Douthat has always struck me as a extremely mediocre thinker, and Believe seems worse than his usual output. I can't bring myself to read it. I appreciate the sacrifice you made on our behalf (irony intended).
I don’t know who said this quote but I once read “Religion doesn’t work because it’s true. It’s true because it works..”. Hmmmm . Of course it’s not true, but does belief in it in fact, bring emotional benefits to the believers.? and at what cost? It seems to be a very expensive way to get some emotional benefits or satisfaction which I am not willing to pay. Nor do I have the emotional need or appetite that is satisfied by such religious beliefs, but I guess some people do.
I think it must work for some people as a shortcut to things like meaning and community. But at the core of it are truth claims and to me that fundamentally leaves me out. Even if the morals and the ideas about living were all on point.
Yes. So this poses the question, what is the difference between those who need this belief for its emotional benefits or stability and others, like us ,
who don’t need it? What is the psychological profile differences between the needers, or believers, and the rest of us, . psychology has failed us in this question so far. I think Religion acts like a therapy. It can also be an addiction because it produces brain chemicals that are emotionally satisfying. so, psychologically what is the condition that this belief satisfies or cures? We need a name for it and a description of it . then we could talk about other ways of resolving it or curing it other than delusional thinking. Evolutionary psychology might even be the path to understand this phenomenon.
interesting. Well perhaps the thing to do is ask people who’ve been on both sides of the equation. I’ve never believed so I can’t help with this! It looks like there is a teeny bit of science. Here’s a too-small study, but it has a summary of other research, so it could be helpful: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051122000254?via%3Dihub
Aside from a crummy t-shirt from Epstein Island, you mean?
It's very telling that RD's solution to seemingly everything is "kick your brain into neutral and coast in the sweet embrace of your bestest imaginary friend."
Maybe that's the saddest thing of all: he tries to make it so hard-headed and logical when fundamentally it's just needs answered by a story we tell ourselves.
And on some levels, that's totally fine. Whatever gets you through the day, right? It's when you try to force-feed it to me, or claim special rights and privileges because of it, or -- and this is the really big one -- when you conflate it with the laws and legislation of our secular republic. That's when I get seriously chapped.
Absolutely. (Although, I suppose I have shown that I can get a LITTLE miffed if you condescend to me, tell me I need the story, and furthermore that story is obviously true . . .:) )
That is the glory of this platform, Leslie! I don't have to go convince someone else to publish what I want to say. I realize that limits my reach, but it also leaves me time to do the work . . .
Now there’s a statement that would set scientific enquiry back three or so millenia!
His book is “Therefore, god” writ interminably. Tediously. Yadayada.
I, for one, am happy, joyful, satisfied to whatever depths my curiosity is able to plumb, with being nonreligious; and by times giddily gleeful with being irreligious!
Agreed! I just think it's so funny that if you're concerned with the question of "Where did all this come from?" you're satisfied with the answer "God" — when any precocious 8-year-old would clap back, "Well where did God come from?"
Very well done! And a joy to read!
Douthat has always struck me as a extremely mediocre thinker, and Believe seems worse than his usual output. I can't bring myself to read it. I appreciate the sacrifice you made on our behalf (irony intended).
At your service.
I immediately thought of this cartoon after reading your post.
I don’t know who said this quote but I once read “Religion doesn’t work because it’s true. It’s true because it works..”. Hmmmm . Of course it’s not true, but does belief in it in fact, bring emotional benefits to the believers.? and at what cost? It seems to be a very expensive way to get some emotional benefits or satisfaction which I am not willing to pay. Nor do I have the emotional need or appetite that is satisfied by such religious beliefs, but I guess some people do.
I think it must work for some people as a shortcut to things like meaning and community. But at the core of it are truth claims and to me that fundamentally leaves me out. Even if the morals and the ideas about living were all on point.
Yes. So this poses the question, what is the difference between those who need this belief for its emotional benefits or stability and others, like us ,
who don’t need it? What is the psychological profile differences between the needers, or believers, and the rest of us, . psychology has failed us in this question so far. I think Religion acts like a therapy. It can also be an addiction because it produces brain chemicals that are emotionally satisfying. so, psychologically what is the condition that this belief satisfies or cures? We need a name for it and a description of it . then we could talk about other ways of resolving it or curing it other than delusional thinking. Evolutionary psychology might even be the path to understand this phenomenon.
interesting. Well perhaps the thing to do is ask people who’ve been on both sides of the equation. I’ve never believed so I can’t help with this! It looks like there is a teeny bit of science. Here’s a too-small study, but it has a summary of other research, so it could be helpful: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051122000254?via%3Dihub
Nice job of critiquing, Kate. Thoughtful yet skewering!
Thank you!
Seth's presentation on "intelligent design" is hilarious. I just rewatched it recently.
This is what I subscribed for: Thoughtful takedowns of dumb arguments. Annotation was a bonus!
Love the graphics!!!
I could annotate all day long. If close reading + comments were a job . . . (Well, I guess I'm trying to make it one!)
Hahaha!!!
It's right there in his name! "Dou(bt)-that"!! Ha!! Thanks as always, Kate, for speaking out and making sense.
Sad state of affairs when Douthat is deemed an “intellectual”. It’s the times we live sadly.
"OK, now, David Brooks, whatcha got?"
Aside from a crummy t-shirt from Epstein Island, you mean?
It's very telling that RD's solution to seemingly everything is "kick your brain into neutral and coast in the sweet embrace of your bestest imaginary friend."
Maybe that's the saddest thing of all: he tries to make it so hard-headed and logical when fundamentally it's just needs answered by a story we tell ourselves.
And on some levels, that's totally fine. Whatever gets you through the day, right? It's when you try to force-feed it to me, or claim special rights and privileges because of it, or -- and this is the really big one -- when you conflate it with the laws and legislation of our secular republic. That's when I get seriously chapped.
Absolutely. (Although, I suppose I have shown that I can get a LITTLE miffed if you condescend to me, tell me I need the story, and furthermore that story is obviously true . . .:) )
Thank you again, Kate. I can only imagine the rest of the battle you had with RD in your head. Pretty intense, I bet.
Cherish those who seek the truth, but beware of those who find it. Voltaire
Well I had fun, too. But truly, pity my poor, constantly interrupted family . . .
"and I don't regret a thing" ha ha ha. Find that sad too-intellectual atheist to prop up his argument.
Wow. Think of all the things we believed as children. I suppose there's a Santa Claus, too. How wonderful to think!
Kate, please try to get a response (by you :)) to RD's book into the NY Review of Books. Or the Montgomery Advertiser. SOMEwhere.
That is the glory of this platform, Leslie! I don't have to go convince someone else to publish what I want to say. I realize that limits my reach, but it also leaves me time to do the work . . .
“Everyone should be religious.”
Now there’s a statement that would set scientific enquiry back three or so millenia!
His book is “Therefore, god” writ interminably. Tediously. Yadayada.
I, for one, am happy, joyful, satisfied to whatever depths my curiosity is able to plumb, with being nonreligious; and by times giddily gleeful with being irreligious!
Agreed! I just think it's so funny that if you're concerned with the question of "Where did all this come from?" you're satisfied with the answer "God" — when any precocious 8-year-old would clap back, "Well where did God come from?"