“Faith is no reason.” That was the winning entry in the Center for Inquiry’s 2009 Blasphemy Contest and it’s been the headline to my Atheist Nexus profile page since I joined here. I think that faith and reason are antithetical qualities; they have nothing to do with each other and are effectively mutually exclusive by their very nature. Upon recent reflection, I realized that there are other positive qualities which are at odds with faith and which show it to be the false value which it is. One of these is expressed in a modification of that first statement: “Faith is not curious.”

One of the goads which brought me to that above conclusion was a story told by Ayaan Hirsi Ali some time back. She had described how reading Nancy Drew mysteries had been part of her path out of Islam and toward atheism, and her point is wonderfully clear. The business of investigation, of picking up clues and evidence supporting a hypothesis almost requires curiosity as a matter of course. Pursued properly and with discipline, such a process can give rise to discovery, the “a-ha!” experience, which can be both intensely satisfying and educating. Such an attitude, however, can be deadly to a blatant falsehood, and doubtless this is what Ayaan discovered for herself when applying those principles to the quran.

Many years ago, I recall reading in Playboy magazine a story about how some Christian children were being discouraged from curiosity by their parents, that their studies should focus on the bible and not on external texts or courses which stimulated critical thinking skills. I remember being aghast at that story without fully understanding why, though the reason now is utterly apparent. As with Ayaan, Nancy Drew and the quran, digging past the surface of the bible would no doubt reveal the problematic nature we all know it has: the misogyny, the homophobia, the ludicrous, overblown violence against anyone and anything not associated with Yahweh. This also rather begs the question about that great off-Sunday church activity: bible study. Do you really suppose that the leader of such groups would direct his or her students to chestnuts such as Psalm 137:9 or Judges 19:22-30? Would they read about how Lot similarly offered his daughters to a mob in Genesis 19:8, never mind all the horrendous laws and punishments outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy? A thorough, chapter by chapter reading of the bible would likely create more problems than it solved, which is why I suspect in most cases, bible study consists of selected passages being read to the class, rather than a systematic exploration of the entire work.

In his speech during the 2009 Intelligence Squared debate, Stephen Fry mentioned something which I thought was both extraordinary and diabolical: that people in England were once put to death for owning a bible in English. In those times, most bibles were printed in Latin, a language not much known outside the clergy and therefore secured from the eyes of the rabble. Translating the bible to English opens the Pandora’s Box described above pretty clearly, an event which could potentially disempower those of the cloth, once all its secrets were revealed. Obviously, the King James and subsequent versions of the bible have survived, as has Christianity, yet the chinks in its armor remain available for anyone with the desire to read it.

Curiosity and religion are indeed a dangerous mix, at least for those religions which care to maintain themselves, though that is becoming considerably more difficult in modern times. In fact, the danger is multiplied by the advent of the internet and sites such as the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, which gleefully offers not just the text but detailed analysis and categorization of its many faux pas. This may be why Isaac Asimov once said: “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”

Is it possible that, rather than killing the cat, curiosity killed the catechism?

Views: 229


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Michael Penn on June 19, 2016 at 9:41am

Faith is not curious but it needs a constant reinforcing to keep it valid. The faithful are constantly in church, at least once weekly. If this is not so, they "play along" with ideas of faith, at least as long as they can.

Faith needs memory and repetition. I may not remember directions to a certain location if I haven't been there in 30 years. I may discover that not seeing my wife in 2 years has made some permanent changes to our feelings for each other. To keep that current you must live together daily. Keeping things current is a learned and repeated thing. You may pick up where you left off and you may not.

Faith in the religious sense is a constant reinforcing of dogma that cannot be backed up with any evidence. It is kept alive with ignorant repetition in a similar way as "love" is kept alive in a relationship. One difference is that if you think you are in love there is usually an interaction. Faith, on the other hand, is totally static. Your faith is reinforced by making the meetings with others who believe as you do.

Another strange paradox is that others in your church group do NOT believe as you do. They all claim to, but it just isn't so. The church world is changing and in my lifetime the Apostle's Creed is no longer displayed in many churches. Still, they say they have the same "faith" as before. That's because they are told what to believe and have proof of nothing.

Comment by Grinning Cat on June 1, 2016 at 6:00pm

For Bertold and Michael:

(from spreadshirt.com)

Comment by Nona on June 1, 2016 at 1:49pm
Hmmm...I read every Nancy Drew novel I could get my hands on when I was a kid. I started to question anything said at church at age 9 or so...makes sense. Stifling a child's curiosity is so oppressive and horrible. It hurts my heart that some(likely most, then) kids grow up that way. :( I encourage it in mine....
Comment by Michael Penn on May 21, 2016 at 8:44pm

It was Omar who shot the deputy.

Comment by Loren Miller on May 20, 2016 at 11:43am

Indeed, James.  How many times have we heard that some god or other is beyond our comprehension, never mind the statement made by John Paul II that physicists shouldn't delve into the moment of creation, because it is supposedly reserved for religion.  Frankly that smacks way more of:

Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain!

Comment by Loren Miller on May 20, 2016 at 11:25am




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service