#Exploring Atheism

[possil]

ATHEIST UK

The UK is now home to more atheists than Christians. This is a conclusion from the three-year ‘Explaining Atheism’ project led by Queen’s University Belfast. The interdisciplinary research team surveyed nearly 25,000 people from across six countries (Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, UK and USA) to find out why people become atheists and agnostics. They also brought together converging results from…

[tomurakii]

Look Kristen is a kid so its understandable and Ally is great and I'm sure has a plan for this. But Kristen should not be a cleric lol. I hope that after the wizard synogue incident Cassandra takes the Archfey deal to keep herself safe and Kristen loses her powers because honestly based on her RP that girl has NO wisdom. She has NEGATIVE wisdom. If you don't like the gods currently on offer but can't take responsibility for keeping a new one alive (because you're a kid) then you should just respec. Pick a charisma-based spellcaster class that doesn't require a bunch of work like the Int classes or responsibility like the Wis classes. Give up your soul to Fig (or just give it back to newly-Archfey Cassandra) for Warlock spells idk.

[teslapunk3327]

Torchwood really be like, "there's nothing after death" until they remember Ianto exists. Where instead it's all, "Ianto has a canonical golden aura btw."

(Golden auras are related to soul contracts, the afterlife, and reincarnation).

and then Doctor Who is all, "faith is bad and isn't real."

While Torchwood One is all, "I only follow the word of God."

[apenitentialprayer]

When Materialist Soviets Just Didn't Get It

Scientific atheists believed that their technological and scientific successes would obviously disprove the validity of religion because the two are fundamentally in opposition. Official Soviet ideology stated that "religion exists where knowledge is lacking, religion is opposed to science." […] Scientific atheists viewed any technology as evidence of atheism because it demonstrated that humans could work "miracles" that were not performed by God. At the very first attempts to industrialize the newly created Soviet Union, scientific atheists seized on the introduction of new technologies as a source for their anti-religious propaganda. For example, farming technology became a means to convince rural residences of their outdated reliance on religious concepts. An anti-religious pamphlet printed in the first Five Year Plan period was entitled "Prayers or Tractor" and a widespread poster crudely elaborated on the alleged contradiction between "cross and tractor." The alternative, "religion or tractor" with which the communists operated, never existed in the minds of the people for who this propaganda was intended. The illusions about "atheist tractor" were therefore soon shattered, especially when peasants affixed crosses to them and when priests celebrated thanksgiving services at their arrival in villages. As this instance demonstrates, scientific atheists simply did not understand the nature of religious belief. The fact that a tractor exists does not translate into a disproof of God and, ironically, Kolarz points out that farmers often interpreted these agricultural advancements as gifts from God. Similarly, scientific atheists thought that atheism was empirically proven because God remained unseen or because certain religious stories were scientifically inconceivable. Following World War II, Soviet officials started a campaign to produce natural-scientific arguments against belief in God. For instance, Soviet scientists placed holy water under a microscope to prove that it has no special properties and [… i]n one of the most famous examples, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin proclaimed upon his return from the very first space flight in history he did not see God in space. Aeronautical technology was often presented as proof of atheism and Soviet leaders viewed every flight as an "assault on heaven." In the Russian language, as in many others, there is only one expression for both "heaven" and "sky" and "assault on heaven" therefore meant both the technical conquest of the air and the conquest of space where God was supposed to live . . . However, before the atheist propaganda was able to exploit the "conquest of the stratosphere" it suffered a tremendous setback when the stratosphere plane "SSSR" crashed after having reached the height of 22 kilometers. As the communists considered these flights to be a challenge to religion . . . the more simple minded believers considered the accident and death of all three pilots as an act of divine punishment. [...] As there examples illustrate, scientific atheists did not recognize the nonempirical character of religious concepts and stories. In most cases, atheist proselytizers had little or no knowledge of actual religious doctrine. In fact, a visitor to the Soviet Union in the 1960s reported that "no atheist ringleader has ever dared to allow those under him to study the Bible, even for the purpose of spying out the enemy's territory in order to more easily conquer it." Under these conditions, atheist recruiters were largely ignorant of the nonempirical tenets of religious belief, which led them to only attack the supernatural using empirical arguments.

- Paul Froese ("Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed")

[thebardostate]

An Agnostic Manifesto

As far as the onus of proof is concerned, the theist and the atheist are in exactly the same position: neither has a greater duty to justify their position than the other. There should be no automatic presumption of atheism...

Theism is not 'bad science'; it is the very general hypothesis that there exists, in terms of an intelligent being, a true unifying explanation of the world, ourselves, our consciousness, and our capacity for good.

The agnostic principle: always seek reasons for beliefs, and do not make knowledge claims that are not adequately supported by the evidence... We should proportion the extent to which we are inclined to believe something by the weight of the evidence.

The evidence which is pointed to as supporting, or undermining, theism is ambiguous: it can be shown to be consistent both with theism and atheism without resorting to ad hoc or implausible maneuvers.

Since the evidence is ambiguous, commitment to either theism or atheism is, at least in part, an emotional response to the world, not a purely rational one. But this does not make either theism or atheism an irrational response. Theists regard the religious attitude as natural, built-in, and one which is valuable and to be encouraged and developed. Atheists, while often recognizing the response as natural, see it as apt to delude us, and as something to be exorcised. The difference is more temperamental than either side typically acknowledges.

Agnosticism as an attitude should not be viewed as final, but provisional, to be accompanied by an open-minded attitude, and a willingness to look at new evidence and arguments.

There are different shades of agnosticism, reflecting different views on how probable or improbable theism is. The admission that one doesn't know whether or not God exists is entirely compatible with either a theist or an atheist outlook. There can be belief without knowledge.

Even the kind of agnosticism that takes theism and atheism to be equiprobable is compatible with a practical and emotional commitment to a religious way of life. [The agnostic participation in religion in this case is more akin to participation in a game of make-believe, e.g. English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams.]

Agnosticism is part of the wider phenomenon of uncertainty, and uncertainty is positive in so far as it promotes creativity, theoretical progress, and social tolerance. Agnosticism thus promotes religious pluralism: peaceful co-existence between different religious faiths, and between religious and humanist groups. What it does not promote or imply is a relativistic view of truth.

From Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction (2010) by Robin Le Poidevin (pp. 117-118). Oxford University Press

[bijoumikhawal]

I'm thinking again about how much it annoys me when fics make Parmak a follower of the Oralian Way and Garak a scornful atheist when the material they draw on for that characterization portrays Garak as religious and as this being apart of his heritage- and connects Parmak to the Oralian Way in no way whatsoever. Aside from my general feelings about Hebitians and class in Cardassian society it makes my eye twitch because it almost feels like its implying they're like this because of their respective moralities and implying religious people are inherently good and kind and atheists are... whatever you want to call Garak... is pretty fucked.

[death-rebirth-senshi]

Ashley: You don't believe in god? 🤨

Me: Aw, how sweet

Suvi: Just a constant reminder of the divine intelligence behind all creation

Me: Hello, human resources!?

[gregoriusadvena]

God’s Omniscience and Human Freedom | The Eleutheric Dilemma | An Essay on Existence

[ldknightshade]

morality: a character creation guide

creating and understanding your oc’s personal moral code! no, i cannot tell you whether they’re gonna come out good or bad or grey; that part is up to you.

anyway, let’s rock.

i. politics

politics are a good way to indicate things your character values, especially when it comes to large-scale concepts such as government, community, and humanity as a whole.

say what you will about either image; i’d argue for the unintiated, the right image is a good introduction to some lesser discussed ideologies… some of which your oc may or may not fall under.

either way, taking a good look at your character’s values on the economic + social side of things is a good place to start, as politics are something that, well… we all have ‘em, you can’t avoid ‘em.

clearly, this will have to be adjusted for settings that utilize other schools of thought (such as fantasy + historical fiction and the divine right of kings), but again, economic/social scale plotting will be a good start for most.

ii. religion + philosophy

is your oc religious? do they believe in a form of higher power? do they follow some sort of philosophy?

are they devout? yes, this applies to non-religious theist and atheist characters as well; in the former’s case… is their belief in a higher power something that guides many of their actions or is their belief in a higher power something that only informs a few of their actions? for the atheists; do they militant anti-theists who believe atheism is the only way and that religion is harmful? or do they not care about religion, so long as it’s thrust upon them?

for the religious: what is your oc’s relationship with the higher power in question? are they very progressive by their religion’s standards or more orthodox? how well informed of their own religion are they?

does your oc follow a particular school of philosophical thought? how does that interact with their religious identification?

iii. values

by taking their political stance and their religious + philosophical stance, you have a fairly good grasp on the things your character values.

is there anything they value - due to backstory, or what they do, or what they love - that isn’t explained by political stance and religious and/or philosophical identification? some big players here will likely be your oc’s culture and past.

of everything you’ve determined they value, what do they value the most?

iv. “the line”

everyone draws it somewhere. we all have a line we won’t cross, no matter the lengths we go for what we believe is a noble cause. where does your character draw it? how far will they go for something they truly believe is a noble cause? as discussed in part iii of my tips for morally grey characters,

would they lie? cheat? steal? manipulate? maim? what about commit acts of vandalism? arson? would they kill?

but even when we have a line, sometimes we make exceptions for a variety of reasons. additionally, there are limits to some of the lengths we’d go to.

find your character’s line, their limits and their exceptions.

v. objectivism/relativism

objectivism, as defined by the merriam-webster dictionary, is “an ethical theory that moral good is objectively real or that moral precepts are objectively valid.”

relativism, as defined by the merriam-webster dictionary, is “a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.”

what take on morality, as a concept, does your character have? is morality objective? is morality subjective?

we could really delve deep into this one, but this post is long enough that i don’t think we need to get into philosophical rambling… so this is a good starting point.

either way, exploring morality as a concept and how your character views it will allow for better application of their personal moral code.

vi. application

so, now you know what they believe and have a deep understanding of your character’s moral code, all that’s left is to apply it and understand how it informs their actions while taking their personality into account.

and interesting thing to note is that we are all hypocrites; you don’t have to do this, but it might be fun to play around with the concept of their moral code and add a little bit of hypocrisy to their actions as a treat.

either way, how do your character’s various beliefs interact? how does it make them interact with the world? with others? with their friends, family, and community? with their government? with their employment? with their studies? with the earth and environment itself?

in conclusion:

there’s a lot of things that inform one’s moral compass and i will never be able to touch on them all; however, this should hopefully serve as at least a basic guide.

[sweetmodel]

Hi. How has your perception on existence changed since shifting ?

Heyy, thanks for the question. Since I began shifting, I’ve come to realize what true freedom feels like, in the most profound sense of the word. Shifting has revealed to me that I am truly limitless. I’m not bound by this reality or the rules I used to think were unchangeable (as you might have read in my pinned post). I’ve learned that I can be anything I want, go anywhere I want, and experience life however I want.

Disclaimer, this is all personal and my own journey, so if you don't relate that's normal and fine.

One of the biggest shifts in my perception has been around time. I no longer look at something and think, I’m late, or This is never going to happen. Now, I know that if I want to be somewhere or do something, I can just shift. Time no longer feels like a limitation. I used to be like "I have to shift to soon, I don't want [insert bad thing here] to happen!" now I can literally just do it. Because I realized hold the power.

Shifting has also changed how I interact with others. In many of my DRs, I tend to be with the same people, but our relationships vary across realities. It’s cool to see how different realities and the unique challenges they present shape not only those same people, but also the relationships. For example, in my fame reality, my life there is chaotic in a sad way. Without revealing too much, I’ll say that people I have strained relationships with in that reality are my closest friends in my fantasy realities. It’s wild to experience such contrasting dynamics with the same people and how much the environment and circumstances shaped us and our relationships.

I'm not exempt from these changes tho. While I usually keep the same name, appearance, and backstory in my realities, my personality changes in ways I don’t always anticipate. For example, in my fame reality I'm more charismatic and extroverted, while in one of my fantasy realities I'm more stubborn, and so on. I do not script these changes, the different experiences I go through in each reality naturally shapes who I have become. Sometimes, it’s overwhelming, navigating these different identities and the lives I lead is intense.

There are moments when I feel detached. I’ve realized, at the core of it, that I’m just consciousness experiencing reality. Because of that, I don’t care too much to the tragedies or the hardships that happen in any of my realities. Nothing feels permanent. It’s like I’m playing different characters, and each of those characters reacts to life in a way that makes sense for them. My fame reality self might respond to chaos in one way, while my fantasy reality self would respond completely differently, and that’s exactly how it’s supposed to be.

Shifting has helped me explore my identity on a deeper level than I ever could have imagined. My first shift was into a Winx DR, where I was a fairy. That experience impacted me so much, and ever since, in almost all my fantasy realities, I’ve been some kind of fairy hybrid—whether it’s a fairy, a fairy-demon, or a fairy-angel. I’ve explored the entire spectrum of human emotion and beyond thanks to being a creature of both darkness (fairy-demon) and light (fairy-angel). These experiences have given me a unique perspective on the world, helping me understand why societies behave the way they do, why people think the way they do, and why everything around us is deeper than we think.

In terms of belief, shifting has only reinforced my atheism. I’ve always been an atheist, but after experiencing shifting, it became even clearer to me that the only power that exists is my consciousness. Nothing outside of me, no deity, no external force, can stop or help me shift. I’m the only one with the power to change my situation. Shifting made me understand that my consciousness is the ultimate creator of my reality.

I no longer see life as something fixed or predetermined. Existence is fluid, I’m not limited to one path, one life, or one way of being.

[writers-potion]

Aight I just remembered what I was gonna ask. I think It'll be my second ask because I do remember I submitted the same question I wanna ask months ago HAHA

Okay so, I'm writing a story that explores a lot of subjects, one of them is morality

So... How do you make a fictional religion feel "real" in a sense? Like I know there'll be shrines, temples, and stuff but I need to know more than just that.

Take your time and thank you! ✨

Writing Realistic Fictional Religion

Hi! Thank you for the question :)

Please refer to my posts about writing hateful gods and writing deities for stuff about writing gods! I'll talk more about writing religion in general here.

Religious Hierarchy

Think about how you'd want your religion to be structured:

Polytheism: the belief in many gods.

Monotheism: the belief in a single, all-powerful god.

Atheism: the belief in no gods. A belief in nothing is stil a belief.

Are there tiers of gods? (Gods above Gods)?

Is there a "Mother God" or "Father God" that must be worshipped over everything else?

How are religious leaders selected and trained?

What kind of actions (celibacy, vegetarianism) do the believers need to do in order to be a faithful person? Is there a consequence when they don't do this?

Religious Texts

The most important question a religious text should aim to answer is: where did the world (and therefore, us) come from?

Here are some story patterns you can use:

Creatio Ex Nihilo: God creates the world from nothing

Creation from Chaos: God introduced order into a chaotic world

Primal Couple: The first "couple" gives birth to the world

World Parent: A god sacrifices (a part) of their body to construct the world's elements.

Emergence: Before the current world, there existed another world. After a period of time is over, a new world emerges.

Earth-Diver: A deity sends over a person/animal, etc. to construct a world out of the barren land they've created.

This "Origin Story" will dicate the basic values that your religion thinks is the most important.

Religious Practices

You have the freedom to invent your own religious practices. When you are trying to invent one, consider:

The weather. Is the Sun in your world so blazing that all religious festivals are only held during the night?

What can you not do in the name of religion? Are you not allowed to have stuffed animals in your bed? Not eat blue stuff?

Who are the people that work the most during festivals/worship ceremonies? Are slaves exploited to prepare the feast? Are the women the only ones that works while the men sing? Are animals tortured or exploited in the process?

Sacrifices. What/when/how do you offer sacrifices?

You can also think about:

Who determines the kind of religious practices the other people have to follow?

Are the reliigous practice discriminatory and if yes, who do they benefit?

Religious Locations

Historically, religious lands have had the power to have its own rules and be protected. which will provide a good

One Location vs. Many: Is there a shrine in every home/street, or is everyone required to report to the city square every Saturday?

The Ruler's Castle: Sometimes, the king is considered to be the "son of god" and the palace is therefore the most sacred place.

One Unreachable Location: It can also be that in order to be ruly faithful, you need to visit a place that is so unreachable that people die trying.

A Moving Location: Does the god choose their new home every year?

A Constructable Location: If you draw a circle in bone ash, does the patch of land inside it become holy and no ghost can enter it? What if you lack faith and the circle construction doesn't work at a time you need it the most?

Question of Morality and Religion

While many religions preach equality and kindnes, it has been used to justify conflict and discriminate those who do not believe in it.

Does the deity promote such violence? Or is it the bad leaders?

Is the deity uncritical towards such behavior? Or do they actively step in?

Is the God falliable? Like the modern-day presidents, is the god's survival/power somehow dependent on the believers? Is that why they stay silent even when bad things are being done in their name?

Does the god favor rich people?

─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* . ───

💎If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 

💎Before you ask, check out my masterpost part 1 and part 2 

💎For early access to my content and priority questions, become a Writing Wizard 

[oidheadh-con-culainn]

let's be more positive about books for a while! here are some queer historical romance novels that i've been rereading recently that i think do something interesting with making characters feel historical in their mindset and worldview, but are also fairly progressive, diverse queer books that are, frankly, a delight to read

this is by no means exhaustive and to be honest i could put almost anything by cat sebastian or kj charles on a list like this so this is purely the highlights of what i've reread in the past week to take my mind off work, and why i think they're interesting from this specific angle

cat sebastian, the ruin of a rake (turners #3)

this is technically the third in a trilogy but they're only very loosely connected, so you don't need to have read the others if you don't care about knowing who all the background characters are. the others are also good though

why it's interesting: features a character who has had to painstakingly study and learn the rules of polite society in order to claw his way up to respectability, and is now deploying those skills to help another man repair his reputation. shows the complexity of those rules, the social purposes they serve, and the work that goes into living by them, as well as the consequences of breaking them. also explores some of the financial side of aristocracy, and features a character with chronic illness (recurring malaria following repeated infections as a child in india) whose feelings about his illness are very relatable without feeling overly modern.

kj charles, society of gentlemen series.

this trilogy is closely related plot-wise and best read in order. all three explore cross-class romances and characters struggling to reconcile their political views and personal ethics with their desires, in the aftermath of the peterloo massacre, with a strong focus on the political role of the written word. first book is long-lost gentleman raised by seditionists / fashion-minded dandy teaching him to behave in society; second book is tory nobleman submissive / seditious pamphleteer dominant who've been fucking for a year without knowing the other's identity; third book is lord / valet and all the complicated dynamics of consent there with a generous side-helping of crime.

why they're interesting: close attention to the history of political printing and the impact of government censorship and repressive taxes on the freedom of the press; complex ideological disagreements that aren't handwaved as unimportant; examination of trust, consent, and social responsibility across class differences and in situations with problematic power dynamics; most of the characters are progressive for their time without feeling like they have modern attitudes. the second book, a seditious affair, deals most strongly with the revolutionary politics side of things, but all tackle it to some extent.

kj charles, band sinister.

look i'm probably biased because this might be my favourite KJC. it's a standalone about a pair of siblings: the sister wrote a gothic novel heavily inspired by their mysterious and scandalous neighbour whose older brother had an affair with their mum (causing scandal); the brother is a classics nerd. the sister breaks her leg on a ride through their neighbour's estate and can't be moved until she heals so they both have to stay at the house and find out if the neighbour is really as scandalous as he seems.

why it's interesting: discussion of atheism and new ideas about science and creation (very shocking to the brother, who is the viewpoint character); details of agriculture and estate management via main LI's attempt to grow sugar beet, as well as the economics of sugar (including references to slavery); "unexpurgated" latin and greek classics as queer reference points for a character who nevertheless hasn't quite figured out he's queer; material consequences of society scandal

bonus: wonderful sibling dynamic and a diverse cast including a portugese jewish character, which i don't think i've seen in a book before

i will add to this list as i continue to reread both of their backlists! (bc i have read them all enough times and in close enough succession that they blur together in my head unless i've read them very recently)

[chainofclovers]

Due to word limits, a few explanations:

"Raised religious" = raised in a home where one or more religions were practiced, with at least one parent or guardian who ascribed to those belief systems and practices and taught them to you.

"Raised without religion" = raised in a home in which no one practiced religion but no one was a convicted atheist, either.

"Raised atheist" = raised in a home where at least one parent or guardian who was an atheist taught you that belief system. "Conviction" = religious conviction that matches the religion you were raised in.

"Rel" = religion.

This poll is specifically for agnostic people as opposed to people who practice a specific religion or people who are atheist. If you consider yourself agnostic, please take the poll! I'm curious to learn more--in a very surface-level tumblr poll sort of way--about the way beliefs change over time, whether gradually or suddenly. Feel free to elaborate on your experience with agnosticism, atheism, and religion in the tags.

[and-her-saints]

american who grew up protestant: all religion is bad because of [feature unique to christianity] and [feature unique to abrahamic religions]! i can’t believe all of us christians grew up being taught that [teaching unique to protestantism]! this specific religious issue affects everyone [by "everyone" they mean "americans"]!

like obviously there’s massive nuance to this but it’s sooo tiring hearing some american WASP or whatever discussing religion without knowing anything about religion in other countries, different cultures, Indigenous religions and spirituality, ethnoreligions, religious persecution, or religions other than christianity (or religions other than christianity, islam & judaism at *best*).

you cannot “destroy religion” your way into collective liberation.

you cannot argue for “a religionless world” without inherently and inadvertently calling for cultural genocide.

most of these exvangelicals don’t even care to explore the ways they’re still part of the cultural hegemonic majority. they don’t care to realize they’re still *culturally* christian, and that just because they now don’t believe in a god, it doesn’t mean their values, their perspective, their ethics, their cosmology, their politics *are no longer* influenced by their experience of their specific brand of protestantism/christianity. they are, most of the times and by all means, Christian Atheists™️

they have no interest in unpacking how their critique and disdain for “the Old Testament God” has historically affected and continues to affect Jewish people to this day. they have no interest in unpacking how their open mockery of Jesus also offends Muslims, not just their hometown church.

Christianity hurt you. but that does not give you a free-pass to be weird about all religious people and their beliefs. especially when their background, experience, level of privilege, geographical location, and religion practiced looks nothing like what you used to do. because, believe it or not, not “all religion” is the same. it’s soooo not that simple.

“end all religion” sounds like a liberatory chant when your ex-religion belongs to the cultural-religious hegemony of your region and has a strong political and social power (which IS to be criticised and dismantled, don’t get me wrong.) however, “end all religion” sounds a LOT less liberatory when you’re a persecuted religious minority. because “when” we do “end all religion,” who do you fucking think is going to be ended first?

TLDR: good for you for deconstructing. 👍 now, deconstruct some more. 👍 atheism is fine, anti-theism is a harmful pipeline.

[randomfoggytiger]

Even though I am personally not religious, one of my favorite character traits of Scully was her faith despite being a hard nosed scientist. If you had to define her religious beliefs how would you? Would you consider her a hard core catholic, a catholic in name only or something else?

I look forward to a 1000 word prompt XD

The Journey of Scully's Faith, in Brief

Oh, yeah, Scully and her religion.

*cracks knuckles*

Faith was Scully's albatross until all things, a tug-of-war between her initial belief and secondary rationalization.

ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND THE FEAR OF HER BELIEFS

During the first half of the 90s, religion represented, to Scully, everything she was afraid to believe in: her father's ghost mouthing The Lord's Prayer, her Catholic mother's psychic dreams, her partner's and sister's convictions running concurrent with her struggle against faith.

She began Season 1 as an atheist-- more so than Mulder, perhaps-- using the rigidity of science to explain her world. Even though she wore a cross around her neck, Mulder didn't assume Scully was religious; and Maggie backed up that assumption in S2's Ascension, explaining, "I gave" [Scully's cross] "to her for her birthday." The religious iconography, then, was a memento of Scully's mother, not of her faith... which becomes particularly telling during her Season 3 and 4 struggles.

Why?

CHILDLIKE FAITH

Scully had a proclivity to believe in the supernatural, the unnatural, and the paranormal before, as she states in Quagmire, "I grew up and became a scientist." Science, then, is a shield against the unexplained: in other words, Scully fears what she can't quantify, so turns to science to deny her problem's existence. "Mulder, it doesn't matter," she insists when he prods about the cause of her cancer; "Mulder what difference would it make?" she rebuts whenever he wanders too far into the realm of hypothesis.

Beyond the Sea and Revelations hit upon the same raw nerve. Luther Lee Boggs preyed upon her repressed doubts, calling her a liar when she denied she believes and telling her that all liars "go to hell." Kevin Kryder was saved only through her acceptance, shall we say, of God's hand working through her. In both cases, religious belief-- be it her father's ghost mouthing The Lord's Prayer or a sweet-smelling saint her partner can't detect-- terrifies her.

Why would it terrify her? Because religion isolated her.

CONFUSION AND ITS ISOLATION

We know Scully has attachment issues. We see them explored in A Christmas Carol when she poured her heart out to the social worker-- admitting she kept her heart largely unattached for fear of losing yet another person in her life-- but we know Scully isn't a detached person, either. We know that Scully's greatest fear was being betrayed by Mulder. That was explored in Wetwired, when she collapsed in her mother's arms, confused and sick at heart. We know that Scully grew more and more isolated in her partnership with Mulder; but she adapted to and respected that isolation after years of professional betrayal.

In regard to religion, why would Scully feel isolated? The Scullys are a religious family: her mother dangled reminders in her life with cross necklaces and priest visits, her father prayed as his soul departed, and Bill buried her daughter in his local church.

Because religion, Scully believed, isolates her from herself.

When Scully changed her course from medical school to the FBI, her parents heavily disapproved. That disapproval heavily affected her, even if Melissa helped her work past her hang-ups, even if Scully chose to reframe her transfer as "an act of rebellion." In truth, Scully found "other fathers" to hitch her wagon to, "rebelling" only when she spotted another patch of grass that promised greener pastures. The FBI patted Scully on the head and encouraged her to sign up (pre-Pilot); Mulder patted her on the head and encouraged her to stick around (Squeeze), Ed Jerse patted her on the head and encouraged her to take a walk on the wild side (Never Again), and Daniel Waterston patted her on the head and encouraged her to come back to him (all things.) Every decision that drew Scully away from an old belief was caused by a single-minded focus on one aspect of herself: her parents' pride and joy as a doctor, Daniel Waterston's pride and joy as his med student, the FBI's pride and joy as a field agent, Mulder's pride and joy as his partner, Ed's pride and joy as his salvation. And in each case, Scully grew isolated and paranoid because she lost touch with herself as a whole; and usually fled (if temporarily) to what she considered a 'freer' freedom.

How does this apply to religion? As a child, Scully was a good little Catholic girl who smiled at her mother's cross gift; but was also a bad little Catholic girl that smoked her mother's cigarettes for attention. In medical school, Scully was a good little med student who preened under her teacher's adoration; but was also a "bad" little Catholic woman who "grew up and became a scientist." Before recruitment, Scully was a good little scientist who fled from Daniel Waterston's deception; but was a "bad" little lapsed Catholic that (unintentionally) broke up a home. In Quantico, she was a good little field agent who learned all her lessons; but was also a "bad" little by-the-books student who openly dated her Academy instructor. And she was a good little partner who helped Mulder investigate impossible cases; but was also a "bad" little scientist for "holding" him "back."

In short, Scully hadn't allowed herself to fully accept the dichotomous nature of humanity. She must either be a good little Catholic girl or be someone who wants to explore her wild side. Until Revelations, she believed one must believe in God or science; and science gave her clearer answers that squelched her anxieties.

But then, Beyond the Sea, One Breath, and Revelations happened. Scully was unable to articulate or fully understand what her experience "beyond" had been in One Breath, only that it wasn't something to fear. It forced her to brush up against sentiments lingering from Beyond the Sea, to begin to admit there was a simmering belief she wasn't ready to acknowledge.

Revelations in particular tossed Scully from agnosticism back to belief-- and, again, she feared that belief. "Afraid that God is speaking; but that no one's listening" was a distancing tactic she acknowledged in Irresistible, a way to separate from the emotions broiling uncontrollably below the surface. But it also revealed how effortlessly Scully slipped back into a belief in God-- and that she equated that belief with missed cues and punishment.

Why did Scully think religion is tied with punishment, and how did that isolate her from her other potential believers?

MOTHER MAGGIE

Maggie is the key.

As discussed above, Scully strove for acceptance from her parents or from "other fathers"; and that played an important role in her journey towards personal growth. But Captain Scully was but one-half of the picture. Scully's father served as the cattle prod for professional approval-- he modeled complete focus on climbing rank and keeping emotional burdens out from plain sight-- while her mother served as an emotional and religious one.

Maggie was the one person she could "always trust" and truly felt safe with in Wetwired. It was her mother she turned to for reassurance in Beyond the Sea, it was her mother's sins she smoked on the porch, it was her mother's gift she continued to wear when science dominated her beliefs. But Maggie has never been particularly stringent herself in her religion-- smoking cigarettes (during a time period when everyone did, but the point remains), believing in supernatural dreams, inviting the unbeliever "Fox" to mourn with the family, embracing her son's successful IVF baby in A Christmas Carol, and celebrating her daughter's out-of-wedlock baby in Essence.

It's what Margaret Scully represented, not Maggie herself, that Scully feared: unquestioning, childlike faith.

Unfortunately, we are never given closure to the dynamic Maggie provided. Other than a brief appearance in S8's Essence-- Scully's unruffled independence and Maggie's confidence in her daughter's confidence-- we're never shown that final conclusion. Alas.

A QUESTIONER AT HEART

Again, Scully couldn't reconcile the dichotomy of human nature with her (flawed) perception of religious "good and evil." Good people who do wrong, she presumed, have faltered and must repent. By that metric, evil people who do right do it for the wrong reasons. Moreover, Scully viewed a faith in God through one lens; and thought that if one did not completely believe in everything they didn't understand-- childlike faith-- then God was "speaking to them; but that no one's listening." That she wasn't listening. And what happens to those that know better but aren't listening? They are punished, because they are evil.

Scully is a questioner at heart; and Scully came to believe that questioning her beliefs, that failing to believe in things she couldn't understand, was tantamount to disbelieving in God. That's why her religious episodes can be difficult to rewatch: when facing an Almighty God, Scully cowered into complete, blind obedience-- "Perhaps that's what faith is"-- before casting off those shackles and fleeing back to denial and avoidance. But she couldn't shirk her belief, deep down, no matter her rationalizations.

A RETURN TO BELIEF, AND LIMBO

Post Revelations, Scully left the matter largely alone, resolving to finds answers to her own questions "because of my own reasons" in Memento Mori-- a courageous step for someone who usually put her own needs second.

However, the doomed inevitability of Elegy-- another agency-robbing experience Scully couldn't explain-- set her back; and she continued dodging both her mother's priest and her partner's complicated questions in Gethsemane. Scully would feel like a coward if she ran to God for strength after her absence, but she would also feel like a heretic if she questioned the nature of God's existence.

Maggie became crucial to the cancer arc narrative: it was she who kept trying to reach her daughter, to show her that God wasn't taking account of what she had or hadn't done, what she did or didn't fully believe. Scully finally cracked in Redux II, begging her mother to explain why she still clings to God but denies him-- part of her inability to understand and quantify that dichotomy-- but Maggie didn't understand what Scully was talking about, and tried to soothe her, instead. Scully ended up clinging to Maggie, clinging to Mulder, clinging to the priest before she clung to God, viewing even Mulder as a truer believer than herself.

Season 5, Fight the Future, and Season 6 left Scully in limbo. (A Christmas Carol and Emily were about her daughter and the supernatural, not her faith or belief in God.)

The series didn't return to this topic until Biogenesis, The Sixth Extinction, and Amor Fati, a three-parter that focused on the possibility of aliens creating Earth (or having a hand in its creation.) This changed the wide interpretation of her religious texts and tossed Scully back into fearful questions and self-doubt. She cried in Amor Fati because she "doesn't know what to believe or who to trust"-- a verbal slip back into that feeling of isolation that drove her from religion in the first place. (Diana Fowley was formerly evil, but she died saving Mulder. Did that make her a good person who did wrong, or an evil person who did something right?) Mulder, transformed from his own experience, gave her courage and became her touchstone, regardless.

The answer Amor Fati underlined is that Scully had yet to believe in redemption: one could repent, she thought, but it wouldn't change who they were as a person. That thinking formed the cornerstone of her "good or evil" foundation and separated her from the capability to falter but not to fail-- to "sin" but to be "redeemed."

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Season 7 sets into motion the culmination of religious journey: Amor Fati (as we already discussed), Orison, and all things.

Orison would have been the perfect followup to Revelations: another demon, another series of supernatural signs that only Scully would understand. However, this time she would fail to put the pieces together, and resort to an action against God's will that would put into question the goodness of her soul. Problems with Orison (that it obliterated Irresistible's message, that its side plots cluttered an already cluttered episode, that Pfaster's "affect" on victims didn't match the reaction Scully experienced) aside, the episode didn't give the audience enough information to explain why Scully believed it was the Devil, not PTSD or a trauma reaction, that forced her hand. However, that was Orison's conclusion.

This, then, set Scully in motion to either follow an path of dark self-doubt or forge a new path of enlightenment. Or both.

We know she took the latter (all things) route, but another episode's potential was wasted in the journey from question to conclusion: En Ami. A road trip with the "the Devil in the flesh" would have been the perfect opportunity for Scully to try to prove the depths of her own goodness: putting her life at risk to obtain the cure for all disease. Scientific altruism and religious redemption combined. It would also prove how well CSM knew her, inside and out: using that lure to bait her away from Mulder (and, hopefully, to his own side.) En Ami could easily have discovered the lengths Scully would go to prove herself and the depths CSM's depravity and justification could sink to. Instead, it became a study in how little CSM understood his unknowing captive, and how little the writers understood why or when Scully chose to leap when told "Jump!"

Regardless, we arrive at all things.

ALL THINGS AND PEACE

all things was about enlightenment and self-love (for Daniel Waterston and his daughter-- also curiously named Maggie-- as well): Scully decides what she wants for her life, which voice she wants to hear. It's also the episode where God spoke back.

all things was a bit of a mixed message, especially considering Scully chose to remain Catholic ("my prayers were answered" in Season 8, lighting the church candles in Season 11, etc.) Gillian's episode had clear Buddhist leanings-- the god of "all things", i.e. the god in all things. God wasn't an active force so much as a peace of mind with the right choice (that choice being Mulder.) But it worked, too-- the ending, especially (which was written with the help of Chris Carter, actually. We'll give him a point for this one.) "Mm, I didn't say 'God spoke back'," Scully corrected, which illustrated that she, at last, straddled the dichotomy of her beliefs: a God that will lead but not directly speak. A God whose signs she chose to follow, not one who punished her if she went another way. "Life's just a path", Melissa told her before she ever stepped foot in the FBI (canonically after the Daniel Waterston debacle we return to in all things); and that message wound back around and stuck, seven plus years later.

But why did all things break Scully's fear of isolation through her beliefs (or religion, at large?) Her flawed perception of her mother's God was reworked, with Mulder as Maggie Scully's stand-in: God became a god of "all things", an entity that not only allowed her to make her own choices, ask her own questions, and harbor her own doubts, but also gave her space to decide and time to return.

That reframing of God then helped her to reframe humanity. Mulder came back from a wasted weekend trip to England, empty-handed; yet she simply guided him home, made him tea, and contentedly listened to him ramble about theories she might not fully believe. Scully no longer felt the need to combat his beliefs or justify her own: she knew, now, what she believed, and that was enough. (As an aside, The Unnatural and all things both end on the same note-- Mulder coming to an epiphany and long-windedly spelling it out until he realizes Scully already knows. Interesting.)

CONCLUSION

And thus, we have concluded Scully's journey of faith.

Any further point canon tried to make was simply a retread of better, more complicated resolutions.

Thanks for reading~

Enjoy!

[oriley42]

long time reader, first time caller! i just read all of “adventures in polyamory” after watching approximately 3 episodes with amber in them, and it breaks my heart that you made me fall in love with her wilson-style (with reckless immediacy) while the way she’s depicted in the show is so…woman written in the 2000’s…so i’m here to shake a tin cup and ask for any amber headcanons you’d be willing to share

hello and welcome from KZ-HouseMD, the radio station for all your hatecrime-hits! ;) <3

loving Amber is so painful and so worth it; we will punch through the Noughties' misogyny together babes 🌈

headcanons and over-explanations ahoy!!

Amber's got a WASP-y background, and has spent her life both living up to and rejecting these standards. Unlike Wilson, who is delusionally attached to the idea of being Good and Normal but is unhappy living the reality, Amber recognizes that these concepts are absurd performances HOWEVER she logically recognizes that they come with benefits--and she wants those. "Love and respect" seemed impossible, because respect comes with being the best according to society's rules, and love couldn't survive that stifling environment. Now, she can hold on to the respect she craves: money enough to feel safe, wearing pearls and skirts to look proper and upper-middle-class femme, having a handsome-doctor-man-partner, an MD of her own + also still be herself, including un-ladylike cruelty, dishonesty, being part of House's chaotic evil orbit, sexual freedom, atheism, etc.

Amber has spent 110% of her life trying to get enough success to feel safe and stable and happy, so she hasn't developed interests and hobbies because who has time for that give me another coffee and another go at that medical text

Related: Amber hates everything about organized sports, but if she had the time and a friend (*cough* Thirteen) she could be one of those sapphics who gets incredibly obsessed with a women's soccer team or the WNBA

Also related: a sufficiently "productive" hobby I think she'd love is antiquing. Waking up at six AM to drive three hours and wait outside an estate sale and then barge in and make a grab for that antique bureau, fighting off old ladies and viciously snarling down the price--bloodsport for classy femmes!

Amber is a basic chocolate girlie. Caramel is a close follow-up. Vanilla is fine, and she'll pretend to like fancy amaretto or pistachio flavors etc but really she would prefer an Oreo. (Or two...) She will eat max veggies for Health tm and the spiciest food to prove she is Tough tm but really just wants a grilled cheese. A chicken nugget. A spaghetti. Food sensitivities + eating disorder, though she'll only barely cop to the latter, and will not be exploring the former thank you very much she's fine

Amber gets along well with older kids, where she can take on the role of Cool Babysitter, but I think she's secretly a little terrified of being left alone with the tiny incomprehensible, breakable ones, who don't follow the social contract yet and rely on her (!) for self preservation

Amber is naturally a night owl, but medical-land is all early bird, so she's mainly been sleep deprived for the last decade, since she refuses to have a 10 PM bedtime just because she has to get up at 5 AM to make her shift.

Amber's not that interested in fiction ("who has time for that in this reality?") but she ironically enjoys rom-coms for the absurdity, the laugh factor, and the easy comfort of a formula + unironically enjoys action movies because she likes seeing people get punched in the face repeatedly

Amber should take Taekwondo lessons so she can beat the ever-loving shit out of people for fun, and maybe she will after she realizes that the Lulu Lemons in her yoga classes are unbearable, and instead befriend some weirdos gathering at the local gym to spar (Wilson would think this is a great and very attractive idea, House would be annoyed+scared+horny because jesus now he has to wear an athletic cup full-time or she'll crush his nuts for target practice, won't she, c'mon Wilson it's not funny)

okay hitting the brakes here before this gets so long it demands a read-more! 😜 thanks for the ask <333