Thomas Paine and the Debunking of Religion

I've been reading Thomas Paine's pamphlet, The Age of Reason, and am struck by how incredibly radical it still seems today.  Sure, times have changed (he wrote it in 1794).  What he would have thought of as "the church" in many contexts would now be more applicable to "megachurches".  But his fundamental debunking of religion, specifically Christianity, is as damning as ever.

A few good quotes:
On the bible as mythology

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

 On the silliness of the creation story:

Why it has been called the Mosaic account of the creation, I am at a loss to conceive. Moses, I believe, was too good a judge of such subjects to put his name to that account. He had been educated among the Egyptians, who were a people as well skilled in science, and particularly in astronomy, as any people of their day; and the silence and caution that Moses observes, in not authenticating the account, is a good negative evidence that he neither told it nor believed it.

 On the misinterpretation of language:

All the remaining parts of the Bible, generally known by the name of the Prophets, are the works of the Jewish poets and itinerant preachers, who mixed poetry, anecdote, and devotion together--and those works still retain the air and style of poetry, though in translation.

There is not, throughout the whole book called the Bible, any word that describes to us what we call a poet, nor any word that describes what we call poetry. The case is, that the word prophet, to which a later times have affixed a new idea, was the Bible word for poet, and the word 'propesytng' meant the art of making poetry. It also meant the art of playing poetry to a tune upon any instrument of music.

We read of prophesying with pipes, tabrets, and horns--of prophesying with harps, with psalteries, with cymbals, and with every other instrument of music then in fashion. Were we now to speak of prophesying with a fiddle, or with a pipe and tabor, the expression would have no meaning, or would appear ridiculous, and to some people contemptuous, because we have changed the meaning of the word.

We are told of Saul being among the prophets, and also that he prophesied; but we are not told what they prophesied, nor what he prophesied. The case is, there was nothing to tell; for these prophets were a company of musicians and poets, and Saul joined in the concert, and this was called prophesying.

It occurred to me as I read how obvious it felt to me when I was young to critique the religion in which I was raised. This was no doubt due in large part to Hinduism and reincarnation being such alien concepts to my social network (although, in Santa Cruz, maybe not so much).  In my early thoughts, as I neared a conclusion that religion and God were human inventions, I came upon such arguments as I was able fashion alone.

Off the top of my head, I try and recall a few:

• Infinite Regression: If God created the universe, then who created God.  Science faces the same problem.  But science doesn't invent an all-powerful entity.  It simply says we don't know. 

• Suffering: There's no explanation for it. 

• Multiplicity: There are so many religions, how could one possibly know which one is correct?  The vast majority of people simply follow that they were born into.

• Ego: Humans love to invent things.  Our recorded history is nothing if not one big exercise in magical thinking.  This seems much better explained by the limitations of our complicated mind than evidence that one of these ridiculous stories happens to be true.

• Evidence: There isn't any.

While I won't go as far as to say that religion is necessarily a force for evil in the world, I will say that it is largely stupid and unhealthy.  While many will find it comforting and helpful, and in many cases it is probably better than any practical alternative, it contains inherent procedures of thought that are at best constricting and at worst, deadly and oppressive.  On the whole describing it as in many ways a cancer upon the human race is quite justified.  While it has also been helpful, it is a habit that would be best replaced with a  more reasonable world view and program for living.

Thomas Paine was a deist, likely in the manner of what would later come to be described as pantheism.  I'm not sure yet why he chose to stop there.  Although writing two hundred years ago, he would have far fewer sociological and scientific resources from which to level a critique of the very notion of God itself.  But in his deism he was able to find all the goodness and spirituality he seemed to have needed.  It was in fact from a place of profound moral righteousness that he drew the courage to challenge the religion he thought was a source of evil in the world.

Atheists too often get stuck bickering with the silliness of religionists, instead of staking out new moral ground and claims of righteous humanity.  In the end, it will be this philosophical bedrock upon which future Atheists people will feel comfortable resting.  And what is more, the questions there seem much more interesting and challenging than arguing about whether one or another magical fantasy exists.

The Depression Suggestion

Yesterday I felt somewhat depressed. I had woken up with pretty intense pain - maybe a 5 or 6, which for me is above my normal 3 or 4. My thoughts also had begun to turn towards the impending return to school, the pressures of my boss and the daunting prospects of teaching something almost completely new. And my mood was altered.

I realized a common issue I agonize over when depressed is what might be "causing" it. I inevitably have been dwelling on some element of present dissatisfaction. These generally fall into the categories of neck pain, interpersonal or professional troubles. The neck pain I have generally come to understand as beyond my control - despite the poisonous notion in various circles that the original source of the pain is psycho-dynamic dissonance, its remedy being of course intensive self-reflection and scrutiny. (This is utter nonsense. While psycho-dynamics do exist, they only contribute to overall stress, which in turn exacerbates an underlying physical condition. The idea that they are themselves the root cause of physical pain is a deeply distressing invalidation.) To the extent that the physical pain promotes the depressed mood, I must simply carry on and make my peace with it.

And yet the interpersonal and professional troubles are not - in theory - beyond my control. There are legitimate concerns that, were they to be properly addressed, could cease to be a source of continued stress. The trouble is that in a depressive state, legitimate concerns become obscured by illegitimate ones. Perseveration is a frequent symptom.

Something interesting to note regarding the depressive mood is that it mirrors the mood that accompanies genuine loss. As with other disorders, such as anxiety, it may be true that the mind confuses a physiological reaction with a mental one. For instance, it is said that symptoms of anxiety such as sweating, rapid breathing, quickened pulse can actually trigger the onset of an attack, as if the mind associates these feelings with panic, follows its own fear of panic into real panic. With depression, could it be that the mind interprets the physiological experience of depression, similar as it is to a genuine state of loss, as requiring "justification", and thus inventing mental activities to recreate a similar experience. So while the body feels as if a loved one has just died, in reality there is no real mental anguish. Thus it is invented to create the illusion of unity between body and mind.

Unfortunately there often are reasons to experience some level of mental anguish. And frequently they are in fact the original stressors. Yet the problem is the degree to which they justify reasonable levels of anguish. While one may be justified in worrying about an upcoming job interview as it is important and performance is critical, feelings of depression would not be appropriate. And yet if this normal stress induces a depressive state, the mind is then faced with the cognitive dissonance of events not matching physiology, and introduces a sort of synthetic anguish. In this state, the rectification of causes for worry (Yes, I am qualified; No, they will not think I am too slovenly) will almost certainly not alleviate the depression. And so the mind often becomes even more determined to find some explanation for the mood, and turns up the volume, escalating the conflict.

Mood as the News

On the front lines of emotional illness...

This weekend, reeling from the likely prospect that I will not be being hired back in the fall, I've somehow managed to avoid the lapping tendrils of outright depression. Long a stalwart nemesis of mine, entangled as it is in the existential threat chronic pain poses throughout my days, I'm fortunate to have - at least as of this writing - managed to keep it at bay. God knows why (that saucy bastard!), but I've been able to abide in the belief that my employer's decision wasn't reflective enough of my true capacity as an educator to fully warrant the painful cognitive battlefield of self-deconstruction. Oh, I hear her calling, at least once every few minutes, but like a cheeky damsel I chasten her with a limp wrist and wiggle her elsewhere. So, let's continue to strike while the iron is hot, shall we?


From the positive state, it is difficult to imagine how much could be given over to a negative state of conflict.

The negative mood consumes everything and makes everything relative to its perceived unresolved tension. Every small thing becomes indicative of that same vast, unresolved struggle.

The positive mood is always emphasizing the positive. The negative is there, but more or less resolved. And if not, it is more than buoyed by the comfort in knowing - truly appreciating - the positive. In a positive state, things could happen in one's life that could never happen in a negative state without causing systemic risk. A happy glow surrounds everything.

This is not so much to do with the inherent qualities of that thing (or idea), but its perceived meaning from within each state. The state consumes one and refracts conscious reality through its prism. Things are looked for (or not looked for), but the emphasis is always dependent on the state. The glass is full, or empty; opportunity is there, or not; the self is good, or bad.

The positive state is perfection: it is ebullient, resilient, decisive, generous, and objective.

The negative state is flaw: it is cynical, mordant, sluggish, selfish and biased.

These seem to exist on a spectrum, or at the very least seem to each have spectrums that overlap. The excesses of the positive state - over-generalization and self-delusion - are base characteristics of the negative state. While the positive state exhibits both through a lack of self-reflection, the negative state does so through an excess of it.

The trick is dealing with genuine catastrophe. For at once one is stricken by the emotion pain of having suffered a blow, and the realization that some real flaw exists in one's self and must be corrected. This is never an easy task, however. If it were so easy to sort out what mistakes were made, they likely never would have been. On occasion, this crashing wave seems to wipe the slate clean, receding at once to provide clarity and absolution from past sin.

But to degree that one suffers from melancholic tendencies, the wave never seems to recede. It washes one under, every hour driving the victim deeper and deeper into his watery grave. The choice is never then to simply put things into the past and return to the surface. Shackles are there! Quickly, they must be unfastened! The blindness of the foggy deep all around, the overwhelming sense of doom welling into bright bubbles of burning panic exploding all around.

It is in this desperate, frigid scene that important decisions must be made. What is real must be sorted from fiction. Relative importance must be measured and adjusted, matters then sorted accordingly. The past must be reconstituted and evidence examined. A framework must be erected, refuse removed in rusty, finicky trucks and labels affixed for future reference. Slowly, things must be rebuilt.

And then, just like that, one emerges. All that seems so far away, so long ago. It is as if these really are two places, two very different states of consciousness. Yet for those of us prone to falling, the water is never more than a few unfortunate events away.