Fundie 101: We’re all very, very naughty

As I’ve gotten more immersed in atheistic literature and websites, I’ve noticed that some atheists ascribe motivations or beliefs to Christians, particularly evangelicals, that aren’t quite on the mark, or that leave out important ideas. This isn’t to cast stones — it’s hard to get the full picture unless you’ve been in the belly of the beast, so to speak. The Gent has, both as an evangelical fundie (we’re talking born-again, tongue-speaking, almost-went-to-bible-college fundie. Snap!) and an adult convert to Catholicism (little funny to say about that. Wine and crackers anyone?). And so, to add my two cents to my atheist friends’ discussions of the wacky things religious people believe, I’m happy to introduce Fundie 101, a crash course in the basics (and some not-so-basics) of what the deeply religious believe. Today’s lesson: why fundies think atheists are either immoral or amoral.

While recently watching Richard Dawkins’ documentary “Root of All Evil?” (episodes available here and here), I was stricken by an exchange between Dawkins and Christian schoolmaster Adrian Hawkes:

Adrian Hawkes:  If there is no God and there is no lawgiver, what does it matter what I do?  Why is rape wrong?  Why is pedophilia wrong? Why are any of these things wrong if there is no lawgiver?

Richard Dawkins:  You’ve just said a very revealing thing.  Are you telling me that the only reason why you don’t steal and rape and murder is that you’re frightened of God?

Hawkes:  I think that all people, if they think they can get away with something and there is no consequences, we actually tend to do that.  I think that is the reality.  Look at the world in which we live.  That is the reality.

The argument Dawkins employs here is one I’ve heard on several occasions. Sam Harris uses it to great effect, and bloggers and commenters frequently reference it. Heck, I’ve deployed it myself. “If the only reason you behave is because you’re afraid God will punish you, how can you call yourself ‘moral’ and me ‘immoral’ for not believing in God?” Dawkins deployed his question as a kind of “gotcha” — fully expecting his quarry to backtrack and say “well, no, of course God isn’t the only reason I behave morally.” But he didn’t. Instead, he stated (very inarticulately) a belief held by many evangelicals — “Yes, in fact, I probably would be a bawdy heathen if it weren’t for God.”

New Rules: No Religious Test

Bill Maher sums it up nicely when discussing the “no religious test” clause of the Constitution.

Why I won’t baptize my child

The Catholic doctrine of “Original Sin” is a particularly cruel belief.  A baby is damned from birth because, at the alleged beginning of human history, Adam and Eve screwed up.  God shuts out of his presence a child who has, quite literally, never done anything, good or bad, because of the sin of other person.  Talk about visiting the sins of the father upon his descendants (a doctrine that, ironically, Christians universally reject).  This vision of god is so heartless, so contrary to the notion of a loving deity, that Catholics had to soften it by inventing Limbo, where the souls of children who die stained only by Original Sin are supposedly sent, not suffering the torments of hellfire, but neither enjoying the presence of god.  That’s the best they could do.

 

The way for innocents to avoid Limbo, of course, is to be baptized.  Thus, the Catholic practice of dressing infants in oversized doilies and dribbling a bit of water over their fuzzy little heads.  Family and friends snap photos of the moistened tot, while the parents swear an oath to indoctrin – er – raise the child in the faith.  Then, just for good measure, the entire congregation rejects satan and all his works (which oddly does not include hideous christening gowns) and swears that they will support the parents in properly propagandizing Junior.

 

Which brings me to my mother-in-law.  When Mrs. MG and I announced that we’re expecting a Little Midwesterner, MIL quickly jumped to, “Oh, have you told your church?  You’ll have to start thinking about godparents!”  To be fair, Mrs. MG and I are former Catholics and have not yet broken it to MIL that we’re now atheists.

 

But that news must break, because I will not see our child baptized and “forgiven” for a fictional transgression committed by people who never existed, and I surely will not swear to hobble our child’s mind with the myths and superstitions of a religious upbringing.  Original Sin is only as true as the story of Adam and Eve, which is entirely false.  Science has revealed enough about the evolution of humans for us to know that there was no historical moment when a single progenitor pair of modern humans gave birth to the species.  Indeed, some of the precursor species of modern humans likely remained around even after Homo sapiens was established as a unique species.  In light of this knowledge, it is foolishness of the worse kind to believe that that our infant will bear a metaphysical black mark from the moment of birth arising from the “fall of man.”

 

That, and the fact that god does not exist and that his almighty wrath is, accordingly, the least of my worries for my kid.

 

I anticipate this will be the first real confrontation we’ll face over our atheism.  It has the potential to be ugly.  I expect some tears, and fear being ostracized by certain family members.  But sticking up for truth is more important than going along with ignorance just to get along.  That’s the first lesson I hope to teach our child.