An End of Religion?

If you are of the opinion that religion is a human creation, invented to explain things about the world, to give meaning, to maintain a power structure, or for any other "practical" purpose (and not something given to people by some supernatural entity), then religion by itself is not the cause of the problems in the world; people are. People invented religions, and they reflects people's worldviews.

And if you recognize that religion evolves and change over time, then it's logical to conclude that religious people interpret their religion to meet their own cultural or individual biases, and their is no "true" form of the religion and never was, since it's always a product of it's culture.

And if you are of the opinion that religion is irrational, or that following a religion is irrational, yet people practice it anyway; if they can always say "it's just a mystery" when then encounter an apparent contradiction or irrational aspect or cognitive dissonance, then they can and will use their religion to justify anything they want to believe, good or bad. They can always read into it what they want to read into it.

Now, having a formal structure portrayed as something outside of human control reasonably likely ends up creating a positive feedback loop, where the biases of the religious followers, positive and negative, become reinforced and magnified and passed down over time. They are thus are reinforced as "correct" because their personal opinions, feelings, thoughts, etc. are attributed to an outside, infallible, or at least superior, authority. But take away the religion, take away the supernatural authority, and the original feelings, biases, and opinions are still there. They are what founded the religious point of views. And if religion does change with culture, then new biases and ideas, good and bad, are always being added and taken away.

And remember, these biases and thoughts come from people.

So if harmful and helpful perspectives come from people, and people invented religion to support their perspectives (consciously or subconsciously) then an end of religion will not spell an end to either the harmful or helpful aspects of religion. Sexism, xenophobia and racism, community, compassion - people experience these things and invented irrational support for them to be "Truth." If people invented religion, then without religion, they may very well simply invent other, new, irrational support for them to be true. An end of religion would not mark the end of the human irrationality that brought religion into being in the first place. It would not mark the end of harm done in the name of religion, just the end of it being in the name of religion. It would not suddenly bring about pure rationality.

And indeed, we see sexism and racism in atheists because not all atheists are rational, or even necessarily more rational than religious people. Or who even use their supposed rationality to support harm they do to "less rational" people. We see demographic majorities and non-oppressed groups, regardless of religion, claim discrimination when they encounter their privilege. We see cognitive dissonance on some scale in nearly everyone.

Promote rational thinking, promote self-awareness, promote challenging your own subconscious biases even though it's hard. Promote reason-based humanism, promote a rational alternative to interacting with the world and improving it, promote something everyone can comprehend with no prerequisite biases. Religion as the "true" meaning of the universe, will fall away on its own. Maybe.

People aren't perfectly rational and likely never will be. But if religion remains as simply something that gives people personal meaning, does that really matter to anyone else? Should it? I don't think the goal is the end of religion. I think the goal is minimizing harm. Harm may be magnified by religion because it's the current system we have, but it's not caused by it. Compassion may be integrated into religion, but it's not created by it. Promoting rationality, acknowledging human compassion and human harm instead of attributing them both to outside forces, that is how we improve the world. That is how we keep ourselves from simply inventing new irrational systems that magnify our irrationalities and harm.

It's neverending...

Me: I saw a comic explaining the usual thing of how introverts spend energy interacting with others and how extroverts get energy from interacting with others and how that difference can be misunderstood as being anti-social.
Psychologist: Yes?
Me: Someone left a comment saying "Oh! That makes so much sense now."
Psychologist: [nods]
Me: How many times does that difference have to be explained before people get it?!
Psychologist: [laughs]


Another Frustration:

Why do so many people still have a problem with the scientific concept of a theory? Example: "Evolution is just a theory." "Theory" has been defined and explained probably millions of times, usually directly to the very people who say "it's just a theory," yet that term keeps being used incorrectly over and over. Why?! What do we have to do to get people to stop misusing the concept and arguing against a strawman? And please don't give me that they just don't want to "get it." I have a hard time believing that most people who claim to care so much about the strength of their argument are so easily able to just pretend to be ignorant. Some may just be manipulative jerks, but all of them? No, I can't believe that.

Why am I angry?

#Solidarityisforwhitewomen highlights many of the ways feminism as it is currently, has a bias towards addressing issues that affect white women, and doesn’t really address issues affecting WoC. Libby Anne points out some highlights. I agree and think this is an important topic to address if we want to grow and improve, both individually and as a philosophy and movement.

So why am I angry reading this? And why am I angry with critiques of liberals’/progressives’ privilege? I agree, so why am I angry reading about it? I’m angry with the people who don’t see or don’t care about their privilege, yes, but that’s not what this is. This is anger at the people pointing it out. Why? I know they’re correct; I actively look for and try to check my own privilege; I read about these problems deliberately; in some cases, they’re saying things I’m already aware of. I want these issues exposed. So why am I angry at them?

Other people who don’t want to admit they have privilege get angry when these issues are raised. They don’t like thinking they’re part of a social system that treats people differently; that they’re contributing to racism, sexism, etc.; that they may not have “earned” everything they have in life; that their experiences are not, or should not be, the default. But the issues still need to be raised and the deniers’ anger about it dealt with. Maybe if someone could figure out why I’m angry when I do care and want to know and even already do know, maybe that will help find a way to approach other people’s rejection of and anger about the problems and move forward.

Follow-up links and some others I like

I suppose if I'm going to claim feminists do address how sexism harms men, I should posts some links to that, huh.

First up is what I think is a fantastic overview of all the problems I've heard/seen talked about other places from feminist and atheist Greta Christina:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2010/07/26/5-stupid-unfair-and-sexist-things-expected-of-men/
or
http://www.alternet.org/story/147626/5_stupid,_unfair_and_sexist_things_expected_of_men

I admit I'm surprised to see her start of by saying we don't talk about sexism's effect on men much since I've seen it mentioned in terms of male body image in my university's mental health center going back a few years, but then, that's just one specific area and this post is a few years old, so, there's that.

Sarah Moon is a Christian(?) feminist (sorry, I don't really follow her stuff, I just coincidentally came across it today and thought it was appropriate,so I hope I got that right) who here is talking about sexual violence againts women, but begins by addressing sexual violence against men as well:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/sarahoverthemoon/2013/06/you-are-not-your-own-series-on-hostile-and-benevolent-sexism/

Libby Anne, my favorite blogger, discusses the limiting expectations gender roles place on her son:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/01/why-my-son-bobby-needs-feminism-too.html
and how her patriarchal upbringing distortered her view of men:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/02/men-arent-sex-addled-beasts-theyre-just-individuals.html
while her husband talks about the benefits he gets from birth control and egalitarian relationships:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/01/is-contraception-emasculating-sean-responds.html

Libby Anne actually frequently mentions how gender roles and sexism affect men, even though it's not usually the main focus of much of her writing.

And one more that I jst found that more thoroughly addresses some of the issues I mentioned anti-feminists like to bring up: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/10/08/the-disadvantages-of-being-a-man/


Some other things:
Lately, I've been coming across a lot of discussions about sexualizing and objectifying women, and I want to put my favorites all in one place. I would also like to point out that all of these also mention the harm it does to men, even if that's not the focus.

First, my favorite breakdown of what exactly people are complaining about when they talk about sexualized female characters. He does a fantastic job of starting with the claim and progressively addressing each rebutal you'd likely here in a conversation on the topic. Even more impressive is that this came from a guy who only came to realize he's a feminist after posting this, and comments as such in an edit half-way through:
http://thegamesofchance.blogspot.com/2011/12/feature-sexism-in-character-design.html

I do at some point plan to follow up his breakdown with some of my own ideas based on his last conclusion, but that will be in the future.

Second is Objectification and...Men? from Jimquisition. Similar to the one above, but in video form, and without the very facinating conclusion from the blog above. Instead, though, he discusses what video game companies have actually said regarding sexualized women characters. He also addressing how this affects men:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hR9UMgOFeLw

And finally, Feminist Frequency's Tropes vs. Women Part 2, which lays out pretty much all my concerns with stories that revolve around harming women to create emotion and tension, typically for male protagonists (Flynn, I'm looking at you...):
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/05/damsel-in-distress-part-2-tropes-vs-women/