To Find God...Just Skip Lunch
For millennia peoples across the globe have searched for a means of getting closer to and finding god. Elaborate ceremony, choreographed rituals, ornate clothing, enormous houses of worship and convoluted oral histories have all been employed to this task. But the simple answer to god’s discovery has been right under our noses, or tongues, the entire time. We just need to skip the mid-day meal and god will appear before us. God is a chicken sandwich left uneaten.
The three dominant monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all suffer similar appeals to the ridiculous. Virgin birth, parting seas, resurrection, talking snakes, 400-year-old men, geocentrism, six-day creation, theodicy and prayer are just a few examples where reason is abandoned in the search for god. Another is the idea that missing one meal during the day is a spiritual experience.
The association between self-denial and god is common in most religions. Christians have their 40 days of semi-fasting (which means semi-eating) during Lent to commemorate the death and resurrection of Christ. Jews have Yom Kippur, one day of fasting and repentance to atone for past sins. Muslims have Ramadan, the holy month during which fasting is meant to promote self-restraint and heighten spirituality.
What is so curious about these supposed episodes of “self-denial” is how little is being denied in the effort to get closer to god. If missing a meal is a criterion for spirituality, every anorexic supermodel is going straight to heaven. For such an important goal we offer very little. Let’s take Ramadan as our example since we are now in the midst of that celebration. Muslims “fast” from the first light of dawn, about an hour or so before sunrise, until the sun sets. So you wake up, have an early big breakfast, work during the day, come home and have dinner. The only thing you’ve done is miss lunch. That is not fasting, and that is not much self-restraint. Yet the holiday is explained in terms of the most amazing feats of self-denial as exemplified by quotes in my local newspaper in a story about Ramadan:
“Hopefully one grows each year as part of denying the physical self and growing the spiritual self.”
“Anyone who is not Muslim will see it as punishment. But we look at it spiritually, as a way to be closer to God.”
“Fasting is the most interesting thing I do each year” because it exposes me to the “essence of hunger.”
One would think these suffering people have endured a three-week hunger strike consuming nothing but water. They skipped lunch.
Christianity is no less ridiculous in its claims of fasting. Spirituality is reduced to avoiding potato chips between lunch and dinner. During Lent, adherents simply must restrict themselves to one full meal in a day, with no food between meals. That meal can be a huge brunch, with rich desserts. Throw in some wine, too. Jews have elaborate psychological preparations so they can go an entire 25 hours without stuffing themselves. Go to a synagogue, take a nap, sniff spices, don’t talk about food…
C’mon people, get a grip. If missing a meal is all that is necessary to get close to god, the threshold is awfully low. No wonder that seeing an image of Jesus in some burnt toast is considered a miracle. This is the problem with religion. We have this deeply ingrained taboo against calling out the obviously ridiculous for what it is for fear of offending. Well let’s throw caution to the wind to state the incredibly self-evident: folks, missing a meal or two during the day does not constitute deprivation, does not qualify as self-sacrifice, and does not count as self-denial. To claim otherwise is an embarrassing admission of an extraordinarily shallow concept of suffering. If missing lunch is all that is required to know god or to gain self-understanding or to grow spiritually, those goals are not terribly interesting. Such an easy and cheap entry fee diminishes the value of the prize, or reveals so-called fasting for the self-delusion that it really is. If you feel righteous for missing lunch or going a day without eating, you live a life too sheltered. If you really want to get closer to god, switch places with one of the billion human beings who go to bed hungry every night. If one skipped meal is a means of “growing the spiritual self” just think what you’ll experience with ceaseless pangs of hunger every minute of every day, with no relief in sight.
Pain and Piety
Even more intriguing than the idea that self-sacrifice is necessary to know god is that the assumed association between pain and piety largely goes unquestioned or is dismissed with the useless idea that “god works in mysterious ways.” What cruel god would require us to suffer to know him? The guy is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. He just as easily could have created a world in which every human is born with a deep understanding of god with no further ado. Heck, he could appear before us right now if he felt like materializing today as a giant talking turnip in Area 51. He could have us born into a world of plenty, in good health, full of joy never to be diminished by sadness.
Since that utopian ideal is not our reality, we need to make elaborate excuses for how an omniscient benevolent god could tolerate the pain, suffering, hunger, disease, crime, war and depraved behaviors we witness today and throughout human history. Our first feeble attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable is to fabricate the notion of divinely-granted free will as a get-out-of-jail pass for god. But the pass turns out to be a fraud sold to us by unscrupulous scalpers. If god is all-powerful, he could have created a species of humans who chose to use the gift of free will only for good. That his creations chose to behave badly means that such behavior was either god’s original intent, or that god is not all-knowing. Perhaps a benevolent god created a world with evil, but he chose to do so for good reasons. He created evil, but is not evil himself. This is the heart of the argument for those who believe that evil and suffering are necessary in order to know god. Well, that is simply another example of solving the problem by defining it away, and ultimately contributes nothing. The counterargument is trivially obvious. Since god is all-powerful, he could have just as easily designed the world such that suffering was not required to know him.
But the boss apparently did not get that memo. Since pain and suffering seem to be divine gifts, we celebrate god by simulating pain and suffering as a way to get closer to our cruel deity. Without the real thing, though. We pretend by pretending to fast, but with a few meals thrown in so we do not actually get hungry. Our attempts at piety through pain are as comical as they are misguided. Ramadan, Lent and Yom Kippur are not periods of self-denial but another collective example of religion’s absurdity. Please, let’s stop with the nonsense that a foregone brioche is a spiritual experience.
Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Jeff Schweitzer
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think Liberal Angel makes a really important point relevant to fasting when he says: "The point the Wedding at Cana is making is that our relationship with God is like a never ending banquette where the fine wine never runs out." and he also points out to wondering how rare a thing a feast was for the average peasant 2,000 years ago.
That is precisely the interesting thing about spiritual fasting-- it ends--always-- with a feast.
I read that, for Orthodox, fasting should also include abstaining from sex.
Wow, 200 days a year?
"That is precisely the interesting thing about spiritual fasting-- it ends--always-- with a feast."
..........
I still think these are silly rituals, but, I'm starting to admire the commitment! ;)
Since my husband is atheist, it would be mean of me to force him to go along with that part of the fast...(He does like to eat vegan though). But I am sure that for those who abstain so long, the ending of the fast is quite enjoyable.
Jeff,
This is off topic, but, I just stumbled across two discussions on YouTube, from 'The Gregory Mantell Show', that you had with a couple of theists.
You have been accused of arrogance, on this thread, and I couldn't help thinking about that accusation, while I watched these discussions. I really have to hand it to you. You showed an unbelievable amount of restraint, and politeness toward Elijah, who came across as as absolute blowhard (he thinks he should receive a Nobel prize?).
In the one called 'What's Wrong with Religion?', I thought it was nice that they were given the opportunity to have the last word, without you being there for any rebuttal ... nice.
*For those interested:
http://www
http://www
I appreciate those comments.
The problem is that anybody challenging relligious dogma is immediately labeled arrogant or insensitive by many believers. The very act of questioning the idea of faith is considered offensive. In spite of that, religion and faith are legitimate targets of satire and ridicule, no different than any other human endeavor.
I respect and will defend the right of others to hold different beliefs than mine but that does not obligate me to have respect for those views. Depending on circumstances and mood, and the desired result from the discussioin, my views on the absurdities of religion can be expressed through seriouis discussion, humor, satire or ridicule. All are legitimate means of expression. In the case of Elijah, I thought it best out of respect for the host to lean toward serious discussion in spite of the abundant material Elijah provided for satire.
I don't think that it is challenging religious dogma that makes someone insensitive or arrogant. Many people can do it in an interesting and challenging way where they come across as real people of integrity with interesting and provocative things to say-- I can think of a number of people at HuffPo who accomplish this-- some of them even rather sarcastically, but not mean spiritedly. One thing you did that seemed so arrogant is that one Muslim poster was very respectful to you *as a person*. Not only that, he was obviously a non-native speaker so he was really trying to express himself to you as best and as politely as he could. He was trying to share something with you. And your response to him was totally condescending-- "grasshopper" ??! Like you are the wise sage he should pay homage to. It is about how you treated him as a human being not how you treated his faith or his belief in faith that conveys arrogance.
And it is a completely bogus assertion on your part that " The very act of questioning the idea of faith is considered offensive.
I've always found non-believers to be as fanatical and fundamentalist about not believing as believers are about believing.
When you look at it, agnostacism and atheism is just another religion. So I dont 'get' what this blog is about.
I have met very few atheists who are "fanatical" about atheism itself.
What I have found are atheists who are fanatical about not having their lives infringed upon by religion, something they regard as silly.
Imagine if the Cat in the Hat decreased your ability to live a long and healthy life, you'd be stupified.
That's how atheists feel seeing things like stem cell research stopped by fairy tales.
Gee, I wonder which camp Gemmao8 falls into?
The hot air camp.
The absence of dogma is not dogma. If you claim there is an invisible pink elephant in the room, it is up to you to prove the claim, not up to me to disprove it. Just because I do not have to disprove your claim does not make me a fanatic.
By the way, the blog had absolutlely nothiing to do with your point. The blog was about the ridiculous idea that pseudo-fasting is a spiritiual experience getting you closer to god.
So you should go on and on about those awful people who believe in the pink elephants? When you go to a party, after someone introduces themself, you start in about the people who believe wrong things and bend their ear for three hours straight. That's not fanatical?
If it's wrong to believe things that are obviously ridiculous, what do you say to someone who believes that making fun of people and telling them they're stupid is going to make them agree with you?
"I've always found non-believers to be as fanatical "
You don't know many non-believers then...or "believers" either. In other words, you're blowin' smoke.
Is it still a sin to eat meat on Fridays?
Why is it a sin to eat meat on Friday but not Thursday or Saturday?
An athlete doesn't train the same every day. The practice of Friday fast days in Christianity is inherited from Judaism (where some sects fasted on numerous days of the week including Fridays).
Fasting is important. In the Bible, God’s people fasted immediately before a major victory, miracle, or answer to prayer. Moses fasted before he received the Ten Commandments. Jesus expected his followers to fast and pray.
Fasting allows for more time to pray and demonstrates that you are serious enough about your request to pay a personal price. God rewards fasting, deep desire and praying in faith. Fasting releases God’s supernatural power.
Fasting is not earning an answer to prayer. God cannot be blackmailed. Fasting simply prepares us for God’s answer.
God is love.
''Fasting releases God’s supernatural power."
Yes, "God’s supernatural power" can be trapped in your digestive system, and bogged down by food (especially fatty foods).
And the rumbling sound that you hear coming from your stomach, is really the sound of your god's supernatural powers, struggling with the last traces of your last meal, about to burst forth and perform feats that will amaze you ... and other god-type stuff!
It's well known, that food can be to God, what kryptonite is to Superman ... that's just a fact.
But what you call fasting is not fasting at all, just skipping a meal or two. At least once a month I fast for at least 36 hours, usually 48, without any food intake at all -- only water. It is no big deal, a trivial exercise, nothing like real self-denial. So if "fasting" is important in the bible, it is as I said a very low threshold, and not very interesting given that it is not really fasting at all; certainly not the self-deprivation people make it out to be or so much self-denial as to be a path to spirituality. So if god rewards what you call fasting, he is handing out goodies with little required from the receivers. Kind of like a kindergarten teacher handing out awards to all students in a competition.
You make two contradictory statements: fasting is not an answer to a prayer; god rewards fasting. Which one is it? If he "rewards" fasting you're trying to get something from him by fasting.
Isn't it the height of narcissism to believe that there is guy up in the sky who created the entire universe but now spends his days watching what you eat, and noting what day of the week or hour of the day and in what particular month, etc.?
They must believe that their God is very unambitious.
He knows when you've been sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good (or grabbed a Snickers)
So, be good for goodness sake
Malkin72, you're just begging for a lump of coal!
Well as you say fasting or missing one meal is not abig deal,
Most of the time a typical Ramdan fast lasts, 12 hours, in Moscow it lasts 17 hours.
So going without food & water & doing your normal stuff , just as you do year round is not easy.And it certainly ask for some effort from the believer.
well Ramdan is also about, fasting of all your sense, .
Not hurting some one with your tounge,
not watching ...porn etc.
not bacbitting, slandering abuses etc.
since you consider it so easy as missing a meal, why don't you keep fast for 30 days & explain your feelings in online journal.
Fast from food & other stuff.Sunr
I believe you are an atheist, this will certainly be an intresting study. What do you say.
Ah, Grasshopper, I am one step ahead of you. In fact I routinely fast, and find the practice trivially easy.
Do you find the part of fasting where you don't devour your brother with your words easier or harder than the part where you skip cafe lattes?
I am suprised you responded so quickly,
Well something i wish to know.Nothi
How many hours, i know othere religious fasting to be more difficult but for smaller duration.
My cousin was in Moscow for 6 years during his studies, at that the time from dusk to dawn was 17 hours, & he & all his muslim friends kept fast for those 17 hours.
Even i find the , not eating part easier as compared to keeping control over my mind.But when you conciously fast & miss a meal that's a whole lot of difference
you are in prime of your age, fast & othere restarins tests every one differently.
For some not eting or not drinkng for 12 hours or more is tough. For some keeping your mind offf all the bad stuff we normally do is difficult.
For some not using an abusive word is dificult.
I can only speak about Ramdan, it tests kids differently(it's most easy to fast when u are a kid, coz once i was also a kid. & can tell from personal experience
It tests parents differentl
Just coz not eating is easy for you, don't be too arrogant about it.
"Not hurting some one with your tounge,
not watching ...porn etc.
not bacbitting, slandering abuses etc."
So, if Ramadan is about not indulging in these goodies, what does that say about the other 11 months?
That we learn from our mistakes,Importarnt thing is we first realise those mistakes.
Ramdan snapps you up from your normal life, & forces you to consider what we all are doing.what wrong are we commiting Isour behaviour correct or not.
And hopefully , those things remain with ous.But Allah knows humans are not really good at lerning, so i believe that's why Ramdan comes every year.Not once in your life time.
Goodies...
I used to belong to a (protestant) x-ian religion that asks members to fast once a month and in between if extra blessing are required. That's 24 hours of no drinking and no eating. At one point, I was asked to fast every other day for a two-week period. Because I was faithful, I did so. I was in my early 20s at the time. My menstrual cycle immediately stopped for four months, and a few weeks later my appendix failed. I don't belong to that religion anymore, although it took me another 30 years to realize the many ways in which I had been duped by ridiculous brainwashing methods.
But we'll put you in jail for smoking pot because it's dangerous.
Do you belong to a different religion now?
Nope. I consider myself "unchurche
Do you want a fry with that?
I'll have a falafel.
While I agree missing a meal is not true piety, I don't agree with the premise that God requires suffering to know Him. The notions of "good" and "evil" are human, not divine. They are what we say they are. These human notions simply don't apply to God. Whether you believe in a deity or not is beside the point. The question of the existence of God hinges on what you define "God" as. If you see God as a supernatural being apart from time-space, you probably will become an atheist like I have. If you define God as Being itself, the conflict becomes "What is God's character?", also like I have. Religion has been and is being horrifically misused by many in the world. That is not the fault of God however. Man does what he wants. Religion is our reaction to God, not something God gave us. Many people come up with rediculous notions about God, but that isn't the fault of God. We think what we want. Both believers and non-believers read parts of the Bible literally and say it says nonsense. Well if you literally believe metaphor and allegory as literal truth, you will come up with nonsense. Religion does more for people than make us feel better about dying. And science is not a replacement. Science answers the question of "how?" Religion is about a relationship with Reality, and eachother.
Ooh, you're doing some mighty fancy dancing there. (You should meet Zanti, I think you two were separated at birth, or something.
Ok, here's my critique : Clearly you recognize the danger of defining god as a being. (Will it offend Her if I do not capitalize?) The supernatural is, by definition, unknowable. Thus to posit god as an immensely powerful uber-being is to assert something about that which you do not - and cannot - know.
But what does that leave? Either the god-concept must remain indefinable, or you are simply attaching the label "God" to things which are already understood to exist sans god(s).
In the first case, by refusing to define "God" so as to avoid allowing dogma to creep in, you destroy religion - for how can two people discuss their disparate god-concepts without imposing their particular definition upon the other?
In the second case, you are really saying nothing at all - saying things like, "God is a metaphor", "God is an ideal", "God is love", etcetra, are just attempts to attach a new label to things that you value. But these things already have names.
So, what or whom is this god of which you speak?
.
The God of which I speak is Ultimate Reality. Truth. Literally "Being ltself" It makes no sense to put a limit on God, which we have to do in order to talk about something that is so paradoxical as God. Our universe is emense. Most likely it's part of a Multiverse. All of it is contained within God, therefore it is part of God quite literally. Yet, God extends infinitetly beyond any sort of materiality. I think of the relationship between what we call spirit and materialtiy as an analogy to the relationship between matter and energy- two forms of the same thing. The reason I don't define God beyond saying God is Being itself, is because it is the reason for the Second Commandment (prohibition against idolatry). All I can say is God IS. I can infer from observing Nature, what some of His aspects may be. I quite literally believe the minimum we can say about God is everything we'll ever know is within Him, but He is infinitely more than everything. I have to use the third person to talk about him because that's how language works. I realize I am a spark of the divine, and so is everything that exists.
Liberal Angel worships The Infinite Mystery of Ultimate Reality.
Ranti worships The Ultimate Context.
"Religion does more for people than make us feel better about dying. And science is not a replacemen
Like WHAT?
How about a framework to experience the Sacred? You may hate religion and I accept your right to do so, but you need not insult my right to be part of one. I didn't post anything to start an argument with anyone, yet argument found me. I enjoy belonging to something that has nurtured the lives of billions of others. I find contentment with my faith's traditions. I get goosebumps hearing (some not all) religious songs. I don't believe in Heaven, Hell or Purgatory. I'm about the here and now. I'm agnostic about what happens after death, but I don't fear it. I fear a horrific death, not death itself. 'Til that time comes, I'm going to enjoy my life how I choose to- as a Christian. I don't intend to waste my time trying to get converts by preaching. If folks wanna join, God bless 'em. If not, God bless 'em anyway. I have absolutely no qualms about science. In fact because I don't believe in the traditional concepts of the afterlife, I got some reassurance from the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy). I don't know about life after death, but it really doen't matter. I had an experience of the Divine and I seek to understand that more.
Okay. Sorry. this looks fanatic to have so many posts right in a row I admit... !
Don't you all think it is interesting to note that Christian Fundamentalists do NOT fast.They don't believe in it. They don't have an Easter Lent before Easter and they don't have a Christmas Lent before Christmas. Why do you think they reject fasting?
We also fast because man does not live by bread alone. When you fast, it improves your ability to concentrate on contemplative prayer.
Moreover, you are not really fasting if as St. Basil points out, you watch everything that goes into your mouth but devour your brother (with your anger or your criticism) instead.
1/2
"Another is the idea that missing one meal during the day is a spiritual experience
The usual Schweitzer disinformation ...
Orthodox Christians participate in an ascetic fast for approximately 150 days of the year: 49 days before Easter, 40 days before Christmas, 15 days before the feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God, about 10 days for the Apostles, and every Wednesday and Friday. We eat vegan during this period, with no alcohol and no oil (oil and alcohol are allowed on the weekends) because of the connection of Saturdays to the Sabbath and Sundays to the Resurrection. Exoskeletal animals are allowed, but no fish. We are supposed to eat less as well.
Sorry, but that's not a fast. That's a diet.
.
It is the practice of asceticism.
correction to typo: about 200 days a year-- not 150.
2/2
This kind of diet actually saves money as long as you don't eat shrimp and lobster as your exoskeletal animals. Usually I eat legumes, stewed vegetables, and tofu. You are supposed to give the money you save to the poor. When I had first converted, it was a fasting period and my husband brought me a hamburger for lunch because I had to commute and didn't have time to get food. I didn't say anything to him because it was nice of him to surprise me by bringing me lunch. I just took the patty out of the bun and ate the bun. I was getting off the off-ramp of the freeway in downtown LA and there was a homeless guy who was asking for money or food. I told him I had a hamburger patty, would he like it? He said he hadn't eaten meat in 2 months and he was really happy to eat the hamburger. That kind of thing happens all the time when you fast. You are not fasting for a spiritual experience during these fasts-- you fast in imitation of Christ and to learn self discipline. It does affect your spiritual life to fast, but you are not fasting as a spiritual experience.
Just read the quotes from Muslims above. Maybe you don't but others clearly see fasting as a spiritual experience. And how does "fasting" with one or two meals a day qualify as "self discipline" anyway? All the points in the blog stand.
And the responses that try to skew the debate by talking about the health benefits of fasting completely miss the point. All the points about the ridiculous elements of the religious mandate to fast, and how we really don't fast but pretend to, remain valid whether or not fasting is healthy.
I agree that the comments about the health benefits are missing the point, although there may be valid points to made there, on the "Living" page.
But a couple of inferences about the psycho-chemical effect may indeed be relevant, at least historically. Certainly the modern 'skip-lunch' style of fasting probably won't cause any major brain chemistry changes. I do imagine that in the past when the fast was real and prolonged, that all kinds of hallucination's and psychosis might be caused. This was probably little different from the old sages that were hopped up on whatever opiates were around at that time.
I don't think I have said anything about health benefits to the faster--I don't think that would be relevant to the spiritual life in any case. I think my example does however illustrate the potential health benefits to the poor if people who have food to share do fast. But "health benefit" for this effect is not the right term, fasting can create a more loving world.
In the discussion with kwinter and wondering and elsewhere I develop the idea that fasting is not just abstaining from food or certain foods, it is about abstaining from devouring one's brother and sister and increasing acts of love that one does in the world. One learns (hopefully) to control the mouth-- including words that come out of it. An increase in prayer accompanies fasting in order for it to be effective as well.
In any case, that is what I find so unconvincing about all of your critiques of Faith in God -- they are arrogantly shallow in a way that reminds me of a very bright student in a freshman writing course who writes well but doesn't really bother to look too deeply into the subject matter.
If I go too long w/o eating and I start to experience god, I find that he's no match for a Hershey bar.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
