Apologies if this was just meant to be silly, rather than at all serious
But whoaaaa, no, that is dangerous thinking and one I’ve actually *seen* in a good chunk of atheists. It’s the same type of logic that lets *religious* people to terrible stuff:
“X is what’s bad, and I’m not X, so I can’t be bad, so I don’t need to reflect on my actions!”
Second, stuff like Elevatorgate and a whole host of other things has shown us that, frankly, misogyny and straight up alt-right crud can absolutely *flourish* even without religion. Genetic-racism, etc etc.
Ana Chronistic is pretty much guaranteed to be being silly rather than serious as they usually make a jokey comment as one of the first on almost every single strip.
Zaxares
Yeah, I read it as a joke, although I do see Felgraf’s point. I have met just as many racist/bigoted/hateful atheists as I have racist/bigoted/hateful theists. The common denominator seems to be “according to my worldview, I am better than you, and that means that I can treat you as less than a person.” What exactly that worldview is varies, but the end result is the same.
Different people are different. This is useful, because the people around me don’t have the same strengths and weaknesses that I have. Working with them, I can compensate for some of their weaknesses, and they can compensate for some of mine. I can also help them improve the areas in which they’re naturally weak, while they can help me improve the areas where I’m naturally weak.
This takes a lot more than two people, because there are more ways to be weak than most of us can imagine, and most of us only have a few natural strengths.
But it also means you can take just about any sort of thinking people do which is not fundamentally bad, and find some people who do that sort of thinking in good ways, and some people who do that sort of thinking in bad ways.
Examples of this include every religion, including atheism and humanism.
Just to be clear: I believe it’s not religious to not know whether there is at least one god. But if you’re sure about the number of gods, even if you’re sure that number is 0, that’s a religion. And if you believe that everybody is naturally good, despite all the evidence against, that’s definitely a religion. Also, if you’re certain it’s not possible for anyone to know whether or not there’s a god, that’s also a religion.
thejeff
Shouldn’t get into it, but no, it’s still not a religion. Religion involves far more than being certain of something.
Some Ed
Religion does involve more. It’s not necessary for someone to be insistent on convincing somebody of something in order for them to be religious. But taken to the extent that evangelical Christians or evangelical atheists do, it clearly is a religious act.
There’s a lot more to it than that. I hadn’t thought atheism was a religion before I started hanging out with a bunch of them. They asked me about my beliefs. I said I was agnostic, because it’s somehow easier for a lot of people to decide to drop the line of discussion than if I just said that I didn’t know and didn’t think that I personally was capable of knowing. (I’ve tried both ways, many times.)
I’ve met a lot of atheists who wouldn’t get all religious about that. But this particular group was pretty insistent that I “simplify” things and admit that there wasn’t a god. As if somehow certainty was more simple than not understanding.
It’s kind of like other religions – some people who follow the religion can accept others taking other paths, and some people can’t.
There’s more to it than just this, but my purpose isn’t to convince you. My purpose is just to introduce you to the possible concept, and I don’t think I can do a better job than my prior response plus this one, so I’m done here.
thejeff
People can take that kind of “insistent on convincing somebody of something” on many topics. Sports, TV shows, operating systems, damn near anything really. We often call that “religious” as a metaphor and I’m perfectly happy saying some people are religious about atheism in that sense, but I would still argue that atheism isn’t a religion.
Even as Christianity still is a religion, even for those sects that aren’t so insistent about converting you.
Roborat
Atheism is not a religion, it is merely the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Or as Penn Gillette put it: “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”.
thejeff
That said, some can treat it as a religion, at least in the metaphorical sense. In the way football’s been called a religion.
There are also some religions that are (or can be) atheist. At least some strains of Buddhism have no gods, for example.
Felgraf
And yet, some atheists can clearly make a religion *OUT* of it, or Rokko’s Basilisk wouldn’t even be a thing.
Heck if most right wing “Christians” were actually Christian’s under the rules laid out by the big JHC himself then multiple nations would be much better places.
But no, family values are more important than family members, and getting a check from the government at the start of the president’s term is more valuable than allowing other people to not get murdered in cold blood or getting said murderer before a judge, I guess.
In all seriousness, when I first read Lovecraft’s “The Festival,” it seemed kind of sweet and wholesome to me.
That’s how it began. Five years later I took part in a certain rite in the swamps of Louisiana, all of us happily singing along to “Ph’nglui Mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh Wgah’nagl Fhtagn”. Good times!
People of God ‘can’ be evil.
Godless people ‘can’ be good.
Damn it, people are people, and they are good or evil, or both. Their morals fly thither and yon as the mood takes them. They are as constant as the wind. …and about as predictable.
But damn it, Willis, you are really messing with ma’ waterworks, Changin’ Hank so much so fast. Brings a tear to my eye, damn it.
“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
– Good Omens
Corneel
“And just when you’d think they were more malignant than ever Hell could be, they could occasionally show more grace than Heaven ever dreamed of. Often the same individual was involved. It was this free-will thing, of course. It was a bugger.”
Good Omens
People are people and religious people can certainly be good. Religion is however particularly good at convincing people that basically harmless things are bad.
Thanatos
And at convincing people that particularly harmful things are good (genocide, conversion therapies, forced religious conversion, etc)
The parable of The Good Samaritan. Which the Church has “interpreted” as meaning that the Samaritan was “just a metaphor” and “really believed in God, deep down”. Because you can’t be a good person without believing in God, right?
I always thought the parable stood just fine on its own literal interpretation. Of course, I’m a godless atheist, so what do I know about Grace?
Of course the Samaritan believed in God! Samaritans weren’t and aren’t atheists. They were (and still are) Jews whose forebears were not carried off into the captivity in Babylon, and who practiced (and still practice) a version of Judaism little influenced by religious developments during Captivity.
Zendervai
Sorry, this is something that bothers me. Samaritans are not and were never Jewish. They’re related to the Jews, but the Jews and the Samaritans are descended from different Hebrew tribes. Judah for the Jews, like five different tribes for the Samaritans.
Samaria was formed after the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, Babylon only conquered the Southern Kingdom of Judah. It’s kind of messy and confusing, but Samaritans are a distinct ethnoreligious group.
Agemegos
Thanks for the correction.
You’d agree, though, that Samaritans are and were believers in God, not atheist?
Zendervai
Yeah, of course.
thejeff
I didn’t really know the Samaritans still existed until now. Apparently their population is less than 1000 and has been down in the range (often much lower) for centuries and yet they’ve maintained a distinct identity. It’s really just a handful of families.
I’m amused by that parable, since the context has changed completely since the origin. For most Christians, that parable is the only context they have for “Samaritan”, so Samaritan has become associated with “good person”. There’s no surprise that the Samaritan would help out, if that’s the only way you’ve ever heard Samaritan used. While in Jesus’s day, they were bad guys, which made it shocking.
To get the same point with the parable today, you’d need to use some group despised by your listeners – perhaps atheists. Or Muslims, for a closer parallel.
Borkborkbork
The analogy isn’t that it’s an unbeliever; rather, that it’s a heretic. Someone who believes, but believes in a slightly different version of what the strict traditional folk believe. Someone who’s shunned by the “right” people.
So, like Becky, basically.
Cabbage Jack
They were more than just bad people, they were ‘other,’ which placed them at the very bottom of society according to Jewish Purity Laws, which defined ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ It’s what makes a Samaritan such a stark contrast for the Priest and Pharisee, who were ‘pure,’ but had no love for those in need, and therefore were the real bad guys.
Agemegos
Isaac Asimov wrote an article about it called “Lost In Non-Translation” (sorry, I don’t remember where it was published) in which he argued that to give white Americans (of the 1970s) a real understanding of the point of that parable you might translate “Samaritan” with a racial slur that he could not use in print.
Yes, godless individuals can be good. However, the cultural norms that have developed over centuries that we define as good have their origins in religion. In that way, Hank isn’t wrong to associate Judeo-Christian and Ancient Greco-Roman practices with being a decent human being that doesn’t engage in behavior that jeopardizes oneself or others (the Jews developed “kosher” requirements for their food based on what doesn’t spoil and cause food borne illness in the Sinai).
What Hank needs to do, though, is reread Romans, and especially the passages about the Gentiles. Then sit down to read and discuss some of Douglas Adams’ non-fiction works about religion’s place in society when the latest scientific theories on crop rotation or interior design can’t produce as good a result as religious-based practices honed from centuries of trial and error.
I would disagree they have their origins in religion. We have more than enough evidence to see people reach these basic things all on their own all over the world with or without religion. It seems more like its a result of having empathy and people incorporated these things into their religions.
I don’t think religion gets to have the credit for basic humanity. Even your example of “religious-based practices honed from centuries of trial and error” ignores the fact that the religious part is irrelevant it was the trial and error and humans learning that made it work.
thejeff
What religion is very good at though is enforcing and preserving those cultural norms – often long past the time when they were useful.
Hank feels more loyalty toward his kids than he does toward his Church. When Carol screamed ‘We stand by our own!’ he felt like she didn’t stand by Joyce. Hank never excused Ross just because they’re from the same church.
Matthew Evan Davis
I’ve felt like Hank is like a lot of men, in that he kept quiet (at least in public) to keep the peace. The fact that he put the blame for the situation with Jordan on he and Carol and most everything he has done with Joyce and Becky that we’ve seen makes me think that the situation reached a point where he can’t do that anymore and live with himself. We’re just ready to assume to worst of anyone who is fundamentalist so it seems like major growth to us when it’s more not being willing to let silence hurt his kids.
I’d strongly believe that Hank didn’t agree with Ross openly brandishing (not shooting) on campus. If you don’t want the FBI at your church doorstep with warrants, you don’t typically keep guys like Ross around on Sundays.
Hank is the kind of guy that probably got saddled with crazy because dating options in the local church community were limited. Now that he’s getting fed up with Carol, I can personally attest there are plenty of intelligent, beautiful, professional women in the conservative community that aren’t DeSantos.
Can we just find Hank an Ann Coulter or Michelle Malklin? The latter at least plays D&D.
BBCC
Why would we want Hank dating a racist dumbass like Ann Coulter?
Roborat
Ann Coulter? seriously? He would be far better off staying with Carol then getting involved with that loon.
Makkabee
There are sane, decent, conservative women out there. Neither Anne Coulter nor Michelle Malkin fall into this category. They’ re both vicious, intellectually lazy, dishonest people. We can form temporary alliances with such people, but shouldn’t assume they’re good just because we have a common enemy. Stalin hated Hitler but that didn’t make him a swell guy.
Nathan
Just a reminder that “crazy” is frequently used as an insult about mental illness, and “sane” as a synonym for “good” is ableist. ♥
I think the pitfall for us here is seeing Hank’s development as linear. He’s always, apparently, had a spark of real ethical decency to him, and that’s blossoming and becoming more broadly defined and applied, perhaps. But his experiences with those outside of their sect of Christianity clearly haven’t been deep and meaningful enough to impress on him that it isn’t unique to only some types of human being (or else, have convinced him of the opposite), and getting back out of those habits may be harder.
That’s one interpretation, and the one I first thought of, but there are two more that I can see.
The first, which Thursday Violet used above, and I got it from them, is that Hank had meant “Godless” as more than just a term for “atheist,” and meant it as an insult, and he’s apologizing for that.
The second alternative interpretation is that he believes that they *aren’t* Godless, at least, from a certain point of view—that even though they don’t believe in God, they still exhibit the personality traits and moral behavior that the God Hank believes in calls for in his followers. That despite not believing in God, they have His grace, which is a deep contrast to Carol, who loudly professes belief in God, but acts with spite and without integrity—without the traits that a benevolent God (whether the Christian God as written is benevolent is neither here nor there; Hank definitely *believes* that God is benevolent) embodies.
And I say this as an atheist myself, if anyone is wondering. But I recognize that there are, in most religions, a set of traits and behaviors that are pretty much universally considered “Good“ and often “Godly”: Humility, charity, kindness, honesty, compassion, etc. In this interpretation, Hank recognizes that the Keeners have these attributes—and he’s being forced to recognize that Carol does not, or at least, has not been exhibiting them lately.
Most religions that a modern Westerner would be familiar with, yes. But some religions (old Norse, Shinto) are more about warrior virtues than kindness and compassion. As to honesty, lots of religions have a venerated Trickster figure.
In fact, I could not think of any modern Western taboo, from incest to genocide, that has not been actively promoted by at least one religion or religious-organized government.
Theres also the point that a lot of fundamentalists consider atheism to be a religon actively venerating not believing rather than a philosophy. And so I could see how your second point would fit in with that nicely.
Judaism (and by extension Christianity) recognise what are termed the ‘Noachide Commandments’ – a set of 7 instructions given by God to Noah after the flood. Any person who keeps to them is considered righteous and will be saved, regardless of their personal religious views. See Genesis 9.
Kelibath
I wouldn’t agree that the Noahide Commandments are exactly “recognised” in Christianity, certainly not in the modern day, and they aren’t actively featured in Genesis 9 (at least not in all translations). It demonstrates a covenant to not again destroy the Earth, and cautions against the killing of man and the eating of still-living (possibly still-bloody) flesh, but the commandments on libido, theft, blasphemy, and law, aren’t present, and one-ness is there only tangentially. Additionally I’d be quite surprised if Trinitarian Christians applied that one-ness of God literally as opposed to it encompassing Him in Three as well. Presumably these are in a separate text, rather than Genesis 9 posessing several additional verses outside of Christian-heritage translations?
Kelibath
Comment above pertains to the Seven Noahide Commandments, just to be specific – the Covenant of Noah in Genesis 9 *is* recognised, but is considered to be permanent and not breachable by misdeed on the human side (to contrast with events from just prior to the Flood of Noah’s record). Alongside it God gave various promises and some specific commands as I mentioned that definitely are in most copies of the text. But I haven’t seen this list of seven specific commandments referenced outside of those publicised in the 20th Century by some Jewish groups.
Freemage
There’s always a risk, when speaking of religious beliefs, in using absolute terms. You are both speaking accurately of ‘some sects’ of Judaism and Christianity. But practices and beliefs vary wildly.
Some Christians take the line, “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me,” to mean that you have to BE a declared Christian in order to get to Heaven. Others, though, will say that being righteous means that you are channeling Christ’s grace, whether you know it by that name or not. The former route leads you to Carol’s position, with the added proviso that being a declared Christian means that you can trust that Christ will guide your actions and prevent you from doing anything unrighteous.
Hank is valuing them by their fruit ( the results of their actions) and finding his wife and church wanting in comparison. He meant to dismiss them earlier.
Some believe that people can’t really be good without God and thus that most atheists really do believe in God, even if they deny it (possibly even to themselves), since otherwise why wouldn’t they run around murdering people.
Joyce has shown elements of this – after her thing with Jacob she talked about how she thought it would be so great to be an atheist and just do whatever you wanted without concern, but that it ran afoul of still caring about hurting people.
Yes, that’s what I was thinking. They don’t believe, but he can see God in them in a way he doesn’t in (say) Carol. And in realizing that, he regrets having used the word in an offhand and insulting way.
If someone tells you they are good because an imaginary person in the sky says they will suffer for eternity otherwise, they are not good, they’re acting good.
272 thoughts on “Accounts”
Ana Chronistic
“BECAUSE we’re godless”
“shh, he’s trying to get better”
Thursday Violist
“No, I mean, I meant it as an insult then. So I’m apologizing.”
plasticwrap
I don’t like what you’re implying. And I’m a bitter atheist.
Ana Chronistic
I’m implying a sarcastic response on the part of the Keeners, which is no doubt 100% out of character
(saying as a similarly bitter atheist)
Br44n5m
As a non-bitter atheist would you two care for spicy porkchop ramen?
Felgraf
Apologies if this was just meant to be silly, rather than at all serious
But whoaaaa, no, that is dangerous thinking and one I’ve actually *seen* in a good chunk of atheists. It’s the same type of logic that lets *religious* people to terrible stuff:
“X is what’s bad, and I’m not X, so I can’t be bad, so I don’t need to reflect on my actions!”
Second, stuff like Elevatorgate and a whole host of other things has shown us that, frankly, misogyny and straight up alt-right crud can absolutely *flourish* even without religion. Genetic-racism, etc etc.
Sam
Ana Chronistic is pretty much guaranteed to be being silly rather than serious as they usually make a jokey comment as one of the first on almost every single strip.
Zaxares
Yeah, I read it as a joke, although I do see Felgraf’s point. I have met just as many racist/bigoted/hateful atheists as I have racist/bigoted/hateful theists. The common denominator seems to be “according to my worldview, I am better than you, and that means that I can treat you as less than a person.” What exactly that worldview is varies, but the end result is the same.
Some Ed
Different people are different. This is useful, because the people around me don’t have the same strengths and weaknesses that I have. Working with them, I can compensate for some of their weaknesses, and they can compensate for some of mine. I can also help them improve the areas in which they’re naturally weak, while they can help me improve the areas where I’m naturally weak.
This takes a lot more than two people, because there are more ways to be weak than most of us can imagine, and most of us only have a few natural strengths.
But it also means you can take just about any sort of thinking people do which is not fundamentally bad, and find some people who do that sort of thinking in good ways, and some people who do that sort of thinking in bad ways.
Examples of this include every religion, including atheism and humanism.
Just to be clear: I believe it’s not religious to not know whether there is at least one god. But if you’re sure about the number of gods, even if you’re sure that number is 0, that’s a religion. And if you believe that everybody is naturally good, despite all the evidence against, that’s definitely a religion. Also, if you’re certain it’s not possible for anyone to know whether or not there’s a god, that’s also a religion.
thejeff
Shouldn’t get into it, but no, it’s still not a religion. Religion involves far more than being certain of something.
Some Ed
Religion does involve more. It’s not necessary for someone to be insistent on convincing somebody of something in order for them to be religious. But taken to the extent that evangelical Christians or evangelical atheists do, it clearly is a religious act.
There’s a lot more to it than that. I hadn’t thought atheism was a religion before I started hanging out with a bunch of them. They asked me about my beliefs. I said I was agnostic, because it’s somehow easier for a lot of people to decide to drop the line of discussion than if I just said that I didn’t know and didn’t think that I personally was capable of knowing. (I’ve tried both ways, many times.)
I’ve met a lot of atheists who wouldn’t get all religious about that. But this particular group was pretty insistent that I “simplify” things and admit that there wasn’t a god. As if somehow certainty was more simple than not understanding.
It’s kind of like other religions – some people who follow the religion can accept others taking other paths, and some people can’t.
There’s more to it than just this, but my purpose isn’t to convince you. My purpose is just to introduce you to the possible concept, and I don’t think I can do a better job than my prior response plus this one, so I’m done here.
thejeff
People can take that kind of “insistent on convincing somebody of something” on many topics. Sports, TV shows, operating systems, damn near anything really. We often call that “religious” as a metaphor and I’m perfectly happy saying some people are religious about atheism in that sense, but I would still argue that atheism isn’t a religion.
Even as Christianity still is a religion, even for those sects that aren’t so insistent about converting you.
Roborat
Atheism is not a religion, it is merely the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Or as Penn Gillette put it: “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”.
thejeff
That said, some can treat it as a religion, at least in the metaphorical sense. In the way football’s been called a religion.
There are also some religions that are (or can be) atheist. At least some strains of Buddhism have no gods, for example.
Felgraf
And yet, some atheists can clearly make a religion *OUT* of it, or Rokko’s Basilisk wouldn’t even be a thing.
Twitcher
UPVOTE.
TachyonCode
Good and ill are clearly relative, and claiming that lacking some particular influence makes you good is wrong.
Lacking that same thing CAN still *contribute*, though, so technically Ana is only semantically inaccurate, not wrong.
It just isn’t that one lacks some element, that *definitively* makes one good.
Just like being an atheist *alone* does not make one good.
Or as Yoda once said, “wars not make one great”.
Miles
Heck if most right wing “Christians” were actually Christian’s under the rules laid out by the big JHC himself then multiple nations would be much better places.
But no, family values are more important than family members, and getting a check from the government at the start of the president’s term is more valuable than allowing other people to not get murdered in cold blood or getting said murderer before a judge, I guess.
Doctor_Who
I mean, they do venerate Cthulhu, but he’s technically a Great Old One, not an Outer God.
Besides, they’re really just Christmas, Easter, and The Black Festival of Soul Harvest Cthulhuists.
Mr. Random
Oh, I LOVE Black Harvest, but I feel like modern celebrations get lost in the decorations and pagentry.
It’s supposed to be about the HARVESTING.
davidbreslin101
In all seriousness, when I first read Lovecraft’s “The Festival,” it seemed kind of sweet and wholesome to me.
That’s how it began. Five years later I took part in a certain rite in the swamps of Louisiana, all of us happily singing along to “Ph’nglui Mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh Wgah’nagl Fhtagn”. Good times!
Michael Steamweed
That’s how they getcha!
Roborat
Then it turned into an Arbonne MLM scheme.
Sirksome
Godless people can be good!? Sooooooo many people need to learn that.
Geneseepaws
People of God ‘can’ be evil.
Godless people ‘can’ be good.
Damn it, people are people, and they are good or evil, or both. Their morals fly thither and yon as the mood takes them. They are as constant as the wind. …and about as predictable.
But damn it, Willis, you are really messing with ma’ waterworks, Changin’ Hank so much so fast. Brings a tear to my eye, damn it.
Clacker
“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
– Good Omens
Corneel
“And just when you’d think they were more malignant than ever Hell could be, they could occasionally show more grace than Heaven ever dreamed of. Often the same individual was involved. It was this free-will thing, of course. It was a bugger.”
Good Omens
thejeff
People are people and religious people can certainly be good. Religion is however particularly good at convincing people that basically harmless things are bad.
Thanatos
And at convincing people that particularly harmful things are good (genocide, conversion therapies, forced religious conversion, etc)
khn0
But is he really ready for Nietzsche?
tbf
Don’t you remember? “All the good we do is God workin’ through us!”
Deanatay
The parable of The Good Samaritan. Which the Church has “interpreted” as meaning that the Samaritan was “just a metaphor” and “really believed in God, deep down”. Because you can’t be a good person without believing in God, right?
I always thought the parable stood just fine on its own literal interpretation. Of course, I’m a godless atheist, so what do I know about Grace?
Agemegos
Of course the Samaritan believed in God! Samaritans weren’t and aren’t atheists. They were (and still are) Jews whose forebears were not carried off into the captivity in Babylon, and who practiced (and still practice) a version of Judaism little influenced by religious developments during Captivity.
Zendervai
Sorry, this is something that bothers me. Samaritans are not and were never Jewish. They’re related to the Jews, but the Jews and the Samaritans are descended from different Hebrew tribes. Judah for the Jews, like five different tribes for the Samaritans.
Samaria was formed after the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, Babylon only conquered the Southern Kingdom of Judah. It’s kind of messy and confusing, but Samaritans are a distinct ethnoreligious group.
Agemegos
Thanks for the correction.
You’d agree, though, that Samaritans are and were believers in God, not atheist?
Zendervai
Yeah, of course.
thejeff
I didn’t really know the Samaritans still existed until now. Apparently their population is less than 1000 and has been down in the range (often much lower) for centuries and yet they’ve maintained a distinct identity. It’s really just a handful of families.
That’s pretty amazing.
thejeff
I’m amused by that parable, since the context has changed completely since the origin. For most Christians, that parable is the only context they have for “Samaritan”, so Samaritan has become associated with “good person”. There’s no surprise that the Samaritan would help out, if that’s the only way you’ve ever heard Samaritan used. While in Jesus’s day, they were bad guys, which made it shocking.
To get the same point with the parable today, you’d need to use some group despised by your listeners – perhaps atheists. Or Muslims, for a closer parallel.
Borkborkbork
The analogy isn’t that it’s an unbeliever; rather, that it’s a heretic. Someone who believes, but believes in a slightly different version of what the strict traditional folk believe. Someone who’s shunned by the “right” people.
So, like Becky, basically.
Cabbage Jack
They were more than just bad people, they were ‘other,’ which placed them at the very bottom of society according to Jewish Purity Laws, which defined ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ It’s what makes a Samaritan such a stark contrast for the Priest and Pharisee, who were ‘pure,’ but had no love for those in need, and therefore were the real bad guys.
Agemegos
Isaac Asimov wrote an article about it called “Lost In Non-Translation” (sorry, I don’t remember where it was published) in which he argued that to give white Americans (of the 1970s) a real understanding of the point of that parable you might translate “Samaritan” with a racial slur that he could not use in print.
Chris B
Yes, godless individuals can be good. However, the cultural norms that have developed over centuries that we define as good have their origins in religion. In that way, Hank isn’t wrong to associate Judeo-Christian and Ancient Greco-Roman practices with being a decent human being that doesn’t engage in behavior that jeopardizes oneself or others (the Jews developed “kosher” requirements for their food based on what doesn’t spoil and cause food borne illness in the Sinai).
What Hank needs to do, though, is reread Romans, and especially the passages about the Gentiles. Then sit down to read and discuss some of Douglas Adams’ non-fiction works about religion’s place in society when the latest scientific theories on crop rotation or interior design can’t produce as good a result as religious-based practices honed from centuries of trial and error.
Shade
I would disagree they have their origins in religion. We have more than enough evidence to see people reach these basic things all on their own all over the world with or without religion. It seems more like its a result of having empathy and people incorporated these things into their religions.
I don’t think religion gets to have the credit for basic humanity. Even your example of “religious-based practices honed from centuries of trial and error” ignores the fact that the religious part is irrelevant it was the trial and error and humans learning that made it work.
thejeff
What religion is very good at though is enforcing and preserving those cultural norms – often long past the time when they were useful.
Michael Janas
It’s a step in the right direction.
BBCC
They are both! Hank’s getting there are recognizing that.
Regalli
Yep. He’s learning. Good!
butts
i think i’ve seen joyce make that face when she sees different foods touching
Felipe Suarez Vásquez
Oh my, is this change we are witnessing?
Chris
Still having trouble with the concept that “good” and “godless” can exist in the same person.
Hazel
Admittedly, a big step for him!
bryy
This makes me wonder just how much Hank accepted Ross’ initial shoot-up. I always thought that Hank was further along than he apparently is.
Undrave
Hank feels more loyalty toward his kids than he does toward his Church. When Carol screamed ‘We stand by our own!’ he felt like she didn’t stand by Joyce. Hank never excused Ross just because they’re from the same church.
Matthew Evan Davis
I’ve felt like Hank is like a lot of men, in that he kept quiet (at least in public) to keep the peace. The fact that he put the blame for the situation with Jordan on he and Carol and most everything he has done with Joyce and Becky that we’ve seen makes me think that the situation reached a point where he can’t do that anymore and live with himself. We’re just ready to assume to worst of anyone who is fundamentalist so it seems like major growth to us when it’s more not being willing to let silence hurt his kids.
Chris B
I’d strongly believe that Hank didn’t agree with Ross openly brandishing (not shooting) on campus. If you don’t want the FBI at your church doorstep with warrants, you don’t typically keep guys like Ross around on Sundays.
Hank is the kind of guy that probably got saddled with crazy because dating options in the local church community were limited. Now that he’s getting fed up with Carol, I can personally attest there are plenty of intelligent, beautiful, professional women in the conservative community that aren’t DeSantos.
Can we just find Hank an Ann Coulter or Michelle Malklin? The latter at least plays D&D.
BBCC
Why would we want Hank dating a racist dumbass like Ann Coulter?
Roborat
Ann Coulter? seriously? He would be far better off staying with Carol then getting involved with that loon.
Makkabee
There are sane, decent, conservative women out there. Neither Anne Coulter nor Michelle Malkin fall into this category. They’ re both vicious, intellectually lazy, dishonest people. We can form temporary alliances with such people, but shouldn’t assume they’re good just because we have a common enemy. Stalin hated Hitler but that didn’t make him a swell guy.
Nathan
Just a reminder that “crazy” is frequently used as an insult about mental illness, and “sane” as a synonym for “good” is ableist. ♥
Kelibath
I think the pitfall for us here is seeing Hank’s development as linear. He’s always, apparently, had a spark of real ethical decency to him, and that’s blossoming and becoming more broadly defined and applied, perhaps. But his experiences with those outside of their sect of Christianity clearly haven’t been deep and meaningful enough to impress on him that it isn’t unique to only some types of human being (or else, have convinced him of the opposite), and getting back out of those habits may be harder.
Jon Rich
That’s one interpretation, and the one I first thought of, but there are two more that I can see.
The first, which Thursday Violet used above, and I got it from them, is that Hank had meant “Godless” as more than just a term for “atheist,” and meant it as an insult, and he’s apologizing for that.
The second alternative interpretation is that he believes that they *aren’t* Godless, at least, from a certain point of view—that even though they don’t believe in God, they still exhibit the personality traits and moral behavior that the God Hank believes in calls for in his followers. That despite not believing in God, they have His grace, which is a deep contrast to Carol, who loudly professes belief in God, but acts with spite and without integrity—without the traits that a benevolent God (whether the Christian God as written is benevolent is neither here nor there; Hank definitely *believes* that God is benevolent) embodies.
And I say this as an atheist myself, if anyone is wondering. But I recognize that there are, in most religions, a set of traits and behaviors that are pretty much universally considered “Good“ and often “Godly”: Humility, charity, kindness, honesty, compassion, etc. In this interpretation, Hank recognizes that the Keeners have these attributes—and he’s being forced to recognize that Carol does not, or at least, has not been exhibiting them lately.
Chris Phoenix
Most religions that a modern Westerner would be familiar with, yes. But some religions (old Norse, Shinto) are more about warrior virtues than kindness and compassion. As to honesty, lots of religions have a venerated Trickster figure.
In fact, I could not think of any modern Western taboo, from incest to genocide, that has not been actively promoted by at least one religion or religious-organized government.
Matthew Evan Davis
Theres also the point that a lot of fundamentalists consider atheism to be a religon actively venerating not believing rather than a philosophy. And so I could see how your second point would fit in with that nicely.
Stifyn Baker
Judaism (and by extension Christianity) recognise what are termed the ‘Noachide Commandments’ – a set of 7 instructions given by God to Noah after the flood. Any person who keeps to them is considered righteous and will be saved, regardless of their personal religious views. See Genesis 9.
Kelibath
I wouldn’t agree that the Noahide Commandments are exactly “recognised” in Christianity, certainly not in the modern day, and they aren’t actively featured in Genesis 9 (at least not in all translations). It demonstrates a covenant to not again destroy the Earth, and cautions against the killing of man and the eating of still-living (possibly still-bloody) flesh, but the commandments on libido, theft, blasphemy, and law, aren’t present, and one-ness is there only tangentially. Additionally I’d be quite surprised if Trinitarian Christians applied that one-ness of God literally as opposed to it encompassing Him in Three as well. Presumably these are in a separate text, rather than Genesis 9 posessing several additional verses outside of Christian-heritage translations?
Kelibath
Comment above pertains to the Seven Noahide Commandments, just to be specific – the Covenant of Noah in Genesis 9 *is* recognised, but is considered to be permanent and not breachable by misdeed on the human side (to contrast with events from just prior to the Flood of Noah’s record). Alongside it God gave various promises and some specific commands as I mentioned that definitely are in most copies of the text. But I haven’t seen this list of seven specific commandments referenced outside of those publicised in the 20th Century by some Jewish groups.
Freemage
There’s always a risk, when speaking of religious beliefs, in using absolute terms. You are both speaking accurately of ‘some sects’ of Judaism and Christianity. But practices and beliefs vary wildly.
Some Christians take the line, “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me,” to mean that you have to BE a declared Christian in order to get to Heaven. Others, though, will say that being righteous means that you are channeling Christ’s grace, whether you know it by that name or not. The former route leads you to Carol’s position, with the added proviso that being a declared Christian means that you can trust that Christ will guide your actions and prevent you from doing anything unrighteous.
hof1991
Hank is valuing them by their fruit ( the results of their actions) and finding his wife and church wanting in comparison. He meant to dismiss them earlier.
thejeff
Some believe that people can’t really be good without God and thus that most atheists really do believe in God, even if they deny it (possibly even to themselves), since otherwise why wouldn’t they run around murdering people.
Joyce has shown elements of this – after her thing with Jacob she talked about how she thought it would be so great to be an atheist and just do whatever you wanted without concern, but that it ran afoul of still caring about hurting people.
phlebas
Yes, that’s what I was thinking. They don’t believe, but he can see God in them in a way he doesn’t in (say) Carol. And in realizing that, he regrets having used the word in an offhand and insulting way.
Opus the Poet
If someone tells you they are good because an imaginary person in the sky says they will suffer for eternity otherwise, they are not good, they’re acting good.
Lumino