Being religious is like eating sand. It fills you up, tricks you into not being hungry, but has no nutritional value. When religious people argue that the lack of God or religion leaves an empty hole that cannot be filled by anything other than religion or spirituality, they’re mistaken or being misleading, perhaps because they’re so full of sand that they cannot make room for that very obvious thing that can, and does, fill that hole — good food. What your mind and body need is sustenance – real sustenance, which can take many different forms, but always has something in common — it passes the honesty test.
When you pass from belief to doubt, that critical stage necessary to eventually eschew religion entirely, you often maintain that craving for the easy fix of sand that will quickly fill you up and keep you distracted. The reason you have even an inkling of doubt is that the part of you that needs real sustenance knows that you’re deceiving it, and it wants real food. It wants truth and honesty, and your doubt is evidence that the sand you’ve been gulping down is only there to distract you from what you could be consuming. Once you pause a moment, to let some of the sand pass, and you take a bite of something curious and wondrous in and of itself, two things will happen. First, the part of you that you’ve been suppressing, that part that craves real sustenance, tells you that it wants more. Second, the habit you’ve formed, for probably years, maybe decades, sends override signals and demands sand intake – quickly, before you realize what’s happening.
If you choose, perhaps over time, perhaps cold turkey, to wean yourself from that sandy diet, and start filling yourself with alternatives, you’ll want more and more. But it doesn’t end there. Not even if you’ve purged yourself of sand. The habits you’ve built up over the years want an easy fix. Sand is easy to come by. It’s everywhere, and people love to feed it to each other, because it helps to justify and perpetuate their own habits. The arguments about that “hole” that needs filling, with God or religion or both, start to seem reasonable. You want to get that sand fix. You begin to second guess yourself, and start arguing with yourself that maybe it is a good idea to be on the “safe” side of Pascal’s wager. What have you got to lose? You lived all those years being religious, so it couldn’t hurt to go back. And it’s easy, so easy to do, and to be accepted into the fold, accepted back into the flock which you abandoned.
But you realize that the reason sand is so easy is because real sustenance is so challenging. Answers to everything aren’t laid out before you in connect-the-dots simplicity. You have to think about things other than what scripture says or how to interpret it. You often have to fill in the void with answers that you don’t like — it’s very likely that when you die, that’s the end of things. Can you accept that? Can you digest it? Can you consume and keep down all of the new things you’ll learn, and can you keep room in there for more?
What believers who argue that you have a hole that needs to be filled with God don’t realize is that it’s okay to have a hole that needs to be filled. But you’ve come this far, so, instead of taking the easy way out by succumbing to the habits that keep you controlled by those habits, fill that hole with the things that will make your mind and body feel good about yourself, the things that challenge you, the things that you find truthful of your own accord (not because someone else demands that you see them as the truth). That’s the honesty test. And that’s good food.
-Procrustes
Tags: answers, ban, belief, god, Love, Pascal, Procrustes, Religion, scripture, spirit, truth, Turkey
Well put. But I would liken religion to ground glass, because it very often destroys you while you eat.
True, but after a few episodes of bleeding mouth and severed tongue, you probably wouldn’t go back to eating ground glass. I based the sand on the real life desperation of those who are so incredibly starving, that they make their meals out of sand. I agree that religion destroys you while you eat, but it also must coerce you into eating more and more. Either way, I’m so glad I changed my diet.
(and thank you for the comment!)
Yes, I would say that accepting one’s own mortality has all the charm of eating brussel sprouts. But at least the sprouts themselves won’t kill anyone.
No one likes to feel like a lonely fool. There’s comfort in company, especially when you know deeeeeep down inside that what you believe is bullshit.
All the religious know it’s B-S. Prayers: never really answered. Bad things: happening all the time. The creepy pastor at church. And the religious keep spouting the same lines. God loves you! Jesus saves! Pray harder!
But they know. Yes, indeed, they know that it is all nonsense. So, they want to feel better about it. What better way than to fulfill a religious need than to make others join in with their idiocy! Safety in numbers. You too must feel the doubt, ehm, JOY that they feel.
Do you like your sand warm? Here, have a bowl full.
This sounds just like religion. If you change ‘good food’ to ‘Jesus’, and ’sand’ to ’secular anything’, I’m pretty sure you can find a similar post on any number of bible-thumping websites. You’ve got a challenge of having faith, an easy path, a hard path … it looks like it’s all here.
So really, if the difference is semantics, what’s the point?
Sounds like religion?
Religion says “believe now or suffer after you die.” Reality says “open your eyes and stop suffering now.”
One is a threat, the other is just bare facts. Even if the facts aren’t pretty, they’re not being shoved down my throat by men who wrote a bunch of myths in order to control others. Religion = lack of options, no free thought. Reality = no holds barred.
Reality doesn’t sound at all like religion to me.
religion is like social glue. Without it, people and communities tend to drift and fragment.
I went to a church the other day, and they were talking about “blood of the lamb”, and other types of sacrifices, including Jesus himself, and I got to thinking that Christianity is a house built on paganism. Before then, farmers and religious leaders would probably sacrifice their best livestock, and possibly other humans as a form of “prayer” for things like rainfall, good farm yields, fertile women, etc. It seems absurd today, in the age of knowledge and abundance, but back then, a drought or blight could seem like a mysterious evil.
“Yes, I would say that accepting one’s own mortality has all the charm of eating brussel sprouts. But at least the sprouts themselves won’t kill anyone.”
Hey what’s wrong with brussel sprouts?? I LOVE brussel sprouts..
“back then, a drought or blight could seem like a mysterious evil.”
As could a desert god that has now long outlived his usefulness as an explanation for everything in existence.
There are plenty of non-religious social outlets that exist without all the self-deception and the deceiving of others. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, name one positive social aspect of religion that cannot be accomplished without religion.
I would encourage the author to ask himself where the reasoning he appeals to (i.e. the laws of logic) comes from. Would he have use believe that it comes from the sand of the earth? How can a universal principle — a law — be material?
“Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God’s existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence.”
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html
Wow, that was ridiculous. I guess we can’t argue about the existence of leprechauns unless we take them for granted too, then? Or trolls under bridges? Or Peter Pan?
Procrustes, here’s a dare.
Take .4gm dose of DMT and when you return, see if you still __believe__ what you’ve written here.
Regards,
Plato
It is clear the author has his own questionable agenda in establishing what is, in its own right, some form of humanist or atheist religion.
This might be a malicious intent to promote unrestrained, selfish post-modernistic license, or sheer hubris, or both.
But insistence in the non-existence of God – despite overwhelming affirmative evidence – is obstinate self-delusion and negligent mass-deception.
Science demonstrates consistent rules governing space, time, energy and mass – strongly indicative of a Supreme Origin who established and upholds them.
History proves that mankind is fundamentally incapable of stable, elegant self-government, if any at all. It is not only accountable to, but it dire need of, its Maker and Saviour.
While it should be acknowledged that many have, and still continue to blasphemously exploit the name of God(or false gods) for their own perverse ends, this is no sound basis for any denunciation of the Divine.
Rather, this very perversion demonstrates intrinsic mortal depravity and propensity to corrupt honorable Truth, and hence humanity’s urgent need for supernatural reform.
There’s overwhelming evidence for Hansel and Gretel, too, if you’d just read Grimm’s other fairy tales, that stuff happens all the time.
Also, as far as secular government, you should read this: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Image:Norway.jpg
P wrote: “religion is like social glue. Without it, people and communities tend to drift and fragment.”
that’s not true.
Asylum wrote: “It is clear the author has his own questionable agenda in establishing what is, in its own right, some form of humanist or atheist religion.”
There’s no such thing as an ‘atheist religion’, except in the mind of the religious. By the criteria that atheism is a ‘religion’, math and science are religions also. That, by the way, is an example if intellectual dishonesty because you have to switch semantics and criteria to suit the argument of the moment.
That said, I wouldn’t say that being religious is like eating sand, but like eating twinkies. There is a kind of residual food value, but as any parent knows, give a kid nothing but candy, and they’ll happily eat all they can. At the face of it, there appears to be no immediate harm done. But later, a diet of twinkies extracts an ironic price. The very thing a person cannot escape, their bodily health, suffers. Still, it may not be all that bad, so after a repose of good food, the twinkie fest will resume until a later moment of reckoning. And on it will go.
Of course, this cycle is not limited to religion, but to any distraction that makes us strain at reason and delude ourselves to accommodate some tasty ideology.
Silverwolf wrote: “…like eating twinkies…”
That works.
Silverwolf also wrote: “Of course, this cycle is not limited to religion, but to any distraction that makes us strain at reason and delude ourselves to accommodate some tasty ideology.”
Excellent point.
“Science demonstrates consistent rules governing space, time, energy and mass – strongly indicative of a Supreme Origin who established and upholds them.”
That’s great, asylum. Please demonstrate how the acceptance of a Supreme Origin a) validates belief in Yahweh and b) generates a moral code.
Plato, what’s the point of your dare to Procrustes? I’ve done DMT, shrooms and cactus, and yet I still agree with what he wrote in this article. What were these drugs supposed to do to me? Turn off all my powers of rationality and critical thought? Hallucinogen fail.
Less than .4g is mere sightseeing, Spider.
Fill your hole with something that makes you feel good. Great advice.
Been waiting for that, Laura.
asylum wrote:
“This might be a malicious intent to promote unrestrained, selfish post-modernistic license, or sheer hubris, or both.”
That sounds like the argument against capitalism to me. Also, the earth was the center of the universe a mere 600 years ago… God was created by man to:
A. Make sense of man’s environment.
B. Help man to forgive himself of wrongs (ask the forgiveness of God and you are reborn… you can start over).
C. Give man something to live for (that is not difficult).
D. Control society.
God is no longer necessary, we can be nice to each other without believing that we will go to hell if we are not. We can be fair and honest without the threat of punishment from above. In fact, the way society works today… if you are fair and honest you will generally be happier person than if you are not. Guilt is not imposed by God… atheists feel guilt.
Therefore, I argue that while God may have been necessary in the past… a supreme diety is no longer ideal for our society. It hampers education and suppresses one’s own fault in wrongdoings. Am I to believe that murderers and rapists will live in eternal bliss, if they just ask Jesus into their heart, while I’m going to Hell… to live in eternal agony because I wrote this? I don’t think so.
Whatever… believe what you want to, at least most God fearing Christians have a decent set of values, which I think is the core of being a good person. I’m not trying to impress my beliefs on anybody (honestly, I’m not). I don’t care if you think everything I wrote is from the devil’s own fingertips. I’m just stating how I feel about the subject.
If you believe in God and are a good person who deserves my trust then, if we get to know each other, I would likely be your friend… and never even bring up theology, because I know it is a subject that we disagree on… Of course, I would expect the same of you… Do you think you could handle that, not witnessing to me?
The meme of religiosity has it’s own built in protection. Such as the notion of “returning to the fold” and “religion is like social glue. Without it, people and communities tend to drift and fragment.”
These statements only protect the religious thought structure. A variety of positive community volunteer activities and organizations can easily replace it without including a magic sky daddy. To al the religious: stop eating the sand and help the homeless instead.
It seems like you’re more against unsupported belief (“taking things on faith”), rather than all of religion.
There are all kinds of aspects of “religion” that don’t rely at all on believing or not believing in doctrine. Some of those aspects can be positive, some can be negative, just like in any other human enterprise. People who think something can be gained through conflict over beliefs aren’t helping anyone. People who present their econo-political struggles in religious terms are also not helping people to understand religion.
Religion, as an idea, can refer to so many different things, not just matters of belief. Ethics can be presented or preserved religiously. Societies can create a structure for themselves and modes of interaction that promote friendly relationships. Meditation has been shown to have all kinds of benefits, regardless of whether you’re a meditating Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Humanist, etc. The fact that the activity is religious for some people doesn’t change the fact that it has benefits. And although it is a religious practice (for those who do it religiously), it doesn’t have to rely on any unsupportable beliefs or dogma.
Beliefs, in themselves, aren’t hurting anyone. Whether or not a person finds the same “meaning” (or lack thereof) in the universe that you find doesn’t change anything. “Believers” and “Atheists” alike can be good people, happy people, and can do their part to make the world a better place for everyone. They can both also cause trouble for others just like anyone else.
As for the beliefs themselves, it’s just as hard to prove a belief that there is a soul as to prove that there isn’t. If there is a “spiritual” reality, we might not be able to detect it with scientific instruments. But not seeing something doesn’t constitute proof that it doesn’t exist. Ignoring accounts of people who claim to have had firsthand contact with some other form of reality would be an irrational handicap to our pursuit of knowledge. If investigation isn’t possible, the best we can do is to say “I don’t know for sure… but I’ve heard X and I’ve heard Y.”
You can believe as much or as little as you want, and still live a good and happy life, in peaceful coexistence with others.
In reply to Noumenon, who commented:
“To al the religious: stop eating the sand and help the homeless instead.”
You might be interested in how many aid organizations are founded and funded by religious groups. Most religions give particular attention to helping the needy. Religious people don’t necessarily have to sit around all day at home mumbling to a magic sky daddy. Just like non-religious people, they want to help out if they can. And the added bonus is that once a week or so, they might attend a social function in which they’re urged to donate to charitable causes. Someone might even pass around a collection box. The social pressure and religious justification to donate are combined with the immanent opportunity to give cash. And, always hoping that the charity organization is efficient, the needy are the ones who receive the benefit.
I am not really interested in that at all.
I know that there are aid organizations that are founded and funded by religious groups. They do also help the needy. Does that erase the awful things that are done for religious reasons? The AIDS epidemic in Africa is directly related to the catholic based belief that condoms are not to be used.
http://www.cathnews.com/news/310/53.php
If good deeds erase bad ones, then a murderer is forgiven if he donates to the Salvation army. Is that the logic you subscribe to? The point was that one doesn't need religion to be charitable.
noumenon,
Obviously neither you nor i feel that doing a good deed could erase the harm done by a terrible deed. Rather than get lost in strange ideas, lets try to get to understand each other's points.
Originally, you suggested that you wished religious people would help people (the homeless). I only replied that they do.
Now you've mentioned about the Catholic idea forbidding birth control, and the problems that's causing in the world. But that Catholic idea isn't their only rule… They also forbid sex before (and outside) of marriage. If those Catholic rules were both followed, AIDS wouldn't be spreading as an epidemic, it would be restricted and possibly be in decline. One unfortunate girl/guy might give the disease to their unfortunate spouse, and one or both might die, but the disease wouldn't be propagated.
AIDS is a huge problem, but it isn't ONLY propagated because of a religious tenet. Better medical infrastructure is needed in many parts of the world. If medical testing was available, it would be more possible to choose a safe partner — whether your partnership is a religiously sanctioned marriage or not.
As for your other point, that a person doesn't have to be religious to be charitable, I've already written above that I also encourage people to understand that people are all equally capable of being good or bad people, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.
So for all those good people out there, what difference could it possibly make to you if they mumble privately to a sky-daddy or not? Maybe it gives them motivation to do good deeds, or just acts as a comfort for themselves.
The challenge to you is (these things tend to get a lot of replies, so lets make them good!): Name one religious belief or practice (etc) that is inherently bad or harmful. Or more simply: What specifically is the Atheist complaint against religion?
i dont know why people dont see that god was invented by Men … it was done in ancient times, when men did not know how to explain things… that wore "god" like…. in times when life was a lot harder… .. i think i dont have to explain how was living in ancient times (well we dont know actually but it was a lot harder then now).. and so on… religions and "god" brought out a lot good things… but a lot of bad things also… look how many people wore killed in the name of god… and so on…
for me religion has one value only… thats … and only if its done proper… to teach right from wrong… our children… i was raised as christian… .. but i dont believe in god… i did… when i was a little kid and i was still bealiving things like there is santa clause… and when i learned to thing for my self… … well… i stoped believing….
i can say .. live.. and enyoj life… dont be constrained by religion… but.. i never did nor will ever.. try to persuade anyone not to believe or to believe in god … everyone has a choice…
if you respect some one.. then respect theyr beliefs…
my gf is muslim.. and i respect her and her religion… and i'm learing about they customs.. so i can better understend in what she believes …. but i dont believe in god…
you could say that i believe in nature
.. as all atheist i suppose … hehe 
…
sorry for my bad english
hope you understand everything i wrote 
in every human there is potential to be as bad or as good as that person wants to be… i have seen a lot of atheist that to greater things.. and help more .. then those that believe in god (any religion) …. and there is a lot of pople that believe in god and are as bad as you can get… its theyr choice…
so believe in what you want…. and let others believe in what they want or not believe… and enyoj life…
just my two cents…
greeting from Croatia
Thank you! That was excellent.
I noticed that there was a link from a Croatian page, and I'm happy to see you all here. I was actually "in" Croatia in 1995, so it's great to see some rational Croatians visiting.
I agree with your comparison of consuming religion to consuming sand. Also, whatever the religion proclaims official does not have anything to do wit reality. Everything stays on rhetoric.
Throughout my childhood, all the way through college, I was a Christian. I knew the Bible and I could debate with anybody using apologetics. I read religious texts regularly and spent most of my time with other Christians. I never liked soapboxing or proselytizing, but I would talk to others about my point of view. I never liked “religion” because religion causes strife, but I did have my beliefs about life, the universe, and everything. After college, I continued to go to church but never felt right because the people I went to church with always seemed to be the bottom of the barrel in intellect and being “genuine.” I ended up going through a messy divorce with my husband because he was the worst example of a husband, even though he was supposed to be living by the Christian model. I read books that promised “if I just prayed for him fervently” that he would be the husband he was supposed to be. So, in other words, making a direct appeal to him wasn’t going to do any good (and it didn’t) but if I appealed to God, he would work on my husband’s heart and make him the “man God wanted him to be.” Well, that clearly didn’t work. I started really examining why I believed what I believed and it all started to crumble. Many things just didn’t make sense. Why is it ok for me to walk around with short hair and an uncovered head when the Bible specifically says it’s shameful, but it’s not ok for my gay brother to be who he is because the Bible says it’s wrong? So, religious leaders can change the rules, but only on what they are willing to change the rules about? Doesn’t that make the religious leaders into God, rather than God himself? I was always told that sin is sin, and it’s all the same in God’s eyes. Well, to me, a man having lustful thoughts is nowhere near as wrong as a man who rapes, and if it’s the same in God’s eyes, than what I am doing trusting this God with my well-being? That argument may not be logical, but it’s how it makes me feel.
I am currently cutting “sand” out of my diet, and like the author said, it’s extremely difficult, just like any diet. I know that I’m happier not seeking out answers from a God that doesn’t answer. I’m happier with my new, agnostic husband, who takes care of me and reminds me not to stress out so much about these things. I’m a better person than I was, because I don’t do good out of guilt or obligation but because I know it’s what makes the world a better place in the here and now. I’m not quite ready to call myself an athiest, but I’m also beyond worrying so much about it. I just thought you might like to hear from someone who is going through the process you described. While difficult, I am finding it rewarding.
Thank you for your great comment, Olivia. I’m very glad that you’re weaning yourself off the sand and are living a better life for it. I wish you the best of life.
Nothing in this world is all black or all white, but, unfortunately with this article, you forget the gray spectrum.
As in, partially nutritious sand?
Seriously, feel free to elaborate. What’s the gray spectrum?
[...] substance in order to keep themselves artificially satiated, but perpetually malnourished. Thus, Being Religious is Like Eating Sand, written in December, 2008. It fills you up, tricks you into not being hungry, but has no [...]
Brendan – What about the teaching of children that they are incomplete without Christ? That they are born imperfect and lacking unless they accept Christ in their life? And even if they do, they are still horrible sinners that need Christ’s redemption from the state they’re in.
I don’t think that telling children that they are incomplete unless they subscribe to one particular belief is a beneficial thing; I think it’s a terrible thing to do to a young mind. You asked for one thing; I believe that I could come up with many more – I guess it would depend on the religion.