faith.
Faith is a propaganda message that can be easily corrupted, because it has NO basis in fact, only faries tales and mythology.A protected one.
Why? Becaue we forget that religions have always had political agendas. They were really crafted to be political machines.
Yeah, “civilizing the heathens”. Right. Tell me another one.
Hello! Crusades!!! The Inquisition!!!
The War on “Terruh”.
As Roger Daltrey sang, “Meet the new boss/same as the old boss”.
As LAME as the old boss.
Rove and Reed simply exploited the Book of Revelations. You can’t ee it from the Nationalized news. However, if you look at what they did on the ground, how they campaigned, where they went and who they used to deliver their own stylized form of hate speeech, you see the method of their madness.
And Freedom of Religion turns into Freedom FOR Religion…
To dictate their will over rational thought.
That is the true purpose of religion; propaganda.
18 June 2006, on 12:05 am
Propaganda to manipulate the power of the public mindset.
18 June 2006, on 5:33 am
Rat – very nicely laid out and spot on. May I add some of my thoughts? Every political party’s machine is a propaganda machine but the party of GWB has brought it to an extreme that does rival the most noxious of the past. Major components of noxious extreme propaganda machines are: creating enemies and issues to distract and control the people, giving a religious dogmatic (secular or non-secular) connotation to their work while making the people think they held that dogma all along, stifling dissent by casting dissenters as enemies of the people and the *people’s* righteous causes, controlling the *media* (press, arts, whatever), and (most important) being in the position (pro-actively making this so) to cast all arguments in terms that obfuscate and/or create spurious side issues, being able to lie about anything with a straight face because you have mastered the *skills* of a sociopath who can believe their own lies. YUP – the *Rethuglicans* have mastered it all. *God* save us (from our sheepish compliant selves)!!!
Raindogzilla – at the risk of beating it to death can I just be a stickler about this. That is: one can trust on FAITH that even in the face of contrary evidence your significant other loves you. And even the best of us given our very human propensity to avoid painful truths does stuff like that for brief periods. But that does not make it a proper mode of analysis and decision-making. That is my point. *Faith-based* (non)assessments of facts is pernicious to proper decision-making period! If one is NOT getting real world signs that their significant other loves them then the significant other probably does NOT! And decisions must be made on the reality of that non-love, not one what one wishes was so. Wishful thinking is a very weak base for real world living. Period!
Again, to me *faith* is immutable belief in something in the ABSENCE of testable facts, and/or in the PRESENCE of facts that should countermand the belief. Situational sane people do NOT live situations (even love relationships) based on *faith*. They will let the reality of any situation eventually rule. And I take mighty exception to people (especially theists) who try to cast trusting one’s doctor, or spouse, or friend, or a peer reviewed science article, etc. as FAITH-BASED trust. It is NOT – cold hard reality will rule eventually (more sooner than later)! Faith DEMANDS that reality NEVER rules!!
18 June 2006, on 5:45 am
PS Raindog.. I did NOT take mighty exception to your comments. My *mighty exception to* was directed at the .. well you know who .. not you or your cogent comments.
18 June 2006, on 12:06 pm
Thanks everyone for this discussion.
When I ask myself, Why do they think such weird things? or What is wrong with them?, I start thinking along the lines suggested by raindogzilla at the start: when is religion going to appear in DSM? I want to psychoanalyse them.
So what are their symptoms? ConcernedJoe and raindogzilla said that a biggie is ignoring reality – the empirical evidence, the physical observable facts, the cold hard reality and I agree with this. But why do they do this? It’s not because they don’t like facts, it’s because they think the facts that matter are stuff like ‘Nothing comes from nothing’ and ‘My mummy wouldn’t lie to me’; they think they have all the evidence they need for their faith in these ideas, and thus also in god(s). I think atheists’ beliefs (my beliefs) are also faith-based, in that I reckon the facts that matter are stuff like ‘Humans are animals’ and ‘There is no meaning but ours’.
We all know Xians who are OK people like us – their tumours (to mix my metaphors) are benign. But why are some people’s tumours malignant? Why does George Bush think his job is to make the world ready for the Rapture?
I don’t think trying to work out this stuff is just semantics. As Da Rat Bastid showed, (and I know you agree, ConcernedJoe) it’s all about politics and propaganda, about getting and keeping power and abusing it as long as you can get away with it. They want you to think it’s about faith and virtue, and if we say it’s their faith that’s the problem, they say we’re attacking their religion, or if really desperate, that we’ve got faith too. I don’t want to let them get away with it like that: to me people like Bush (the ones with malignant tumours) are either insane or criminals, and that’s what I want to call them on – their greed, their dishonesty, their manipulations. By saying that faith is the problem, I think we don’t look hard enough at ourselves, but far worse, we don’t look hard enough at them.
18 June 2006, on 12:32 pm
Thanks Ian. Yup! Have a good day (if you are a father – then Happy Father’s Day too)
18 June 2006, on 3:10 pm
I think that GWB’s “talking to god” is a combination of self-delusion (Messianic complex) and manipulation for political and power reasons. And, as I have heard others say, what if you subsituted Zeus or Thor or maybe even Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, what would people think then? Of course, who wouldn’t want to lock Bush up if he had said the tooth fairy wanted us to go to war with Iraq? But, by using “god”, he plays upon a ridiculous, yet prevalent mythology for many people. A mythology that seems off limits for criticism. The invisible anthropomorphic sky daddy, the gated community in the clouds, the burning pit of fire are very real for these folks.
But this brings to mind another image of “talking to god” (if that’s what it was) that Karl Jung “experienced” when he was around twelve years old. He had this image of the Basel Cathedral. God was seated on his golden throne above it, and then god dropped an enormous turd, thereby shattering the roof and breaking apart the walls. This, as I understand it, effectively got rid of the dogmatic brainwashing that he had been exposed to. Now, if only more fundamentalists and jeebus whackos, would have this kind of “talking to god” experience, maybe we could make some progress in human evolution.
18 June 2006, on 6:15 pm
Thanks for the props, guys. I only have one thing to add. “Either insane or criminal” is wrong. He’s an insane criminal, so it’s not an either/or situation. It’s both…
18 June 2006, on 6:56 pm
W.’s a ne’er-do-well fratboy who went from a party animal wastrel to a born again dry drunk. And zealotry, or immoderation, is no different even when focused 180degrees in the other direction- see xian stoning Saul/onward xian soldier Paul for a case study. Georgie’s sugar daddy just went from being his real father who bought him out of every jam to his Lard Gud Omelettey who excuses everything without even bothering to expect contrition. I’ve known people like him my entire life and, were I to have that proverbial beer everyone claims to want to have with Chimpy McCodpiece, I’d probably leave him bleeding on the floor- or wind up spending some quality time with John Hinckley courtesy of the Secret Service.
18 June 2006, on 10:57 pm
Ian says:
They want you to think it’s about faith and virtue, and if we say it’s their faith that’s the problem, they say we’re attacking their religion, or if really desperate, that we’ve got faith too. I don’t want to let them get away with it like that…
Well put. We can’t let them frame the argument that way. They will win with the meatheads every time.
Speaking of reframing the argument so they look like the liars they are, has anybody been watching the rise of John Murtha?
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/18/murtha-rove/
A simple guy in a lot of ways, but he sees the damn truth and he is saying it. He is guileless about it, too. They are trying to “swift boat” him, of course, but he ain’t no silver-spoon like they were able to portray John Kerry to be (as if Dubya isn’t!). I think it’s gonna be hard to make him go away.
19 June 2006, on 2:09 am
As long as we are on the subject of the insane criminals.
19 June 2006, on 6:31 am
Here is a hilariously bad religious show taking on the very same faith question you guys discussed. See if you can count the number of logical fallacies in the first five minutes.
They speak to their audience as if they are mental midgets. Which I guess they are.
19 June 2006, on 3:08 pm
Da Rat Bastid, ConcernedJoe, Ian, great discussion. I absolutely agree that words are extremely potent weapons period, and especially when used in propaganda. The Religious Wrong is quite desperately trying to frame all arguments in and base all issues on their own theistic terms, like MAnn Coulter attempted to do on the Tonight Show by claiming that liberals are imposing their “beliefs” on everyone else. By accusing dissenters and opponents of what they themselves are doing/trying to do, they hope to direct attention away from it.
Am I being too optimistic in thinking that it’s starting to backfire on them? Oh, well, I’d rather be positive than negative, no matter how idealistic it makes me.
19 June 2006, on 5:57 pm
Eve, I think this is right on the money – by claiming that they are being persecuted for their beliefs, or having their beliefs attacked, theists in powerful positions not only position themselves as victims, but also make it seem that their opponents are intolerant. That is why I think it is important to argue that it is not their faith that makes them dangerous, but their dishonesty, their abuse of power, their manipulations. Faith is a great place to hide if you’re a crook, but we should show their hiding place for what it is AND expose what they’re trying to hide.
I hope you’re right about it all backfiring on them. I worry that Bush and Howard have done so much damage to our democracies by working out ways to extend their power and undermine that of their opponents – through the media, particularly – that they’re going to be very hard to fix. Our systems of government worked for a while, but the powerful and religious have learned how to subvert them. Even if changes of government occur, I fear that the new ones will use the same methods, and just get better and better at lying and manipulating.