Thank God for the Brights. Every time I find myself at the top of the cliff of doubt, staring down into the dark and murky abyss, contemplating how much fun it might be to jump off and fly through the air, and listening intently to the voice that incessantly whispers into my ear, "go ahead; it won't hurt," all I need to do is read from a Bright. It is as if a bony and gnarled claw reaches up from the abyss in an attempt to grab me... but flails so wildly and inaccurately that it ends up knocking me back several feet from the abyss, and the force of landing so hard on my ass knocks me from my stupor and cleanses the voice from my ears. Their complete and utter misunderstanding of all things religious never elicits anything more than an eyeroll from me, and always serves to remind me of why it is I actually believe.
The strawmen erected in their arguments are always so laughably inept attempts to characterize the Church. It is as if I am kneeling at the glorious altar, adorned in gold and precious gems, sitting atop of which is the King of Glory to whom every knee must bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, when a Bright comes up behind me and taps me upon the shoulder. "What a stupid and ugly god you worship," he says. I look up at him, incredulously. He points and says, "why it's nothing more than a heap of feces and straw." I look at where he is pointing and notice that he has his back to the throne, and is looking off into the distance behind me, at what is indeed an ugly and stupid altar that he's erected from nothing more than fecal matter and straw. The Bright crosses his arms, a smug look of self-satisfaction on his face. Of course, it's impossible to get him to actually turn around. "No thanks, I can see your idiotic god just fine from here," he'll say confidently. The only thing you can really say in response is "yes, it is idiotic. Don't back away from it so fast you trip on my kneeler and land on your ass." (Which has happened at least a few times.)
The indispensable Archbishop Fulton Sheen summed it up so perfectly: "There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church. Which is, of course, quite a different thing."
Fr. Robert Barron, in one of his Catholicism series documentaries, commented that he actually agrees with a lot of atheists. They'll complain about how stupid it is to worship a "magical sky-fairy", to which Fr. Barron says "yeah, I agree." Or they complain about the sky-bully who arbitrarily condemns people to hell fire for breaking nonsensical rules. "I agree," says Fr. Barron. It seems to me that the majority of the arguments against Catholicism, against the Church, and against God that I hear (at least on the Internet, which isn't exactly known for intellectual thoroughness) are little more than strawmen.
All this is a very roundabout way of bringing me to a recently-posted "The Oatmeal" comic. Now, I'm a bit of a fan of The Oatmeal, so whereas I'd normally just ignore this type of slight, I though, in the interest of fanboyishness, to respond. It also helps that his comic is a collection of all the "best" arguments against religion (so I can rebut them all in one place), and actually is still kinda funny.
So, The Oatmeal presents:
Hell, I don't need religion to judge people. That's a part of human nature. Just look around. People are always judging others and, in a way, it's a necessary part of life. If a salesman comes up to you and offers you a great deal, you make a judgment about him. Can I trust him? Is he being truthful about the product he's selling? We do the same thing for politicians. Love him or hate him, everyone has made a judgment about Barack Obama as president. Either he's a savior of the Human Race, who will pull us out from the depths of ignorance and the treachery of Republicans, save the economy, provide free healthcare for all, make Friday part of the weekend, and give every new baby a chocolate eclair, or he is the devil incarnate who is actively and maliciously trying to crucify Jesus again. Either way, you have judged him.
The unique feature of my religion is the ability to separate a man from his actions, and the admonition to love the sinner, but hate the sin. This means I can judge certain actions as good or bad, with positive and/or negative consequences, but without condemning the person who commits them.
Side note: it's interesting that Mr. The Oatmeal has started a comic called "how to suck at your religion" and that concludes by telling people whether or not they can stick with their religion with a condemnation of judging. Motes and beams, Mr T. Oatmeal. Motes and beams.
I am, of course, a proud member of the Church that invented the universities and whose metaphysical underpinnings (i.e., that "the universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being, this order was knowable by autonomous human reason by ‘measuring, numbering, and weighing’ (and reason could be trusted in this regard), matter could act directly on matter in “the common course of nature;” and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and the discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults" Flynn, Michael; "The Age of Faith and Reason", Dappled Things. Lent/Easter 2010) led to the Scientific Revolution.
If you were ever wondering what science might look like if Christianity hadn't gotten in the way, you can always look to the Middle East.
Mr. T.O. Meal, of course, always writes through hyperbole (that's part of the humor and appeal), so it's difficult to decide whether a specific point of his should be addressed or whether he's just exaggerating for comedic value. Anyways, Galileo did not, of course, prove heliocentrism. In fact, his theories stood in sharp contrast to the empirical evidence of the day, and the physics needed to support it weren't invented until Newton. He went to his grave admitting he couldn't explain why there was no visible stellar parallax--something predicted by the heliocentric theories--and looked to the tides for proof of the Earth's rotation, which, c'mon, even the Jesuits of the day knew was caused by the moon. He only ever discussed the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems, both of which had fallen out of favor amongst astronomers, in favor of the Tychonic and Keplerian models (with Kepler's being the actual factual reality, but that wasn't proven for centuries). See science fiction author, statistician, historian, philosopher, and All Around Cool Guy Michael Flynn for a good breakdown of the debates. He also has an article called "The Great Ptolomaic Smackdown and Down-and-Dirty Mud-Wrassle" which should be coming out in Analog sometime next year.
Side note: the Vatican recently gave $1 million for stem cell research. Of course, She still opposes embryonic SCR, but since that isn't much good for producing anything other than tumors and cancers, there's good reason to. Ironically, you're more likely to get leukemia from ESCR than to cure it. Of course, the whole topic is moot, since IPSCR provides all the benefits of ESCR, with none of the ethical drawbacks. But still, President Obama insists on funding ESCR and diverting funding away from IPSCR (speaking of hindering medicine).
This is how I can tell that Mr. The O. Meal has never been religious. Every morning, when my alarm clock goes off at 5:44am (5:14am on Wednesdays), I must ask myself, "is it really worth it? Do I really want to go to church instead of sleep for another hour?" In short, I have to choose my religion every. freaking. day.
Right side note: interesting that the belief that a Prime Mover or Uncaused Cause
Left side note: interesting concept of "forcing" dogma on a child. I suppose that when I tell Damien to eat his veggies and that he can't have a cookie for dinner, I'm "forcing my dogma" about healthy living upon him, and that when I punish him for kicking Anthony in the face, I'm "forcing my morality" on him. Speaking of child-rearing....
...And this is how I can tell that Meal, The Oat doesn't have any children. My duty, as a father, is first and foremost to raise Damien and Anthony to be loving, virtuous people. Everything else is secondary. To do that, I must pass on the wisdom, knowledge, and experience that I and the Church have accumulated over the 31/2000 years (respectively). To intentionally deny them the Truth would be to commit, I would argue, a very, very grave form of child abuse. What would you think of a parent who doesn't warn his children about dangers? "Some people say you shouldn't take candy from strangers, but others say that strangers give the best candy. What do you think?" Children are entirely dependent on their parents for physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. It is my sworn and solemn duty to bring up Damien and Anthony in the truth, and not force them to fumble around in the dark trying to discover it on their own. That's a lot to foist on the shoulders of a child.
Let's try a couple other conversations between daughter and daddy:
"Daddy, can I do crack cocaine?"
"I'm so glad you asked, sweetie! Narcotics are very bad for you. They can harm your brain and addict you to it, in essence making you a slave to substance abuse."
Vs. "Well, some people say they're bad for you, while others enjoy using them recreationally. Why don't you try them yourself and find out?"
"Daddy, studying is hard work. Can't I just cheat on this test?"
"I'm so glad you asked, sweetie! Cheating on a test doesn't cheat the teacher: it cheats you. It deprives you of the knowledge and teaches you that you can succeed without hard work, which will end up hurting you later in life."
Vs. "Well, some teachers don't like it when you cheat, but other people like the feeling it gives them. Why don't you give it a try?"
"Daddy, is eugenics wrong?"
"I'm so glad you asked, sweetie! Treating some races of people as if they are inferior to others, and trying to exterminate them through population control is contrary to the truth that all people are equal."
Vs. "Well, some people argue against it, but others say that it's okay to treat people you don't like as animals. What do you think?"
It's like not teaching your kid math because you think he should figure it out on his own.
Side note: regarding "bizarre, backwards, ridiculous beliefs... while they were young," I wonder how Monsieur Lé Eauxtmille explains lifelong atheists who become Christian (cf. aforementioned John C. Wright and Jennifer Fulwiler)? Right, "in their right mind". OK, I'll admit Mr. Wright can come off as a bit passionate, but Fulwiler? She is nothing if not reasoned and intelligent.
Second helping of side note: If retention rates of which beliefs, taught to children, are most likely to "stick" into adulthood are any indication of the plausibility of said beliefs, then atheists are clearly losing. Only 30% of children raised as atheists remain atheists into their adult life, compared with 68% of that "must change Her beliefs or die" Catholic Church.
In a word, no. I, of course, belong to the Church that teaches "(s)exuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
"Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out." (CCC 2332-2333)
And: "Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman. The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.
"The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech." (CCC 2337-2338)
But of course, I suspect that Oaty McMealmeal and I couldn't even have a conversation on this point. As I pointed out some time ago, and Mrs. Fulwiler mentioned in an article recently, the prevailing mentality is that it is impossible not to have sex. As the character Fulwiler quotes says, "how do you expect people to live without sex?" It's like asking them to live without breathing. When people have such an ingrained and unquestionable premise, such that it becomes impossible for them to see past it to any other world view, dialog is stifled.
1) Share it with the world, or
B) Sit on it and not share it with anyone.
I submit that if you answer B, you are a sociopath.
Question 2: you have a friend who is drowning. You are standing nearby on the dock. There is a life preserver next to you. You throw it at him, hoping to save him. He responds "screw you, I don't need your help," all while floundering and sputtering between gasps of air. Do you:
Watermelon) Throw the life preserver again and again, to try to save him, or
Bicycle) Let him die from his own stupidity.
If you answered bicycle, you are not a very good friend.
(Granted, you don't want to bean him with the preserver over and over again. That'd get annoying. But you still want to make sure he knows that it's there and available for him, if he changes his mind, and try to reason with him to point out how good not dying will be for his health.)
Side note: I love the picture of Jews doing ride-by Torah-ings.
Nope, I don't mock Scientology. But then again, there's a difference between the strange, claimed facts of Scientology, and the strange, claimed metaphorical truths of Genesis. And I always thought the incredibility of the incarnation and redemption was a selling point of Christianity. "Hey guys, this is so totally wacky, you'll never believe it, but it's true! God? Y'know that guy who made the universe in which we are but insignificant motes of dust? It turns out that, even still, he loves us so much that he's willing to become one of us and die for us! I know, crazy, right?"
Side note: Jesus as a zombie? I thought everyone knew Jesus was a reverse vampire: he's attracted to crosses, staking him brings him back to life, and everyone else drinks his blood.
At least he gives equal time, amiright?
Not much to say here. The only relevant observation is how, it seems, he thinks economic factors are of equal value to moral principles. I wonder if he thinks that people shouldn't have voted to free the slaves if it would have raised their taxes.
After how many images mocking Christains, we finally get to the one where he won't mock Muslims. Telling.
Bwahahaha! I totally want to go rollerblading with Dark Lord FireApe!
John C. Wright commented on a criticism of For Greater Glory (the best mediocre move you will ever see) that claimed the movie had a "martyrdom fetish" and lambasted the scene where Bl. Jose Luis Sanchez del Rio is murdered for not denying Christ. Wright commented, "I wonder how the reviewer... would react when asked to spit on the cross of whatever secular idol or image he worships would be. Would he affirm the inequality of Negros if a Nazi held a gun to his head, or curse gay marriage? If so, he has less manhood that this little boy, who was a real person who in real life neither ratted out his friends nor betrayed his savior." I wonder what cause The Oatmeal would die for? Are you as courageous as a 14-year-old boy?
Me? I like to think that I'm John, who stays with his Lord until the end, but I suspect I'm more of a Mark, who flees naked and in shame when the chips are down. Unless you threaten my boys, in which case I turn in to some hybrid of St. James Matamoros and John McClane.
Well, what would The Oatmeal kill for? Economic freedom? Freedom from oppression or tyranny? To end the holocaust? To destroy Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Robespierre? All worthy and worthwhile causes, no doubt, but then why not kill for the first freedom? When the president arrests, deports, or executes the priests, silences the church bells, and outlaws all public practice of our religion, do you expect us to stay silent? When our ability to worship God is taken away from us, why not (as the Psalmist says):
Let the faithful rejoice in their glory...
With the praise of God in their mouths,
and a two-edged sword in their hands,
To bring retribution on the nations,
punishment on the peoples,
To bind their kings in shackles,
their nobles in chains of iron,
To execute the judgments decreed for them—
such is the glory of all God’s faithful.
Hallelujah!
(Cf. Psalm 149 and For Greater Glory.)
Yes, yes it does.
And people wonder why atheism remains such a small percentage of the population.
My new favorite quote: “Asking a Christian to keep his religion out of the public square is like asking a married man to act single in public.” ~Archbishop Charles J. Chaput
Lest we think unfairly of The Oatmeal, here are a couple of my favorite strips from him:
How to Pet a Kitty.
The Three Most Common Uses of Irony.
Bah, I knew that if I just waited a day, Marc Barnes would do his own rebuttal, and a fair site better than my own.
ReplyDelete