Saturday, July 3, 2010

Reasoning Out Why Religious Fundamentalists Are Unreasonable

This flow chart is a good place to start realistically evaluating the individual pieces of religious doctrine in one's faith journey. If one's ego would let them be really truthful, quite a bit would be in the outer circles.

'The following are the last three paragraphs of an insightful post written by Frank Schaeffer. Frank is the son of Francis and Edith Schaeffer who were both Evangelical leaders in the 70's and 80's. Both were instrumental in the rise of the right wing Christian political movement, as was Frank--especially in the rise of the vehement pro life movement. Today Frank is one of the Christian right's most astute critics. In many ways his personal story illustrates spiritual progression and just how difficult that progression can be in that it really does set up a war in one's mind between faith, reason, and observations about the real world.

The solution to that mental war is either to move on or to practice a rather vicious form of denial. This denial is usually given vent by projecting the conflict onto and into 'others'. Frank explains this process very well in the following:

The history of theology (Christian or otherwise) is the history of people desperately trying to fit the way things actually are into the way their holy books says they should be. And since the holy books -- if taken literally -- are filled with backward nonsense, something has to give.

What "gives" is decency, compassion, honesty and truth. Result? Some people do what my mother and dad did, spend a lot of time making excuses for God. The other result is the congenital sneakiness of fundamentalist religion pretending that it is more enlightened than it is or ever can be. Roman Catholic medieval dogma is rechristened as "Natural Law" and Creationism is re-baptized as "Intelligent Design," Islam calls the oppression of women the "protection of women" and so on. Proposition 8 in California is presented as something to "protect children" and so forth.

Why do religious fundamentalists hate "sinners" (in other words anyone not like them)? Answer: because otherwise they would have to blame God following the logic of their own theology. They have to say gay men and women chose to be gay or that the disaster in Haiti was "caused" by the Haitians themselves. They must say this because otherwise -- according to the logic of their own ideas -- they must blame God, for instance, for gay men and women even existing!


The past week or so has given Catholics plenty of opportunity to see this process at work in the Vatican. Cardinal Sconborn's truthful evaluation of Cardinal Sodano's behavior became an issue of Schonborn's insubordination. In papal 'logic' it made perfect sense in Benedict's mind to tell us that only the pope can criticize a cardinal. In doing this, Benedict absolves himself of really dealing with Sodano because Benedict the Pope did not make such observations and only he can. It was just totally wrong of Schonborn to make such statements about Sodano. The whole sad story has absolutely nothing to do with the real actions of Cardinal Sodano in the real world and everything to do with Cardinal Schonborn's violation of the rules in Benedict's fantasy world.

The same kind of thinking is operative in Benedict's creation of a new commission to Evangelize the west. The need for this solution is not that some of the intellectual fantasy he holds as truth is at fault, it absolutely has to be that the reality of the Western world view is at fault. Benedict is incapable it seems, of blaming the Church or God (equated in his mind) for the fact the West no longer sees reality the way the traditional church sees reality. It has to be the fault of society because other wise the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. It always has to be the 'others' fault when religious fantasy collides with reality. "Othering" is absolutely necessary defense mechanism when attempting to maintain faith fantasies.

The Phoenix abortion case is exhibit number one of how decency, compassion, honesty, and truth are sacrificed in order to uphold an illogical teaching. A reasonable person will not accept that it is better to let two people die to uphold an absolute teaching. When the truth is the fetus can not live, but the mother can, reasonable people will not throw compassion and decency out the window for the sake of a teaching based in an unknowable fantasy about when ensoulment occurs. For a believer like Bishop Olmstead however, it is absolutely necessary to uphold the reality of the fantasy because to do other wise starts chipping at the very foundation of his 'faith'.

The truth is, it's really not Olmstead's version of Catholic faith which is the fundamental issue. It's the fear generated by his ego. It's not God whose truth is at stake. What's at stake is one of the core foundations of Olmstead's ego construct. Ego, or the self aware sense of I, literally takes on a life of it's own. It's 'life' can actually become more important than biological life itself.

One of the traits of the left brain is it's ability to generate ideas specifically designed to protect the ego construct. It can be very efficient at this particular function. Intellectualizations, plausible deniability, rationalizations, and circular reasoning are the preferred defensive strategies of the left brain to shore up the illogical fantasies of the ego. When sense perceptual reality collides with the fantasy reality of the ego, the left hemsishere will protect the integrity of the ego. Ultimately the concern is not whether the defenses are credible to 'others', they must be credible to the individual's ego and they must serve to soothe the ego's existential fear.

Compassion, for instance, is usually not an attribute which fundamentalists extend to their own egos because it's judged to be a form of weak willed enabling behavior. Since self compassion does not serve to soothe their ego generated anxiey it's not something they will extend to others. Instead, anxiety is soothed by projecting the cause of the anxiety onto others. It's sort of like getting rid of one's own garbage by blindly bagging it up and tossing it on a bigger designated garbage pile.

I have written before that when Jesus said we must love each other as we love ourselves He was not kidding. Self love is a crucial component to spiritual progress. Our construct ego will not treat others any better than it's been constructed to treat itself. One of the biggest impediments to spiritual growth that Catholicism has foisted on it's followers is the whole notion of humanity's intrinsic predisposition towards sin. I have never been able to fathom how one can hold a baby in one's arms and think humanity is predisposed towards sin. (Well I can, but that's for another post and generally involves not actually holding a baby in your arms.)

The real truth is we actually are predisposed towards sin, not because we are failed humanity, but because we are raised to think we are failed humanity. I firmly believe that gay and abortion issues are so front and center at this time precisely because we are being asked to look at the theology which supports them. They are an opportunity to realistically assess some very potent belief structures surrounding human nature, God, and the foundations of religious authority. In a very real sense humanity is in a dialogue with itself about the basis for the religious reality of our future.

Lately our Catholic hierarchy has been giving us one concrete example after another to assess these core belief structures about Catholic reality. In some cases the almost desperate brazenness of the example demands we make this assessment. It does seem the Holy Spirit is beckoning us to growth and using our teaching authority to do it. That they seem blind to the consequences may be a necessary part of the process. I truly do honor and thank them for their efforts, but that doesn't mean I won't keep writing on why they can be so wrong and so counterproductive. After all if some of us 'others' didn't do so, their inspired efforts would be pointless.

11 comments:

  1. Tremendous post, Colleen. There is so much to think about. As I've said before, it's this basis of fear that I think keeps us from loving, and I'm not sure how to bring that out to fear-based believers. I'm beginning to think that it needs to be an argument of the heart and not the head. As you wrote, compassion becomes sinful capitulation. That would explain the hard heartedness of so many who profess faith, mostly a fear of growth and a fear that all our blessings will dry up and be taken from us. I see it in the magic of threes and sevens and tens in prayer, in the redefinition of love as correction by the EWTN crowd. Each time a new article comes out detailing some new way the hierarchy doesn't embody Christ, the cry goes up to kill the messenger and "that's terrible journalism anyway".

    A small and catty digression -- you've got me listening to Catholic Answers on the radio as I drive in the car now. I've learned a lot. I agree with about 2/3 of what is said, but each and every hour I hear that I must discriminate good Catholics from bad Catholics. Then I'm assured that the good guys are winning (and gaining steam). Anyway, when the "expert" says "Catholic Answers" it really sounds like "Catholic Cancers." Makes me chuckle.

    Keep doing what you are doing. You lead a discussion that really helps crystallize my faith. I take this to the real world, and these prayers help me to love and lead me to serve. Thanks.

    PS word is menchlor, which means nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Recently, Colleen, you wrote about the value of having your entire belief system shaken to its core, having your whole outlook turned inside and out and upside down, what I'd call the shaking of the Ego. And if we respond to that experience by allowing the transcendent to overpower us, so that we are transformed forever after, we come to view life, events, other people, very differently. It takes tremendous courage and a sense of adventure to be shaken to our core, so that the CORE is no longer "us" but God in us.

    I am now convinced there is no way to have a rational discussion with this pope. Or with his minions. All we do is keep up the barrage of calm, relentless critiques - without expecting an outcome which we desire. So to let go of our expectations. But continue to focus on what really matters. And it's not "doctrine" - I'm sure. It is the Presence of Holy Mystery indwelling persons who allow themselves to be transformed, who never take credit for that, who humbly accept that they are not in control of events, who do their small part - without expecting a reward.

    I'm at the point, actually, where I believe that in the case of abortion that child "gives" himself or herself to God - forgiving the parent who undergoes an abortion, understanding the anguish of the person who, in the grip of emotions (whatever they are) feels trapped and unable to carry the child to term PLUS raise the child in ways they would want to.

    It's the transformation in thinking that is needed here. Life - we cling to it - but it is just one phase. It is not a bad thing to die. In the end we lose everything material that we have collected. We all must die. How we face that, how we accept that and transcend that, I think, is so crucial to life.

    So it's not dogmas, but existentially facing life and death - so that we lose our ego as "center" and care about all others and all of life - that Jesus teaches.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Recently, Colleen, you wrote about the value of having your entire belief system shaken to its core, having your whole outlook turned inside and out and upside down, what I'd call the shaking of the Ego. And if we respond to that experience by allowing the transcendent to overpower us, so that we are transformed forever after, we come to view life, events, other people, very differently. It takes tremendous courage and a sense of adventure to be shaken to our core, so that the CORE is no longer "us" but God in us.

    I am now convinced there is no way to have a rational discussion with this pope. Or with his minions. All we do is keep up the barrage of calm, relentless critiques - without expecting an outcome which we desire. So to let go of our expectations. But continue to focus on what really matters. And it's not "doctrine" - I'm sure. It is the Presence of Holy Mystery indwelling persons who allow themselves to be transformed, who never take credit for that, who humbly accept that they are not in control of events, who do their small part - without expecting a reward.

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Vanished into the ether.... (sob)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Strange.... it posted, even though I was told the comment was too large. Then..... I was told there was problem.... huh, no kidding! Oh, well...

    ReplyDelete
  6. For some reason Blogger has been doing that recently. Saying a comment is too long to post and then posting it anyway which leads to double posting. It only seems to happen with the really good comments. :)

    mjc, I burst out laughing with the Catholic cancers comment. I can so hear how that is entirely possible. And now I will mentally hear that everytime I see or write something about Catholic Answers.
    I really truly believe that kind of punny humor is the part of our identity we call the soul breaking in with a message.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TheraP your idea about abortion and the sacrifice of the child can actually be taken one step further. It's not just an offering of a live to God, it's also the presenting of an oppurtunity for that 'shaking up' of the ego for the parents.

    I've heard this time and time again from parents who have special needs children. They learn to accept and love the child because of the lessons they must learn in caring for the child. What they secretly resent at first matures into a gift they can't imagine not having experienced. That's God and/or the divine spark of the soul at work on the fantasies of the ego construct.

    Life can be so multifaceted if you just let it be instead of desperately trying to control it.

    Here's another really short liner. The soul sees life as a verb, where as the ego needs life to be a noun.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't understand the concept that in an abortion the child is giving himself up to God. The child isn't doing this. The mother is the one sacrificing the child. She is giving her child a push into the hearafter so to speak. I don't see the Church ever really approving of abortion. When it comes down to it, abortion is killing someone, an unwanted and unloved someone, but someone all the same. If the Church did approve of abortion, it would lose all credibility. The case in Phoenix is an extreme case in which the child was doomed either way. It was a choice between saving one person or none. I don't see why people join the abortion (in favor of abortions) and homosexuality issues. I think unborn children are equal in their humanity and dignity to other people and I think that gay people are also equal in their humanity to others also.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not justifying abortion, but I am saying that it is my belief that the child forgives. That is my belief, given that abortions occur, lives are taken, and the soul goes directly to God.

    Why wouldn't a pure soul be Christlike and forgive? Just as Jesus did on the cross? So I'm just saying I see that unborn, aborted child as a martyr - who forgives. (it's just my personal view - but again, not an argument for abortion, any more than Jesus forgiving is an argument for crucifixion)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mareczku I agree that abortion and same sex marriage should not be linked, but I'm not the one who is making the linkage. The Church hierarchy has decided these two issues are the moral topic of the day. The linkage is the body of sexual morality espoused by the Church. If I had to prioritize the morality it would be something like the object of sex is conception and the only moral use of sexual appendages is men are to deposit sperm in female uterus and let the pregnancy process prevail. Everything else is secondary and that which is actively outside these perameters is evil.

    To buy this whole thing one has to believe that human life is primarily a biological entity whose expression is defined by 'natural' law. This is why pro lifers are now saying any question of ensoulment is a red herring argument in abortion.

    I take a different starting point and feel that we are really eternal spiritual beings having a human experience. Human consciousness is a product of the quantum reality which is constrained in it's biological expression by the limits of the material universe. Jesus came to show us how to move beyond those limits.

    We are all connected at the deepest levels and understand on some level the importance of that connection. Every aborted embyro or conceptus that does not implant or fetus that miscarries or child who is still born is an equal part of that deeper meaning. It is humanity in it's material expression who needs to make distinctions. That is an ego fantasy.

    If the Church really had a consistent belief about full human life being present at conception they would instruct every sexually active woman to baptize every single monthly menstrual flow if only because a baby may be in that menstrual flow. Since they don't--yet anyway--I can't help but wonder if the abortion crusade, like the gay marriage crusade, is really about controlling gender expression,and that in the final analysis is all about who has the right to determine cultural norms.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If the Church really had a consistent belief about full human life being present at conception they would instruct every sexually active woman to baptize every single monthly menstrual flow if only because a baby may be in that menstrual flow.

    Weird, but true. Of course, such an instruction would only be possible if the magisterium actually adverted to the findings of scientific research. But if they did that -- which would mean acknowledging that somewhere between 70-80% of all embryos fail to implant in the uterus -- they would have to teach very differently about abortion.

    Given their present attitude toward abortion, I can't see them doing anything as sane as actually taking science into account, at least not anytime time soon.

    ReplyDelete