The following story was originally posted on Debunking Christianity, but as I wrote it, I doubt they will mind me reposting it. For those of you who have lost touch with me or just are not that great at reading between the lines, I have left the church and the extensive reading I have done since, has worked together with my experience in the church to convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God. Yes, I am now an atheist. That may come as a shock to my christian friends, but the sum total of all my life experiences and the reading I have done, particularly the Bible has utterly convinced me that atheism is the only rational choice.
Read my deconversion story and you will have an idea where I am coming from. It was originally posted on May 11 of 2007.
Why I left the church
Growing up, I was fortunate to have parents who raised me in a religion-neutral environment. Well almost. When we were young, we said a ritual prayer before bed and before meals, but by my teens I had forgotten that we had ever done this. I attended a church service with my mother only once and was unaware that my parents had both been confirmed Anglicans. By the age of seventeen, I gave no thought to religion whatsoever. I was an insecure teenager with no discernible skills and a small group of friends, none of whom were particularly close. The summer after my grade 11 year, I began to work at a bible camp where I made a lot of friends and was exposed to the christian faith for the first time.
It was a turning point in my life and I began to go to church and read the bible. Although I was beginning to be exposed to christian values, I was still drinking to excess and behaving irresponsibly in other ways. I would add that the excessive drinking often took place with my 'christian' friends from the bible camp. Eventually, I asked God into my life and my newfound faith gave me what seemed to be a dramatic boost in confidence. At the time, I thought I had undergone some supernatural experience and was changed into a new person. In reality, I had found a supportive community for the first (but not the last) time in my life and my friendships were helping me to grow as a person. I began to attend church regularly. Meeting with longtime church members when I knew next to nothing about the christian faith is intimidating and it stifles one's inclination to ask questions revealing the obvious inconsistencies of the bible. The church's constant teaching that the bible is infallible means that you have to simply accept all the old testament stories in which whole races of people are slaughtered and many other such atrocities. When you are brave enough to question these events, you get trite responses such as "That race of people lived to show how much God loved the Jews.", "God works in mysterious ways." and other such nonsense. At the same time, you learn that God loves everyone. It must have taken a lot of 'tough love' to slaughter whole races of people.
Looking back now, I can't imagine how I bought into christianity. I went on to become a teacher and work at two different christian schools. I taught Sunday school. I led bible study groups. I was a youth leader for a number of youth groups. Ironically, teaching at a christian school was the beginning of the end of my faith. The subculture of a diverse, evangelical christian school includes people from many different branches of the christian faith. You see the best and the worst, but mostly the worst. It became evident very quickly that the people I met there were so wrapped up in their faith, they were completely unaware of problems of the world outside. They would refute evolution on the basis that there was no evidence for it, but they restricted their studies to the bible and spiritual books and could never have come across evidence of evolution in their readings or their sheltered social circles if they had several billion years to do so (not to mention five thousand or so). They supported the fact that Israel occupies Palestine and oppresses the Palestinian people in every way possible. This was acceptable to them because the Jews are "God's Chosen People." Obviously, things haven't changed much since the days of the old testament. Other christians I knew supported politicians who claimed to be christians. They knew nothing of these politicians' personal beliefs, their backgrounds or their political history. There was no analysis. We were supposed to vote for the Reform Party (Canada) en masse because some of their candidates claimed to be Christian. My suggestion to my christian friends that they should evaluate them as politicians and analyze their backgrounds were met with blank stares. Furthermore, the christian schools' approach to thorny issues like evolution, evil and suffering in a world with an 'omnipotent' god, Halloween and many other things were to avoid talking about the issues so that no one would be offended. This pattern would be repeated in other settings such as the various youth groups that I was involved in. Bringing up these issues, I was told, would alienate certain families. It would be far better to focus on other subjects. The fact that no one, including the christian scholars whose works I had been reading, could answer the questions I had, began to hammer more nails into the coffin of my faith. This process took many years. The multitudes of political battles I witnessed in the churches I attended, included behavior that no intelligent christian who has read the bible could condone. This hypocritical behavior took place at the highest levels of the churches I attended without exception. Teachers I worked with at the christian schools would go to chapel and sing songs about love and then the moment they were back in the staff room, they would engage in behavior that included envy, pride, gossip, backstabbing, revenge and other vices. No one even seemed to see a conflict. Christians have often told me not to judge god based on the behavior of 'fallen christians'. The church teaches that the holy spirit comes into your body when you ask god into your heart. Presumably if one-third of the holy trinity rests in my physical body, I should have some advantage when it comes to resisting temptation or making the right decisions. Although I am not basing this statement on a scientific study, twenty years of anecdotal experience in both christian and secular settings has taught me that there is absolutely no basis for the idea that christians behave better than atheists, agnostics and people of other faiths. In fact, if you look at the idea historically (the crusades, witch hunts, the 'Troubles' in Ireland, to name a few), it is clear that christians have committed a shocking number of atrocities in god's name. Of course, atheists have been responsible for atrocities, too. The difference is that atheists are not claiming to have the holy spirit living in them. The details of the event that led me to finally throw off the shackles of the church are unimportant. In brief, it came down to a couple of people who didn't like me or the way I ran the youth groups I was leading. Lies and half-truths led to a request from a representative of the church council for me to move on and I did. Interestingly, when it turned out that I had support from many of the parents whose children were in my youth groups, the propaganda machine was fired up and the truth began to take on several shades of grey. After many years of witnessing others experience such treatment, I realized that my turn had come.
Retrospectively, I think that it was the best thing that could have happened to me. In the church I was taught that the truth shall set us free. In fact, it was the lack of it that set me free. The fact that people were willing to slice and dice the truth, not to mention making bald-faced lies, convinced me that I was better off without the church. It is worth pointing out that it was not this one event, but literally dozens of such events involving others that made me begin to question the teachings of the church. These episodes made me wonder what I truly knew for sure. After much reflection, I realized that prayer was just what I had always known in my heart - an empty one-way exercise. Also known as talking to yourself. When I began to really examine all the 'answers to prayer' I had experienced, I realized that an answer to prayer is when you get what you want. All the times I had felt that God answered my prayers, 'luck' or 'coincidence' had resulted in me getting what I wanted. Because when you get what you want, god is answering your prayers and when you don't get what you want, God has some mysterious reason that only he could understand. The newborn baby that died. "God loved him so much that He took him up to Heaven." Perhaps such an answer would comfort a distraught and somewhat feeble-minded person, but it only fed my skepticism. The whole process of questioning my faith probably took over ten years. The final incident was the little push I needed to help me to decide to leave the church. The analysis of my experiences over those twenty years was sped up by the web of lies and deceit that marked my last experience in the church.
To those christians that may respond that this episode is sad, I would like to say at the outset that what is sad is that it took so long for me to realize that I had been duped into believing a fairy tale. It is nearly tragic that it took twenty years to learn that one can live a guilt-free life. On the positive side, I truly believe that my life is richer for having been involved in the church. Besides learning values and the importance of serving others, I also can do something that almost no christians can truly do. I can evaluate the church and the bible's teachings from the dual perspectives of an outsider and an insider. I have a rich life and am thankful that I can move ahead knowing that my future will not be clouded with superstition, but be enriched with understanding based on observable evidence and reason.
* Note: The picture is making reference to statements made by none other than Martin Luther who well knew that reason is the enemy of faith.
As usual, I welcome discussion in the comments.
27 comments:
I enjoyed reading your deconversion story, Glenn. I know, that you are an 'absolutist' and like to take a definite stand 'one way or another' on issues. Don't beat yourself up for taking so long to have what scientists call a paradigm shift (and religious followers call an epiphany.)
One day you might consider the world of the 'subjectivist' thinker (this would require another paradigm shift.) It requires that you be open to all possibility. It is not as comfortable a place to reside as it provides no concrete answers. But then, neither science nor religion provides those either.
All we know for sure is that we are here right now. We don't know from whence we came or to where we go - those are the big questions we continually seek to answer.
I'll leave you with a good quote from a scientist:
When he turned 50, Einstein granted an interview in which he was asked point-blank, whether he believed in God.
"I am not an atheist," he began. "The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
I am actually not an absolutist, that is just your perspective speaking. Yes, I have had a paradigm shift just as children do when they realize the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are not true.
Seriously tor mentor, do you really think that science doesn't provide concrete answers? When you fly to Indonesia, do you fly in an airplane designed by scientists and engineers? Does your car move because of the energy or special forces in droplets of water? When you go to the doctor for an operation, do you take the anaesthesia or do you just meditate so you won't feel pain? Does your cel phone work because of mystical energy patterns or because scientists have designed, tested and launched satellites? You live in a scientific world and rely on science for almost every aspect of your daily life. Denying that science provides answers is hypocrisy (sorry, no nice way to say that). We would be in the dark ages if we relied on 'new thought scientists' for even a small fraction of our daily needs.
I agree that science has not discovered everything yet, but even when it has, there will still be people believing in fairy tales and alternative ideas while they fly on their airplanes and deny science. If these new thought people got together and designed a 'new thought airplane' that didn't use any established scientific principles, would you fly on it? If the answer is no, you might want to rethink your position about science.
I'll leave you with a quote from that same scientist where he states bluntly that he is an atheist.
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
Einstein did not live in a time when one could easily make a public profession of atheism.
Einstein is saying the same thing in both quotes, Glenn. He is saying that from the perspective of one steeped in religion he could be perceived an atheist. However, as he is not trying to liberate himself from the fetters of religious indoctrination,he does not have to take on the crusading (or absolutist) position of the professional atheist. He prefers to stay in the humble unknown (the subjective world) realizing that our limited understanding precludes any of us having the answers.
Science does, of course, have some of the answers and, as such, has much to offer us. It does not, however have all of the answers.
This is a circular discussion. We could throw examples back and forth at each other and there are no answers at the end of the discourse - only more questions.
A new thought airplane? Now there's a new thought!
I'm sick, so I'm taking the liberty to pick and choose subjects for discussion.
After reading this, I went back and read our posts from the "Flopping Creationist" entry. You wrote:
The gospels were written long after Jesus was supposed to have died, by people with little education in a time when there was no libraries, no internet and thus not one word of it has any real credibility whatsoever.
How could you forget about the Library of Alexandria? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
I'm not using that to refute your entire argument, but simply reminding you that people back then were not as dumb as 'modern' people sometimes write them off to be. I must have told you a gazillion, billion times...never, ever, ever over exaggerate.
Speaking of the bible. I have never assumed the bible to be infallible. I agree with you, any critical reader can see the discrepancies. I have also never attended a church which has made this claim, and have had entire bible studies devoted to obvious errors in it. I'm sure we agree here...it was written by people. Along with a lot of other stuff as well, and then people decided what would make up "The Bible". And then it was translated by people. Errors must have occurred at each transition. But viewing the bible as fallible is not proof that Christianity is fallible. The religion is more than the book. Sure there can be errors, but the underlining theme (I'm talking New Testament...as the Old Testament is a completely different can of worms and has nothing to do with Jesus), is simple...love god, love your neighbor. How can that be wrong?
Regarding other Christians actions. I've always subscribed to the notion of free will. It seems pointless for any kind of creator to dictate a persons every move, decision, or happenings. So, like you, I get angry at the simplistic platitudes like "God loved Scruffy so much He stole him from us so He could play fetch with him." I don't believe that having the Holy Spirit (whatever the heck that is) will enable you to live a sin free life. I don't think anyone can live a 'sin' free life, and I've never felt guilty about it, nor been told to feel guilty about it.
Regarding prayer, I also agree with you, and consider prayer to be simply a form of meaningful meditation...almost never beginning with "Dear God," and ending with "Amen".
adam, In reference to that whole "love god, love your neighbor" thing . . . how has that worked out for christians?
G
Now that's easy way out, the cynical way out. We could both go back and forth with examples of how christians throughout history are good and bad, and how atheists throughout history are good and bad...but it still boils down to the same concept. If a religious person (or society) behaves immorally, that does not make the religion invalid. It merely means that that person or society is immoral. There are immoral and moral people from every walk of life, who adhere to every creed.
Religion has always been usurped to justify any range of actions by governments (I know you're thinking about the crusades, but pick any religion...they've all been used for war). But that doesn't make that religion wrong.
Say I crush up some light bulbs and sprinkle them on my salad...and when I eat it cuts my throat to ribbons. Is the light bulb a bad thing? Or am I using it in the wrong way?
The argument that a religion is wrong because some of its followers have done/are doing bad things is very weak. You are making generalizations...and ones that do not reflect my christian experience.
I also think it's important to remember that you're not the first person to have these questions...they are as old as christianity itself. Sarah and I discuss these continually. But keep the discussion going, and don't let yourself be too cynical.
adam, to list only the crusades is to grossly understate the issue. Have you forgotten about:
- the fact the christ himself (according to the holy scriptures) did nothing to stop slavery
- the wholesale slaughter and subjugation of the indigenous peoples of North America by Christopher Columbus and other explorers
- the holocaust (keeping in mind that the soldiers who did the actual killing were christians - it could be argued that Hitler was an atheist)
- the 20 year Albigensian Crusade initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the heresy of the Cathars of Languedoc (1200s)
- Charlemagne executed 4500 people who refused to be baptized.
- Constantine killed 3000 people whose view of Christian dogma differed from his.
- Queen Isabella's Spanish Inquisition
- In the 12th and 13th centuries, tens of thousands were killed by Christians as witches.
- the widespread sexual abuse of children by the Roman Catholic church
- The horrific treatment of indigenous children in church-run residential schools in Canada
- wholesale support of the American military's occupation of Iraq by modern day christian groups
- once again, support of modern christians for the occupation of Palestine
I would like to see if you can find a present day group of atheists that supports either of these last two examples of occupation, oppression and quite possibly genocide.
Although my personal favourite is the 'Troubles' in Ireland in which christians kill christians.
There are many more examples.
You stated, "The argument that a religion is wrong because some of its followers have done/are doing bad things is very weak. You are making generalizations..." The idea that an institution can be held accountable in this way comes directly from the gospels.
"By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?" An online bible commentary analyzes the verse this way,"This common figure is wonderfully expressive. Not leaves (professions), or appearance, are the proper tests of the life that is in the tree, but the fruit it bears. We are to test men and every institution by this principle.
Yes, according to the 'holy scriptures' the christian institution can be judged according to its fruit, which in my humble opinion, is rotten.
In reference to your analogy about the light bulbs, do you mean incandescent bulbs or the newer compact flourescent bulbs?
By the way, what kind of Glennonite are you questioning me like this? Shouldn't you be prostrating yourself at my feet or perhaps at the screen (my representative).
Excuse me, your fruits are showing.
I agree that listing only the crusades understates the issue, that's why I said, "We could both go back and forth with examples of how christians throughout history are good and bad, and how atheists throughout history are good and bad..." I'm not interested in compiling such a list.
Here are some answers to your challenges:
Atheists in Foxholes
http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/about.php
The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
http://www.maaf.info/
These are not in support of Iraq and Afghanistan specifically, just pro military in general.
It's ironically interesting that you are using the current US invasions as a litmus test. I am going out on a limb and assuming that all of your bad christian examples were listed in Christopher Hitchens book, "God is Not Great." This is ironic (if true),since Hitchens has unabashedly SUPPORTED the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember his criticisms of Noam Chomsky, and the "Post 9/11" section of his wikipedia page briefly touches on his support for the wars.
Your use of generalizations reduces your credibility: "wholesale support of the American military's occupation of Iraq by modern day christian groups"
Wholesale support means every modern day christian supports every facet of the war. It seems to go without saying that the Mennonite church is fundamentally opposed to it...with the paster of my home congregation being arrested for civil disobedience in protest to it. During the lead up to the war, a large group of theologians came together to openly oppose the invasion:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.ethicists_statement
These people are all connected to seminary or religious universities...the seedy halls were modern christians themselves are being indoctrinated.
Pax Christi is a Catholic peace movement which has over 500,000 members, http://www.paxchristiusa.org/index.asp
In regards to your bible quotation, I disagree with the online bible interpretation. I think this passage is speaking to the individual person, not reflecting on a religious movement as a whole. The verse preceding the one you quoted states to "be aware of false prophets". So I think this passage is instructing people to judge people by their actions, not what they say. If you continue to read after the passage you quoted, Jesus goes on to state, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father ..." This further leads me to believe that the passage is telling us that it is a person's actions that determine who they are...not that individuals can affect the 'rightness' of an entire religion. How would that be decided then? If there are more good christians than bad christians...is it a good religion? What about the Baha'i? What have they ever done to piss anybody off? Does that make their religion right?
I definitely mean incandescent bulbs. Don't let their long lastedness soothe you over...they still contain mercury, and the majority of people don't recycle them.
Footnote from Sarah:
When you would like to lot at active, peaceful, christian, people and movements, I have many suggestions. Here are a few to start with:
Thomas Merton and James Douglas (both catholic), Desmond Tutu, any writing by Martin Luther King Jr., Christian Peacemaker Teams, who are stationed in Baghdad, Israel, and Palestine, the "Response!" magazine put forth by the United Methodist Women which has consistently spoken against the war in Iraq since before the invasion, and the radio program, www.speakingoffaith.org, is an important discussion about faith and ethics that I don't think you should miss. I recently listened to a quantum physicist describing god working in the chaotic and creative movement of clouds and where light both is both a particle and a wave.
Right on Adam and Sarah,
Glad you mentioned a quantum physicist - you gotta love those guys. I'm not so concerned with who is 'right' because as I said before, all any of us know for sure is that we are here right now. Let's enjoy our time in the present.
Speaking of specific groups and violence made me think of another group which is peaceful but should be violent. Check it out at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI
Personally, I love the Tao - more of a philosophy than a religion, I have never heard of Taoists associated with violence.
adam, sorry it took so long to get back to you - busy weekend.
You have done your homework, that is clear. And I am disappointed. I am not disappointed that I am wrong about several of those points (I'm used to that). I am disappointed that there might actually be atheists stupid enough to support an illegal occupation. But I am glad you corrected me. I will check out these organizations.
By the way, I should have gotten the hint the first time you wrote that we could go back and forth listing atrocities on both sides of the fence.
The limb snapped. I don't own "God is Not Great" and haven't read it since the fall (autumn - not the 'fall of man'). The examples came from my head with support from the internet in terms of details. I will also look into Hitchens' support for the occupations. How unfortunate and surprising.
About your disagreement with the online interpretation, I think it is convenient to let organizations off the hook when it comes to this kind of accountability, but I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree. On an individual basis, I have never yet met a person who even comes close to living up to the teachings of the christian faith. Human nature is often blamed, but the reality is if god really set up rules we are programmed not to be able to follow, then god's omniscience takes a real hit. I could spend weeks writing about the number of ways god's omniscience and omnipotence don't meet up the standard here. Keep in mind that the many branches of church teach that christians have the holy spirit living in them. Funny that they don't seem to be able to resist temptation better than anyone else even though they have the omnipotent, omniscient holy spirit living in them.
I continue because I consider you to be very intelligent, adam and I assume that Sarah is too, even though she married you (ha ha). I am just wondering why if you admit that prayer is just meaningful meditation (not talking to god), that the old testament is essentially irrelevant as you seem to have implied and that the new testament is riddled with discrepancies, errors, mistranslations and the interpretations of the various people that wrote it, then what do we actually know is true? I would say there is nothing in the new testament that we can be 100% sure is actually true. Was there even a man named Christ? Was he really the son of god? Was he really divine? Through much of the church's history, the answers to these last two questions would be no.
When I left the church that I was attending I had a 'Descartes moment' and tried to determine what I could know for sure. What I could be 100% certain of. After about a year, I concluded the answer is literally nothing. So I ask you to consider every single verse, doctrine, belief, feeling, answer to prayer and ask yourself how you know it to be true. I believe the answer is that you really want it to be true so you find it true. But I really want you to do this.
Recently I found a good friend who was my old roommate and (formerly) fellow christian through this blog. ichab is now in Korea, googled me and found the blog. He commented a few times before I asked him if we are twins separated at birth (because we have identical thoughts on The Matrix). Once I realized who he is we started emailing. He is no longer a christian and put his discovery that I am not either this way,
" I felt more relieved (for you) and vindicated (for me). If we may step into the realm of film once again, I felt a bit like Gandalf after Theoden is released from the grasp of Saruman : Breathe the free air again, my friend!"
This is eloquently put and I feel exactly as he describes as I am now free of a worldview that I believe to be the world's greatest hoax. The evidence is there but when you are still wearing the blinders, you can never hope to see it.
BTW, you still haven't answered what kind of Glennonite you are? Where is the slavish devotion I am used to?
POSTED BY GLENN FOR DALE FRIESEN
One thing that has been bothering me about your blog is the "science vs. religion." Now I don't mean it because we disagree but that is comparing apples and oranges. Religion is a worldview, science is a tool (used by athiests and thiests alike). Does that make sense?
Anyway here are some topics I think would be interesting if you addressed them:
1. Where do athiests and Christians agree?
2. Who do you see Jesus as? myth.. historical figure... etc.
3. What can Christians learn from athiests?
4. What can athiests learn from Christians?
An interesting book is "I sold my soul on ebay" written by an athiest who critiques churches, it is quite fascinating.
Dale, I am only going to respond to the first question you ask now in hopes that other people will respond to the others.
Although I agree that religion is a worldview, science is much more than a tool. A microscope is a tool, but science is much more than a microscope.
If you really believe that what the bible says is true, that god created the world and is an active part of it, then some things should be testable. For example Matthew 21:22 says, "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask in prayer." That is pretty easy to verifiy. However it doesn't work. have tried it. And yes, I was a very fervent believer for many years.
The historical evidence also does not even come close to supporting the stories in the bible. There are some people who are mentioned that have existed for sure, but tens or hundreds of thousands of jews wandering through the desert and no one ever finds a trace of them. So unless christianity is not much more than a favourite Dr. Seuss story, it should be testable on many levels. When scientists are proven wrong, the vast majority admit their mistakes and move on. Does the church do that? Think Galileo here. How about Darwin? The Dalai Lama has said that where science disproves Buddhism that they need to change what they believe. There is a reason I have a lot of respect for the Dalai Lama
hey Glenn
Matthew 21:22 is a difficult passage, and in all honesty it is one that I struggle with. And I fully believe that you prayed with your whole heart. In some ways I wish I could come up with a a simple anwser here but I don't think that exsists. And to be honest I struggle with this too. For myself sometimes I wonder if I truly believe it will happen...
As far as science vs religion, I don't mind you saying that you are an athiest because of science, and therefore it becomes more about athiesm vs. thiesm.
There is a lot of difficulty in the Bible, and I am not a man of science and it will be hard for me to argue scientific proofs, but are there not phenomons in this world that science can not explain?
I also wonder about the disciples of Jesus, after he left them (whether you believed he died at the cross or rose is irrelevent here) why would the discples live the kind of life for God in which they were all killed (history tells us that all except the disciple john were killed as martyrs) Seems weird to be killed for someone if he in fact did not rise after death
dale
dale, I see you set yourself up to post comments. Great.
I appreciate your honesty about Matthew 21:22. Personally I think it blows the idea of the bible's 'inerrancy' out of the water. I feel it also shows that the bible's claims can be tested. You can probably guess what I feel this test says about the bible. In my humble opinion, the simple answer is the verse makes a false claim.
Yes, In this case I think it is more of a atheism vs theism situation, but science can go up against religion. The issue is not so simple as saying that they are two different things that can't be compared. Science has elements of a world view in that it makes statements or predictions about our origins of life and our future. So does the bible. And again, this is another area where the two can be tested and compared. Which of the two makes accurate predictions about the origins of life? The idea that the earth is just five or six thousand years old is laughable and there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. Science tells us that the earth is 4.54 billion years old according to radiometric age dating of meteorites. And I won't even start on the whole evolution vs creationism thing (see the first post and the ensuing comments if you wish).
Yes, of course there are many phenomena that science can not explain. Deep down, I believe there always will be some mysteries, but assuming we don't destroy ourselves, the human race has the ability to solve many of these mysteries as computing power continues to increase with the prediction of Moore's Law.
The concept of martyrdom is found in many religions. Assuming that the events of the new testament are true for the sake of the discussion, it does lend credibility to the idea that the disciples really believed Christ was raised from the dead. The corollary is that such a concession also strengthens the credibility of the claims of Sikhism, Buddhists, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith and many more. Many of these religions make claims that contradict the claims of christianity. A martyr or 'shahid' (شهيد) in Arabic is a word that is used to apply to suicide bombers. I can not say that I understand the mindset of a suicide bomber, but I think it shows the extremism often found in members of religious groups. These suicide bombers believe they are going straight to heaven to be with 72 virgins. With any of these other religions that have had martyrs would you feel the case for their religion is strengthened by these martyrdoms?
* The previous comment that was deleted was deleted by the person that wrote it (the author), not by me (the moderator).
On the whole issue of creation young earth vs. old earth. There is a lot of good writing on the issue. Many Christians would argue for the old earth theory siting Genesis 1-3 as an allegory as a story vs. some of the ancient Mesopatia (spelling) stories, with the most important part of the story coming from the story means. For instance a creation account out of love rather then violence.
I agree the Biblical creation story is difficult to believe, but I find parts of the evolutionary process just as unbelievable. I mean this complicated and diverse world we have just "happening out of nowwhere" without a creator. One just had to look at the wonders of creation, for instance the beauty of the fish when snorkeling through a corral reef. Or when one thinks of human emotions, seems hard to believe there is no creator.
I admit I wrestle with old earth vs. new earth, but to me it is really a non issue, to me the importance is in what is behind the story, what it means, what it represents
dale, It's funny that you wrote what you did about beauty because I have both said and written almost the exact things when I was struggling with the creation/evolution question. Although no one I know has taken my advice and read the three books listed in the sidebar, I strongly suggest reading The God Delusion at the very least. But even better would be to read as much evolutionary genetics as you can. There is reams of evidence, but almost no one in christian circles goes looking for it. Having read a lot of books on genetics and related stuff lately (Dawkins and others) has showed me that the idea that the Earth and life as we know it just "happened out of nowhere" as you put it is a myth. There are very many plausible ways that life came to be. Although the odds seem to be against life coming together, when you consider how many stars there are (possibly an infinite number or a hell of a lot at the very least) and how many planets could be orbiting those stars, the probability looks a lot better.
Ultimately the bible was written by human writers and their writing reflected a very limited understanding of the world. That is why the bible does not address a greater period of time. If god is truly omniscient, he probably knows how old the Earth is. Saying that the bible was inspired by god makes you wonder why the writing is exactly what you would expect from someone writing during that period of time. Nobody back then had the imagination to come up with a number like 4.54 billion years old. If you compare the differences between what god is like in the old and new testaments, you pretty much have Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Does that not make you question the validity of the Bible? In the old testament god was satisfied slaughtering woman and children (Numbers 31:17 just to name one example) and in the new testament we are to love our neighbours. Please forgive my blasphemy, but one could easily conclude that if the god of the OT and the god of the NT are the same, then he has multiple personality disorder.
Yeah I have heard of that book and it is on my to read list along with the "The Dawkins Deliusion"
:) Certainly interesting stuff
I truly believe that both books need to be read.
I will look for The Dawkins Delusion as well (but our libraries are on strike, so finding it may take time).
I think language one choses is very important...and I think by frequently using generalizations you are unnecessarily entrenching yourself in your position, and offending others. You stated, "There is reams of evidence, but almost no one in christian circles goes looking for it." Instead of "almost no one", "many" would suffice. In fact, at the Methodist church Sarah and I attend...we are beginning a book study on Carl Sagan's "The Varieties of Scientific Experience", which he begins by speaking of the probability of life beginning from the elements. Our group contains no one under 50 besides Sarah and myself, and one atheist, who has always been welcome to participate. As I stated earlier, over generalizations damage your credibility, and polarize the issue.
You challenged me to, "consider every single verse, doctrine, belief, feeling, answer to prayer and ask yourself how you know it to be true." I have, to some extent, done this. Sure there's the odd believe that I hold fast to, unquestioning and unwavering (such as my belief in Glennonnism, and my belief that jellyfish have been planted here by an alien race and are communicating our actions back to them). I have come up with nearly the same answer as you, almost nothing. There is no way of knowing what parts, or if any for that matter, of the bible is historical fact. That doesn't really matter to me. The book I recommended earlier "The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus Borg, sums up my beliefs fairly well. (You would be happy to know that Borg is very controversial among Christian scholars) He argues that the bible is a metaphor, not to be taken as literal fact. Take, for example, the Golden Rule. I don't care if Jesus worded it exactly as it says, and I don't spend much time even caring whether he said it at all. What matters is that it is right (right as in righteous), and good. Nearly every culture in the world has some version of the Golden Rule...I once read a list of over it translated in over a hundred languages, sometimes nearly verbatim. This speaks to the Jungian archetype theory, which I also belief in. There is goodness in everyone, a goodness that "survival of the fittest" does not address. A lot of Christians do not feel comfortable with this metaphor view (that's why Borg is so controversial)...but I don't see how it takes anything away from scripture. I don't believe in the wisdom of Jesus because he performed all sorts of crazy miracles...I don't spend much time fretting about if the miracles really happened or not. Why would I? Nobody will ever learn the truth, whether he did or did not. To me it is a moot point.
Sorry if my train of thought is not succinct, I'm writing this with a lot of distraction and am having a hard time keeping on tract.
Regarding the Holy Spirit...I'm just as confused as you on this. But to my knowledge, I'm not aware of any claim stating that having the Holy Spirit give the possessor any benefits of omnipotence or omniscience. I don't think having the Holy Spirit alters anyones destiny, or make them immune to free will.
I will have to write more at another time...too much going on.
And in regards to my slavish devotion...have none of my sacrifices made it to you? Since my laptop is serving as your proxy, I have been sacrificing small mammals each time before I post on your blog to my computer. My keyboard is quite sticky now.
Oh yeah, one more thought:
Don't get stuck in viewing Iraq as a religious issue. It is not. Support for the war is overwhelming based on the (asinine) belief that if we don't fight "them" "there" we will have to fight "them" "here". Dissent against the war has taken on many different reasons and forms. Only part of my dissent is religiously based...that part stemming from my belief that violence in any form is morally wrong. And that when Jesus said "Love your enemies", I think he probably meant, Don't kill them. Stances on the war(s) that my government is carrying out is definitely NOT divided by religious lines.
As I am writing my opinion and not an academic paper, I think it is fine that I am writing in generalizations based on my experience. I don't feel it is necessary to state "in my opinion" or "based on my experiences" each time. Let's talk about the statement "almost no one in christian circles reads this stuff."
Allow me to list the christian circles I was involved in (keeping in mind there is some overlap with the list):
* christian teacher in two different christian schools (7 years)
* sunday school teacher and coordinator (at least 8 years)
* youth leader in 4 different groups (from 3 different churches - 5 years)
* bible study member and leader (at least 15 years)
* employee of a christian sail training organization (3 years)
* employee of a christian relief and development organization (3 years)
All of the above groups had regular meetings in which we discussed issues or the bible. The point I am making is that I have spent time with literally several thousands of christians during my 20 years in the church and I could count on two hands the number of them that have read evolutionary genetics or are capable of discussing evolution on an adult level. Really. In fact bringing up such issues was often a conversation stopper.
As for my credibility, anyone who thinks I am less credible for holding the opinions I hold is welcome to NOT read my blog. I am not holding a gun to anyone's hard drive.
Perhaps I am extrapolating, but if the holy spirit is one third of god and god is omnipotent and omniscient, wouldn't it logically follow that the holy spirit has those traits as well? Or is the holy spirit more like an election observer?
adam, you wrote, "I don't care if Jesus worded it exactly as it says, and I don't spend much time even caring whether he said it at all. What matters is that it is right (right as in righteous), and good. Part of the problem I have with christianity is that many people just pick and choose what they want and ignore the rest. I think that is why I witnessed so much hypocrisy during my years in the church. I tried when I was a christian to follow all the teachings, but IN MY EXPERIENCE, this approach is very rare.
You mention that you don't really care if the miracles happened or not. So was Jesus really divine? Or was he just another guy? If these miracles did not happen, the whole thing is cast into doubt. You asked me once what it would mean if it turned out that homosexuality is programmed into a person's genes instead of being a choice (an opinion I now hold). At the time, I said (something like) I thought it would discredit the bible completely. It is proven almost beyond a shadow of a doubt now that homosexuality is the result of genes and the brain's wiring. Why did god not understand that when he inspired the writers of the bible to write passages vilifying homosexuals?
You mention the Jungian archetypes. Are you aware that Jung believed it was evolutionary pressures that dictated how the brain is formed and works? In addition, both Darwin and a contemporary of his, Thomas Huxley struggled with the question of altruism or goodness and found a solution to it. A present day researcher, Dr. Lee Dugatkin, has a mathematical formula which can predict altruism quite accurately:
. . . "Hamilton's Rule" states that altruism evolves whenever r times b is greater than c. In other words, if enough relatives receive benefits from altruism to outweigh the cost of altruism, then altruism spreads; otherwise, it does not. Phrased in the cold language of natural selection, blood relatives are worth helping in direct proportion to their genetic (blood) relatedness, weighted by how great a benefit they received.
Literally thousands of experiments with both nonhumans and humans show the power of Hamilton's Rule. This little equation is evolutionary biology's version of e = mc2. Over and over, we see that an analysis of the costs and benefits of altruism, along with the genetic relatedness of interactants, allows us to predict the presence or absence of altruism.
About the Iraq issue, my opinion is that if a church actively supports the occupation of another country, it becomes a religious issue. But the lines are always fuzzy with issues like this. I see your point that it isn't ultimately a religious issue, but . . .
As a naturalist, I would rather you send me cash than sacrifice small mammals. Do you mind sending the money in Canadian currency? Thanks. Oh and I agree with you on the jellyfish.
Hey Glen
I would be interested in hearing some more of your core beliefs and convictions now (As i have been reading your blog, it seems more what you are against). For instance are you agnostic or athiest or something else?
And I am glad we can have this dialogue, and hope it can continue. For anyone who does not believe that Glen was immersed in the Christian world , that idea is false. Glen was a Christian, I have seen him live it and believe it. In fact we even worked at camp together :)
Dale, you have great timing. I was literally just trying to think what to write about next. It won't happen right away as I am going out tonight, but I will start thinking about it.
Glenn,
Great point, this is your opinion...I will ease up on the generalizations.
It's a relief for me to stop trapping small woodland creatures...I will begin sending you Canadian currency. I believe in your vernacular, you call them pennies?
I believe you when you say genetic evolution was a real showstopper...I will just consider myself lucky to be counted on your hands.
You say part of the problem you have with christianity is that many people pick and choose what they want to believe. I recognize that is what I am doing...and think you are making a really good point. If one recognizes that the bible is really a compilation of literary works, written by a myriad of different authors spanning hundreds of years (maybe even longer, considering the oral history of the old testament), I think trying to follow ALL the teachings would not only be incredibly difficult...but maddeningly frustrating. People don't even think about not eating shellfish, bats, and camels and stuff. We eat them all the time! (With the exception of the Seventh Day Adventists...who follow all the weird dietary laws). This is obviously not an argument in defense of christianity, rather what I think is an interesting topic.
Quick homosexual note. I was told by a lutheran pastor friend of mine that the passage always quoted by people that says "Gays are evil" (I'm paraphrasing here), is a mistranslation. She stated the original greek actually eludes to rape...rather than two people of the same sex. As I don't read greek I can't say I'm for sure...but I thought I'd throw that out there. It's sure fun to say that to conservatives and then listen to them stutter! But I agree with you 100%. If being gay is wrong in the eyes of god, and if being gay is a matter of genetics (there is also strong evidence of exposure to abnormal hormone levels during pregnancy effecting sexuality, however) that is a very damning argument against god.
I have heard of "Hamilton's Rule" before...it's apparent weakness is that it only involves altruism with genetically related beings. At least I think it does.
I'm glad to hear someone else shares my view of jellyfish. Sarah and I went to the Monteray Bay Aquarium, and they had a special presentation about jellyfish by a jellyfish expert. We went up to her afterwards (she was young and fun) and told her our theory. She laughed quite hard and said it would explain a lot, and that would make her look at them in a different way. I consider it a good day for science.
You said, "If a church actively supports the occupation of another country, it becomes a religious issue." I agree...are you speaking of individual churches? Like the 13th Community Southern Baptist Church in Paduka Kentucky? Or a big C church as in the Catholic Church. I am not aware of any of the latter supporting the war, but am aware of several of the former AND latter that are against the war.
Sorry for the confrontational tone earlier...I was having a hard time getting my thoughts through my fingers.
adam, I think it would be best to focus on paper currency so as not to upset our postal services. Our smallest bill is a five, but hundreds are much better from an efficiency point of view.
I am glad you didn't ask why I still need to count with my hands.
Having left the church, the whole 'pick and choose the parts you like thing' does not bother me much now, but it doesn't lend much credibility to the bible as a whole. And yes, it is an interesting topic.
A member of the church I used to attend is a geneticist who has worked on the Human Genome Project and a professor (he is also among the counted) and he stated (quite uncomfortably) to a large group of christians in a lecture that it is essentially the result of genes (paraphrase alert). It is worth noting that he doesn't have much to gain by saying something so controversial. He also tried not to have to deal with the topic, but people kept bringing it up. Strangely there also is a study that shows the youngest son of a series of brothers is statistically more likely to be homosexual. I sheepishly admit that I enjoyed pointing this study out to my younger brother (not that there is anything wrong with that).
You are exactly right, Hamilton's Rule has the strongest correlation to the closest blood relatives. Due to our highly complex brains (well mine anyway - ha ha), I think that humans might be kind of in another category. But that is speculation.
Yes, in the case of a specific church or group of them supporting an illegal occupation, I do mean that it is a religious issue to be taken up with that group.
Not to worry about the confrontational tone. I know that my style of writing (a nice way to put it) is blunt and occasionally offensive. But they always say, "write what you know!"
I am working on a response to Dale's challenge to state what my beliefs are now. Damn, where's the magic 8-ball when you need it?
Post a Comment