Skeptically Speaking
As some of you know, for about five years I've been a monthly instructional columnist for what I consider to be the best national billiard magazine in America. I'm not too bad at pool, as you would guess.
Last night during our local league play, someone was getting up a game of ringer nine-ball. It's a gambling game in which several people can play. I've played it with as many people as 9 players! Anyone who sinks the 5-ball gets $1 from everyone, and anyone who sinks the 9-ball gets $2 from everyone. If there are five players and I run the rack I get $12 (4 times $3). [Sometimes the bet is $2 on the 5-ball and $5 on the 9]. When you first get into the game you start last, so sometimes you'll have to pay out some money before you even get a chance on a good decent shot. Sometimes even when you get a shot it's a really tough one since you follow a shooter who may miss and accidentally leave you really bad. I got into the game after it started and paid out some money waiting for my first decent shot. Players must get lucky again and again to get other decent shots in subsequent games. Eventually I won about $25. But while I was paying out I called it "the devil's game." That's what it's called because you must get lucky to get some decent shots on the money balls. Depending on how much money you have and how many players are in the game you may never get one before you run out of disposable cash. But when I said it was "the devil's game" a friend of mine said, "Yeah, right, an atheist believes in the devil."
This event reminded me of what I am reading in Dr. David Eller's fantastic book Atheism Advanced. He argues convincingly that western cultures are dominated by Christian language, rituals, symbols, arts, music, habits, and so forth. It's as if we are almost imprisoned in it. He writes:
No more.
Last night during our local league play, someone was getting up a game of ringer nine-ball. It's a gambling game in which several people can play. I've played it with as many people as 9 players! Anyone who sinks the 5-ball gets $1 from everyone, and anyone who sinks the 9-ball gets $2 from everyone. If there are five players and I run the rack I get $12 (4 times $3). [Sometimes the bet is $2 on the 5-ball and $5 on the 9]. When you first get into the game you start last, so sometimes you'll have to pay out some money before you even get a chance on a good decent shot. Sometimes even when you get a shot it's a really tough one since you follow a shooter who may miss and accidentally leave you really bad. I got into the game after it started and paid out some money waiting for my first decent shot. Players must get lucky again and again to get other decent shots in subsequent games. Eventually I won about $25. But while I was paying out I called it "the devil's game." That's what it's called because you must get lucky to get some decent shots on the money balls. Depending on how much money you have and how many players are in the game you may never get one before you run out of disposable cash. But when I said it was "the devil's game" a friend of mine said, "Yeah, right, an atheist believes in the devil."
This event reminded me of what I am reading in Dr. David Eller's fantastic book Atheism Advanced. He argues convincingly that western cultures are dominated by Christian language, rituals, symbols, arts, music, habits, and so forth. It's as if we are almost imprisoned in it. He writes:
"We find in practice that atheists in Christian-dominated societies speak and think in Christian terms just as surely as Christians do. We let Christianity set the agenda, identify the questions, and provide the language of the debate. We quite literally 'speak Christian' just as fluently and just as un-self-consciously as they do."Eller continues:
"We need to stop speaking Christian so as to loosen the grip of Christian language on our thinking....We do well to begin our debunking of religion with a debunking of religious terminology."While I cannot begin to tell you all of the specifics of his brilliant analysis, and there is much more to it, I learned last night he is right. I'm going to make a conscious effort to avoid all religious and Christian terminology for starters. In pool we also speak about "the pool gods," as a metaphor for good luck. When we cuss sometimes we'll say "God damn it," or "Go to hell."
No more.
35 comments:
I'm glad you noticed this. I only noticed this when I started blogging on atheism. Raised a Catholic in a Christian culture, I didn't even notice my use of "goddamnit" and "go to hell" and "god bless" until I saw it written out.
I have begun the task of editing such words from my speech- which has turned out to be very difficult. It's easy to run a search for such words in my writing, but they slip out of my mouth unnoticed when I speak.
Hi John,
one of my pet peeves in science podcasts is their use of terms that imply that evolution or nature has some kind of intent.
That this or that "evolved because of" or "the purpose is" or "in order to" or "is/was/are designed"....
the truth is it was mutation made possible by the law of large numbers that the organism learned to take advantage of or work around whatever the case.
In general, people imply or describe intent where there is none unintentionally. I think that is a cog. bias that's built into us that is probably a supporting element of religion in general.
I use religious terms and phrases here only because I like the irony. I should probably stop!
;-)
What do you think about how cultures are reflected by and / or shaped by such inherent language, whether the cog. bias is genetic or "Jungian" or otherwise? Why do you think the greatest freedoms, like the ability for us to chat on this blog, have come from "western cultures ... dominated by Christian language, rituals, symbols, arts, music, habits, and so forth?"
John, I enjoy this blog so I don't want to break any rules by getting off point; but like all of us I guess, I am Mr. Curious sometimes. I read in another Post of yours that you used to be a Christian apologist and I am curious about what your areas of interest and expertise were.
Thanks.
DrMark, we inherited them just like Christianity inherited many of her beliefs too.
My speciality? The Big Picture. Too many people focus on the minutia. I try to look at the whole forrest without neglecting the trees. I investigate and study worldview issues as they relate to Christianity.
I've always been more than sensitive to the bias of my word choices and often seek to strip that out. That said, I think I do it for a different reason than David Eller would suggest.
For me, why should I use phrases like "God damn it" or even just "Oh my God"? I am certainly not going to assume that any god shares my sentiment on anything I might exclaim; to do so seems presumptuous.
On the other hand, I am sensitive to using words and phrases that communicate in a culturally meaningful way, or in other words, using idiomatic language, which we all do. When John uses the phrase "the devil's game", do you think he's actively referring to the Devil of Christianity, or is it just a way of communicating a thought or a feeling in a way that American English speakers can quickly understand? I used the phrase "the devil's in the details" at work yesterday, but the image of a pointy-horned red-faced dude with a pitchfork was the last thing on my mind. Certainly the expression is still valid and meaningful, and only as loaded as I intend for it to be.
To strip these expressions from the English language seems to me to be stripping a language of its culture and flavor, even if the roots of those expressions began in faith, pop media, superstition, or what have you.
On this basis, consider if you would actively strip these terms or phrases (for example) from English everyday vocabulary:
- "cult movie"
- "bad omen"
- "holy shit"
- "knock on wood"
- "thank your lucky stars"
- "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
- "technological wizardry"
- "do a rain dance"
- and the list goes on and on...
Then there's other terms that refer to something real that most people know and sometimes hold dear. Should these be changed?
- "immaculate reception"
- "Hell's Angels"
- "Nirvana"
- "Gordie Howe hat trick" (sorry, I'm a hockey fan! :-)
Anyway, as much as I don't like the way some English phrases may be rooted in implausible beliefs of any/all varieties, is there really a benefit in cleansing them from language and culture (and would they really just go away)? Or is it just the Christian ones that are to be met with resistance?
John. Thanks for the indulgence. So your focus when you were a Christian apologist was wolrdview?
Lee, thanks for your honesty about your pet peeves in science. Truly consistent with your worldview.
Doug, great point. Christians often feel singled out in much the same way I have heard atheists express on this blog.
Doug, thanks. In Greek and Roman cultures before Christianity arrived on the scene, or in China, Japan and Muslim cultures, they do not have most of this corresponding terminology.
The question is this: do we want to live in a Christian culture? Cultures change and assimilate new ideas. With this assimilation comes new words and even new languages (can you even read Old English, for instance?)
Eller wants us to begin thinking about what a distinctively atheist culture would look like and what a distinctively atheist language would sound like.
Is billiards the same game in America that it would be in Britain - ie just 3 balls on the table?
Actually, the Romans did have soteriological language when Christianity was birthed. That is why statements like Lord and Savior were so bold and dangerous when the Christians applied them to Jesus. These were terms for the Roman rulers and the Pax Romana, which was considered the gospel. So when Mark (likely the first gospel written) called it the gospel of Jesus Christ, he was basically saying the Pax Romana is not the good news. So, informed Christians have no problem with real history and borrowed / stolen terms. I rather get a kick out of it actually, although I think I would have been a wimp compared to those guys and would have tried to find some new terminology to express a persecuted faith - lol.
Billiards sometimes refers specifically to the game of billiards (i.e. 3 balls on the table) and other times it can refer to any game played on a pool table. The game I played last night is your basic 9-ball game seen on ESPN among the pros, where we must sink the balls in numerical order. The only money balls are the 5 and the 9, but to get to them you must first pocket the lower numberical balls first (or combo them in from hitting a lower numbered ball first). There are other rules, but that's not the point here.
My own metaphor is that we are drenched in Christianity. But personally I see no problem using some Christian language like, specially my cherished "go to hell".
The only expression I actively avoid is "Thanks God",
When I seldom utter the phrase I always thank Zeus, Gaia, The Flying Spagetti Monster, Raptor or Zombie Jesus or the Gods, plural.
I've never been accused of covert Christianity by saying OMFG, people realize I don't mean it.
Eller wants us to begin thinking about what a distinctively atheist culture would look like and what a distinctively atheist language would sound like.
We somehow managed to overcome Greco-Roman pantheism without eliminating Saturn's Day, Thor's Day, etc. There will never be an atheist language because atheism is not a cultural uniting force. There already are secular idioms--"somthing up one's sleeve", "jump the gun", "behind the eight ball", etc. but they are built around something. I don't think a robust collection of idioms can be built around a lack of something.
John, interesting post. I would agree with you, in part. In America (and in the west in general), we have inherited a Christian culture which is enveloped in modernism (which you have pointed out is the "Achilles heel of Christianity."
So, just as you see Christianity in the culture, I also see modernism in western Christianity, and I, too, am saying "no more." Just as you are trying to establish a modern culture without the Christian influence, I am trying to establish a Christianity free from the errors of modernism.
I think we both have an uphill battle.
John, I'm totally sympathetic for a desire for atheist language. In social circles of mine, we developed new idiomatic words and phrases to have a mode of expression unique to ourselves. The point of my message is that for atheists, I'm not sure it's fair to start with a purging of Christian terminology. My list of examples is intended to show that there are a LOT of idioms we use in English that are spiritually charged in some way or another. I would suggest taking a universal approach in this idea of creating a new atheistic cultural language.
As far as wanting to live in a Christian culture, I'm very much with you that I don't want to live in a distinctly American Christian culture. I find many aspects of it repulsive. However, that said, I'm willing to adopt enough spiritually charged idioms in English to effectively and meaningfully communicate with the people who happen to be in my life. To me, rejecting the language creates distance between me and the people I care about at no gain to me.
Side thought: I read in Wired magazine that it might be possible to build or buy a constructed island where you can go to set all the rules (and language!) for the people in your community. Just throwing that one out there for you. :-)
More thoughts on the idea of language idioms -- a "rule of thumb" about language in general is that learning a new language with fluency is something like 10% grammar/vocab and 90% idiom. Or something like that. I discovered this as I was learning to read and write Japanese. I consume a fair amount of Japanese culture and I was there for a couple weeks on business, so I thought it would be neat to learn more about the language. In that pursuit, I found that Japanese is full of other kinds of spiritual terminology that are not Christian. What I also found was that Japanese is an exceptionally open language in that they borrow words and phrases from many other languages, especially English. It even has a pheonetic alphabet used for imported words (Katakana). If you want to communicate meaningfully with a native Japanese speaker, you simply must learn the inherited language and all its weird spiritual idiomatic terms. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a language that doesn't have this feature. Except maybe computer languages, but even perl uses the keyword 'bless'!
Or you could try Esperanto. On an island you've purchased. :-)
If you can teach me a correct pool stance, John, you can *be* a Pool God.
Interesting enough, "Storm Gods" are all over the place in chaser terminology!
'Interesting enough, "Storm Gods" are all over the place in chaser terminology!'
At least they have the decency to keep it to the plural...
I like this post because it reflects what I think before I say certain things. I don't think I'll ever be able to eliminate the terminology from my vocabulary. I think my coworkers find it amusing that I will speak as though I believe in such things even though they know I don't.
Lee's first comment reminds me of how at work (at the pharmacy) I used to say "the body wasn't designed to..." which is complete nonsense. I've learned to start saying "the body hasn't adapted to..." and even throw in a "the body isn't that smart because it's merely giving a limited response to certain stimuli." Some people believe that if they are repeatedly vomiting, they need to let it continue because the body "knows what it's doing" and is trying to eliminate something that shouldn't be there. The problem is that you can dehydrate and die.
With some thought I could transform every Christian idiom or saying into a secular one. Take for instance, "go to hell." I could say "go to the garbage dump," (the real meaning of hell anyway) or "go home," or "go back to your cave," or "go to the dogs."
My favorite is replacing "God damn it" with "science debunk it!"
Your challenge is going to be a tough one John. I grew up in a household where my dad used the phrase "Jesus Christ" for almost every exclamation. I find myself constantly saying it, even to myself. That is going to be one hard habit to break.
It's certainly going to be hard to change this - these exclamations have simply become part of the language, and often there aren't other good phrases of similar meaning.
Nonetheless, I'm trying to change things myself in my own small way. I've started saying "Suffering Darwin!" instead of "Jesus Christ!" or "Holy Crap!". It sounds silly, but after a year of continuous use it's almost starting to feel normal and unforced. :)
At least to me, I'm sure everyone else just thinks I'm ridiculous.
But hey, I'd love to see it spread. You guys should start using it!
Oh, John - I love "go back to your cave". That's deliciously insulting.
Consider "go back to your cave, hominid" as the full version.
Man, that one's a winner. The meaning isn't exactly "go to hell" but it definitely has its own uses.
I basically agree with purging superstition from language. Except, of course, in the case of pool gods. They must exist; the way I suck at pool can only be explained supernaturally.
I get your point & while I agree, I think strictly dropping all religious/magical related language would hinder us from communicating with most folks.
I say 'bless you' when someone sneezes because its considered polite, not because I think a demon will attack the sneezer unless he/she is blessed. And saying "stop spraying snot" just wouldn't be the same.
Stopping to say "I rationally would appreciate it if you were consigned through natural processes into oblivion" just doen't have the punch of 'go to Hell'.
And Doug, as a looong time fan of Gordie Howe (and his sons) I appreciate you being here.
Cthulhu f'thagn!
Maybe I should start a movement inside the fundie movement to outlaw deviled eggs and devil food cake? And we wont watch hell's kitchen or American idol. I gotta go, my wife just made an angel food cake. yum yum
Peace out, feeno
I've actually gotten into a debate/argument with a friend, all because I said "Oh my God!" She said something like, "the fact that you're still saying this must mean that you still believe in God." Just so you get an idea of whom I was dealing with, she is the type of christian believer who will say stuff like, "you're tired because you didn't pray before you went to bed." If I said I had a headache, it was because I don't have the holy spirit in me.
I was trying to tell her that the reasons I'm still using these terms had nothing to do with whether I believe in God or the truth of his existence. I told her just because I stopped believing in God, doesn't mean I could just stop using words that I grew upon, as if it was something I could switch on and off anytime I want. But she could not differentiate between language and belief in this case. And it scares me to know that people can be so caught up with their belief in God, to the point where they're blinded to reason. If they say love is blind, I would guess God is too.
I react with a "Jesus Christ!" just like the next person, here I get a "stop calling the lord's name in vain!" Sometimes I switch it up with the f word as the lords middle name, just the same as I hear from the Christ lovers themselves. I could go on but.....
I can understand what Dr. Eller is saying, as there are things that I consciously don't do or say that would promote God any further. For example, I rarely ever say bless you when someone sneezes. And I never say I'll pray for you, where one normally would. I just wish them the best, or good luck, tell them to be strong, it's gonna be OK, etc. But I still say oh my god, oh my lord, Jesus, for Christ/god sake, god almighty, etc. If I add the swearing, it's not around people for the most part, otherwise, I say it without feeling it makes a difference whether I do or not.
I would like to think that atheists and non-believers using these terms will cause believers to realize how meaningless and irrelevant they are to the idea of a god they think they know so well and feel so close to. This I think is what happens when this god is imaginary, even non-believers can have access of their use as expressions.
I purged christian phrases from my vocabulary ages ago. It was a good mental exercise to police my language, and it prepared me for my next challenge. After marrying a Canadian, I had to learn to stop putting 'huh' on the end of sentences (it's crazy how many Americans do that, huh.)
Recently I've begun to add epitaphs to different gods from the pantheon of deities from other cultures and fiction. This seems to get some attention, and can be a catalyst for some fun conversations.
I've also created a new word 'Ciaodios' that I use for goodbye. Its a combination of ciao from Italian and dios from Spanish. To someone not paying attention it just sounds like adios. If they are clever, they notice that I'm actually saying 'goodbye god'
Great blog. Silly post imo.
Why have the greatest freedoms, like the ability for us to chat on this blog, come from "western cultures ... dominated by Christian language, rituals, symbols, arts, music, habits, and so forth?"
Christians might start thanking you for trying to not take the Lord's name in vain. ;-)
DrMark,
Don't forget that from the first book burnings in the 300s to the inquisitions in the middle ages to the theocracy in early colonial New England, "freedom of expression" was mostly unheard of in Christian society. Not until very, very recently.
Think about that before you [apparently] infer that without Christianity there'd be no freedom of speech.
Philip R
It was the original post that said that western culture was "dominated" by Christianity; and I doubt anyone would say western cutlure is less than any other regarding freedoms. The very atrocities you are speaking about were gradually eliminated throughout history as appeals to Scripture and Christian truth grew in their domination of culture, not as such lessened.
Once we get the usual cliche Crusade Inquisition witch burning Calvinistic atrocities out of the way (no - I do not make light or think light of those terrible abberations) of historical excuses, the historical cumulative behavior of Christian organizations and cumulative influence of Christian principles far outweigh all other worldview contributions to the planet. Perfection? Far from it. But collectively and historically:
Who has built more private non-profit hospitals than anyone:
a) Christian organizations
b) Atheist organizations
c) Other religious organizations
Who has built more private non-profit orphanages?
a) Christian organizations
b) Atheist organizations
c) Other religious organizations
Who has built more private non-profit schools?
a) Christian organizations
b) Atheist organizations
c) Other religious organizations
Who is doing more to bring fresh water to parts of Africa?
a) Christian organizations
b) Atheist organizations
c) Other religious organizations
Who is doing more to fight the modern sex-slave trade?
a) Christian organizations
b) Atheist organizations
c) Other religious organizations
Who is doing more on a private non-profit basis to cope with the AIDS crisis?
a) Christian organizations
b) Atheist organizations
c) Other religious organizations
Who is doing more to prevent atrocities against minority religions, including the current abuses and executions against witches in the southern Pacific rim?
a) Christian organizations
b) Atheist organizations
c) Other religious organizations
What governments have done more to improve the quality of living among their nationalities and the world - majoritive Christian nations or Atheist-based? That is not a debate game the atheists want to start playing when they consider the 20th century atheist-based regimes and governments committed more atrocities than all of previous history combined.
Does that excuse Christian historical abuse and current bad behavior? Absolutely not - but let's be honest about the perspective. Christians should own up to their failures, including this nation's sad horrific history of slavery, absence of women's suffrage, prejudice and hatred, especially when such abuses wrongly based upon Scriptural doctrine as excuses - but let's be honest about the perspective. Historically, the appeal to Scripture has resulted in social improvement far more than it has casued abuse - look at the life-long struggle of William Wilberforce against slavery, for example - a struggle based upon an appeal to Chritianity and right Christian behavior. Names like St. Matthew's St Mark's St. John's St. Luke's St. Paul's, St. Jude's Children's Hospital etc. cover this globe with human-lifting institutions of service and goodwill far more than any St. Stalin St. Hitler St. Pol Pot St. Mao or other leaders of atheism-based society / government.
Thanks for that, DrMark.
Whether you're right or wrong, you've raised what I think is a very important, yet seldomly discussed, question.
What are the likely sociological effects of a belief, if held by a large number of people?
We can shoot down truth claims ad infinitum, but where might it get us in the end?
For all the whacked-out stuff coming from religious circles, I don't see how we'd be better off if we assumed there were absolutely nothing to account for after we die.
Bernie Madoff sure had a good thing going. How many others like him see the world as their playground and die with the satisfaction of having "won at the game of life."
The guy at Sophie's Ladder may be off his rocker sometimes, but I agree with him that many have the attitude that they can just say, "screw you, what do I care," to those who tell them that it really, really isn't nice for them to be doing things they really, really "ought" not to be doing.
DrMark,
"Appealing to Scripture" is precisely what caused the inquisitions, Protestant violence against Catholics (and vice-versa), and the pogroms against the Jews.
And I had hoped you would be above the extremely tired "BUT STALIN/MAO/HITLER WAS AN ATHEIST" associations with atheism.
Why should you be allowed to judge atheism primarily on its worst examples, and then deny that Christianity should be judged primarily on its worst examples (Torquemada/Charlemagne/various popes)? Double-standard much?
Try being more even-handed.
DrMark
Who had attached along with all those 'charities' the evangelizing about religion and so in the process destroyed great numbers of 'perfectly good' native religions and allowed the accompanying native culture to slide into oblivion? Yep, Christianity. All that 'free helping' came and comes with a price tag. Give up your religion and therefore part of you culture and a Christian will help you, sure. Insist on continuing with all aspects of your religion and culture and I bet the help goes somewhere else. It is not charity, it is growing the church.
Post a Comment