The Fortunate Believer

« Spidey the Third | Main | Derby Days »

04 May 2007 04:55 pm

Of Karl Rove's statement (according to Christopher Hitchens, at least) that he's "not fortunate enough to be a person of faith," Jon Chait writes:

The quote itself is far more interesting than the fact, which doesn't surprise me in the least. If you don't believe in God, then why would you think believers are "fortunate" for putting their faith in a nonexistent higher being? You wouldn't. Yet Rove, for political reasons, must genuflect to the notion that religious people are morally superior to atheists. The line perfectly encapsulates the condescending and way Republican elites have manipulated religion.

I don't think calling religious believers "fortunate" is the same thing as calling them "morally superior." I've heard plenty of atheists remark that they envy religious people their faith in God, an afterlife, the beneficence of the universe, or what-have-you. This sentiment isn't universal, obviously (see Hitchens himself for a counter-example), but I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone who's convinced that life is a meaningless round of pleasure, pain, and Machiavellian campaigning that ends when you die to feel a little envious of people who believe something slightly more optimistic.

Comments (31)

The Chait comment assumes that straight epistemological validity is the only criteria for evaluating the desirability (as compared to the trruth) of a belief. Rove's position is intellectually honest if he believes that religion is not literally true but has very desirable consequences. I know such a position is possible as I hold it myself.
[I express no opinion on whether Rove is pandering or likewise has conflicting pragmatic and epistemological assessments of religion.]

Posted by Gabriel | May 4, 2007 6:07 PM

Chait has it completely wrong. Rove hints that he is not blessed with the bliss of ignorance. Rove, if guilty of anything, is guilty of condescension, and condescension of course springs from a sense of one's own superiority.

Posted by Dennis | May 4, 2007 6:58 PM

Ross, what you heard was atheists being condescending-but-nice.

Posted by Random Dude | May 4, 2007 8:22 PM

ross, you seem to be implying that as an atheist rove thinks that 'life is a meaningless round of pleasure, pain and machiavellian campaigning'. this is borderline bigotry. atheists have a richer sense of human life because their minds are not infected, for instance, by the gruesome death-worshipping homo-erotics of chrsitianity.

Posted by lucretius | May 4, 2007 8:55 PM

My mother is an atheist turned Unitarian in her old age and a loyal Democrat (I don't think she has ever voted Republican for President even once in her life). She has said several times pretty much what Karl Rove said, almost word for word.

So I think Hitchens is spouting off.

Posted by CPA | May 4, 2007 10:11 PM

It's worse than condescension. It's like the leftist caricature of Leo Strauss--the people must be kept blissfully ignorant by noble lies crafted and maintained by the knowing elite.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 5, 2007 9:14 AM

Re: If you don't believe in God, then why would you think believers are "fortunate" for putting their faith in a nonexistent higher being?

I think this taking the statement to extremes. As I read it it's more like some single person (even someone who basically plans to stay that way) having the second thought about it and saying, "I'm not fortunate enough to have a spouse and kids".

Re: atheists have a richer sense of human life because their minds are not infected, for instance, by the gruesome death-worshipping homo-erotics of chrsitianity.

Huh? I assure you that I do not worship death. As for "homoerotics", do I detect a faint whiff of anti-gay bigotry in this odd notion? Anyway, being gay myself, I can also assure that there is absolutely nothing gay-appealing in the Reverends Falwell, Robertson et al. And while the Pope may wear Prada, I'd rather take a vow of celibacy than sleep with him.

Posted by JonF | May 5, 2007 10:53 AM

JonF: re: death worship - so you don't think christ's torture and exection are central to christianity? and you don't regard the cross as a being it's central symbol? by the way, i've always thought that if jesus were born in the twentieth century in, say, texas, the christian religion's central symbol would be an electric chair.

as for 'anti-gay bigotry': i am in no way denigrating homo-erotics, only pointing out that the christian religion is suffused with them - which is what makes falwell and his crowd even more laughable than they already would be.

Posted by lucretius | May 5, 2007 11:29 AM

Re: If you don't believe in God, then why would you think believers are "fortunate" for putting their faith in a nonexistent higher being?

Because you concede that you might be wrong about your atheism. There are atheists who are sincerely and powerfully drawn to religion but can't make the intellectual leap of faith needed to believe. Maybe some atheists are being condescending Leo Strauss caricatures when they express sentiments like Rove's, but not all.

Re: the "homo-erotics" of Christianity, I'm reminded of a sermon of St. Bernard in which he instructs his monks to meditate imagining a progressive series of kisses on the body of Christ--on the foot, hand, cheek, mouth. Late medieval mysticism is full of stuff like that. I think mocking it as "homo-erotic" misses the point, but it is interesting how much more freely medieval mystics conceived of union with God in erotic terms.

Posted by BP | May 5, 2007 12:35 PM

hey BP, if the st bernard sermon isn't 'homo-erotic' then what is it? in fact, your last phrase is a synonym for what i wrote, but in a five dollar periphrasis.

Posted by lucretius | May 5, 2007 1:13 PM

I'm with BP and Ross on this one. I have been trying to convince myself to become Christian for some time, but I have not been able to make that leap of faith.

If there were just one religion in the world, I'd cheerfully sign on. But there's all these different ones, with mutually hostile views, and mutually exclusive mandates.

Do all Christians secretly know they are wrong to dismiss the truth of Islam? Do all Mormons try to bury deep their constant, nagging suspicion that the Hindus have it right after all?

From the outside, they all look like human constructs, too-often hostile to reason and knowledge, designed to understand that which is beyond understanding, and control the uncontrollable.

Like Karl Rove, I'd be extremely pleased to be proven wrong. How comforting it must be! I tip my hat to Rove for stating straightforwardly that he is not a believer-- it would make his life easier to profess belief.

That said, it is not so that life without belief in any god, gods, or any promises or orders from the supernatural realm is "a meaningless round of pleasure, pain and machiavellian campaigning." (I believe Ross's intent in that sentence was to put forth how Rove himself might wistfully caricature his own views when he mulls over belief from an unbeliever's perspective). Humans feel love and experience joy, and find meaning in relationships, achievements, defining and adhering to ethical standards, rousing stories, nature, sonnets, symphonies, "Jeopardy", and baseball box scores.

We can do just fine without the supernatural, even if we suspect we might be missing out on a little something. Every March, during the NCAA Tournament, I pity people who aren't basketball fans; but I recognize that even non-basketball fans can live a fulfilling life.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 5, 2007 2:52 PM

I shoulda previewed-- there's some stuff in my post that could be read as condescending. I don't mean to be. I genuinely wish I could make the leap of faith, and believe in the majority religion in this country, but I haven't been able to do it. It'd be more than merely "comforting," I would guess.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 5, 2007 3:02 PM

lucretius:

Fine, Christianity is totally gay.

Elvis:

I pretty much agree with all of that. I would add that I think thoughtful believers do admit doubt. And I would say that the desire to believe in God has something to do with wanting to believe that there's a single meaning behind everything, rather than having to find bits of meaning as we go along. Something about that is really appealing to most people, including me; I don't pretend to know why.

Posted by BP | May 5, 2007 3:13 PM

oh, BP, you can do better than that - i.e. when a poin of yours is disputed resort to lame sarcasm. however - what was jesus doing unmarried at 33? i.e., why was he allowed to participate in every type of relationship (friends, colleagues) apart from the one that makes one most human? why do priests where dresses? what's with the catholic idolisation of the virgin mary? why was she a virgin? i.e., what's so disgusting about heterosexual sex - which presumably was invented by god? what's with catholic representations of jesus generally in art? and on we could go. but i'm being periphrastic: christianity is totally gay.

Posted by lucretius | May 5, 2007 6:40 PM

Lucretius, are you - like - nine years old?

Posted by Pithlord | May 5, 2007 8:06 PM

sorry, pithlord, are you - like - just in it for the lazy insults?

Posted by lucretius | May 5, 2007 8:10 PM

Re: JonF: re: death worship - so you don't think christ's torture and exection are central to christianity?

For a certain type of (somewhat warped) Christian, yes. Mel Gibson comes to mind, though there are other examples in the medieval and early modern West as well. Still, you should look at all of Christianity, in both space and time: the death of Christ focus emerged in the Middle Ages, and became prominent in the late Middle Ages, possibly as a reaction to the disasters of the 14th century (Black Death and all that). Early Christianity, and Eastern Christianity still today, and also of course, the liberal Christianity of today, has a very different focus: the incarnation and also the Resurrection, not the Crucifixion. Check out the artistic imagery of an Eastern Christian church sometime. You'll find a Crucifix and probably an icon of the Crucifixion off in the corner and/or flanking the altar. But the image that dominates it's usually that of the Risen Christ (Pantocrator) and there's not a trace of death or suffering it it. Indeed, even the crucifixion images are oddly impassive.
be careful when making general statement about an instituition that spans continents and millennia. Most likely those statements will be true only of some limited and local region with which you are familiar.

Re: hey BP, if the St Bernard sermon isn't 'homo-erotic' then what is it? in fact, your last phrase is a synonym for what i wrote, but in a five dollar periphrasis.

It's just-plain old erotic. Or maybe theo-erotic? After all you can find very similar language employed by female mystics (e.g., St Teresa of Avila) to describe their relationship with Jesus.

Posted by JonF | May 6, 2007 9:31 PM

Lucretius: Priests do not wear "dresses." Priests, like judges and graduating seniors, wear robes that were normal clothing when these practices were invented (ever seen a statue of an ancient Roman?) but have been been long since replaced by pants among the general public.

Posted by James Kabala | May 7, 2007 12:25 PM

Hi. Yes, interesting surrender all are described. I recently read
about this article in on the other resource. There plenty of are
written about tramadol prescription .
LOW PRICE!!! Free Piils package for all reorders!!!

Posted by sdhgfsygfa | May 28, 2007 6:10 AM

a spëarrow in the hand is better than a cock on the roof

Posted by roy | July 30, 2007 1:38 AM

http://poi84kk.iquebec.com/
xauar

Posted by Dansgcoi | August 21, 2007 4:16 PM

http://poi84kk.iquebec.com/
xauar

Posted by Dansgcoi | August 21, 2007 4:16 PM

http://safekwm.iquebec.com/

Posted by Markgkeso | August 22, 2007 3:07 PM

http://oiwemenn.iespana.es
http://poewnej.iquebec.com
http://inrnnmmm.awardspace.com

Posted by Markodswbf | August 23, 2007 3:39 PM

Thank GOD, You found out something, that this world realy need. http://mike18movies.ifrance.com/