greetings to all

I refuse to participate in the "Christmas greeting war"; after all, isn't it supposed to be a time of peace, joy, and goodwill to all, including those who don't believe like me or you (maybe especially to those who don't believe the same). Exclusivity won't draw anyone to an opposing view. Aren't the "Merry Christmas" warriors being slightly incongruent with their own beliefs regarding love and winning people to their Christ? Or is war the only response to those who disagree with them and are offended by their insistence on greeting the way they greet. It all seems childish and silly to me.

So.....

Merry Christmas

Happy Christmas

Happy Hanukkah

Happy Holidays

Happy Kwanza

Happy Winter Solstice

Season's Greetings

Merry Xmas

Happy New Year.... to ALL!!!

say

Seems like it's time for another change. I've decided to pull out all the stops and start over again. When the next blog opens its doors for business, I'll post the link here at Take Another Look. Until then I'll be practicing saying what I need to say... gotta love John Mayer (he's so good!).

openness or skepticism

Here are a few Carl Sagan quotes taken from his book The Demon-Haunted World which I am currently reading (my emphasis in bold):

"...the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. The collective enterprise of creative thinking and skeptical thinking, working together, keeps the field on track."

"If you're only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything. You become a crotchety misanthrope convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) Since major discoveries at the borderlines of science are rare, experience will tend to confirm your grumpiness. But every now and then a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you're too resolutely and uncompromisingly skeptical, you're going to miss (or resent) the transforming discoveries in science, and either way you will be obstructing understanding and progress. Mere skepticism is not enough."

"...science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to winnow the wheat from the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis. If you're open to the point of gullibility and have not a microgram of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the promising ideas from the worthless ones. Uncritically accepting every proffered notion, idea, and hypothesis is tantamount to knowing nothing. Ideas contradict one another; only through skeptical scrutiny can we decide among them. Some ideas really are better than others."

"No one can be entirely open or completely skeptical. We all must draw the line somewhere. An ancient Chinese proverb advises, 'Better to be too credulous than too skeptical,' but this is from an extremely conservative society in which stability was much more prized than freedom and where the rulers had a powerful vested interest in not being challenged. Most scientists, I believe, would say, 'Better to be too skeptical than too credulous.' But neither is easy. Responsible, thoroughgoing, rigorous skepticism requires a hard-nosed habit of thought that takes practice and training to master. Credulity -- I think a better word here is 'openness' or 'wonder' -- does not come easily either. If we really are to be open to counterintuitive ideas in physics or social organization or anything else, we must grasp those ideas. It means nothing to be open to a proposition we don't understand." 

an unimaginative god

The creative abilities of the God that we've been told made the universe seem to be limited. Why do so many animals have similar physical systems: respiratory, alimentary, circulatory, skeletal, and muscular. Many of us eat, breathe, reproduce, and move about in similar manner. I think that if we humans were created we should have been made to stand out from all the rest with some obvious exceptionalism. Take a look at the similarities of these skeletons. What do you think?

frog

tortoise

rabbit

rat

bat

gorilla
chimpanzee

human

It seems to me that the design of these animals speaks to the amazing creative evolutionary development of life on this planet through natural selection.

de-conversion story

Here is a video series which explains point by point the de-conversion process of a young Christian man. Each of the points he discusses I too have spent much time thinking about in recent years. His conclusions were very similar to mine.

awesome cosmos

The awe that pondering the universe causes inside me is greater than any awe that I was ever able to concoct when thinking about the Christian God. Maybe that is partially due to the fact that I never allowed myself to look at the cosmos in any detail previously. Science just wasn't all that important to me when I was a Christian. The idea of a creator in the garden only diminishes the amazing reality of my existence now, an amazing yet simple piece of stardust. How awesome is that?

godless clergy

Daniel Dennett interviewed on NPR about his study regarding godless clergy(click link).

The original article regarding this study can be found HERE if you're interested in some reading material.

options to religious dogma

Consider Humanism - Robert Ingersoll from American Humanist Association on Vimeo.

good news

systematically leaving faith

Why do people walk away from their faith? What processes occur for this to happen? How did I do it?

Some people say that anger and rebellion must be involved. I've read emails addressed to my husband along these lines supposing that something bad must have happened in order for us to walk away from our faith. Something bad did happen, but it served more as a catalyst rather than a reason to walk away. The bad happening caused me to search sincerely for a better relationship with God. After about two years, I realized I would never find what I was looking for. Outright anger and rebellion weren’t emotions which I experienced. Instead, my emotional responses tended more towards loss, sorrow, pain, and the type of anger that initially accompanies grief.

Any attempt to argue me back into faith probably won‘t work. I spent over two years evaluating and reasoning different avenues of my faith. At some point towards the end of that time I realized my worldview had changed considerably. The change had come systematically and deliberately.

People may suppose that I never was a Christian to begin with. They can do that if they like in order to ease their own consciences, but I know better. I was very sincere during most of my “walk with Jesus”. It was only towards the end (maybe the last 10 years or so) that I realized “maturity in Christ” didn’t necessarily insure a better, happier, more stable life. Life is difficult for everyone no matter what a person believes.

Studying the origins of the Bible helped me accept it for what it was, an ancient religious text written somewhere between 1,700 and 2,500 years ago by men who lived in a very superstitious world and were certainly influenced by religions which existed prior to theirs.

Dr. Ruth Tucker listed reasons why people leave their faith in a speech given some years ago:

1) the study of science & philosophy
2) the sense of absence of any caring God
3) the critical examination of the scriptures
4) disappointment in God
5) the hypocrisy of Christians
6) the perception of a dogmatic anti-feminist and anti-homosexual stance of fundamentalist Christianity

In my case, I’d list in order of effect #2, #5, and #3. Once I put the Bible into proper perspective, #1 opened up to me and I realized that my faith was already behind me. It wasn’t something I set out to do. I was simply trying to make sense of life.

the way i see it

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks that all the clamor over whether gays should serve as priests in the Anglican church is causing problems within the church. So his solution is to allow homosexuals to serve yet remain celibate. How brilliant! Does he not understand why this issue causes clamor in the first place? Perhaps it's because Anglicans believe that gays are entitled to the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals? And why would they think that? Perhaps because lots and lots of other people around the world believe that homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals? Some would say that more problems will be caused if gays are allowed to serve. I think that the possibility of problems is increased umpteen-fold by restricting sex. Just look at the Catholic church and all their pedophiles and perverts serving in churches around the world. Sex is not the evil here; the evil is attempting to deny human beings from being human beings. It seems that the Archbishop may not personally know any gay people. If he does then he maintains a position of superiority over his gay friend/s, which in quite disrespectful, if you ask me. That's the way I see it...

Another article in the news is one speaking to the issue of Eddie Long. Churches will continue to have problems with pastors and others in leadership when it comes to inappropriate behavior. Given enough money, power, prestige, and "Jesus will forgive me" doctrines, any man or woman could fall to the temptations available. Entitlement is not something from which religious people are immune. Politicians suffer the same fate, why shouldn't religious folks? Should there be tighter scrutiny on leaders of religious groups in order to keep them in line? Good luck with that one. Most religious people are so scared of having to deal with sex publicly. They'd rather turn the other way and ignore it. "Let God deal with it." (cop-out thinking). That's the way I see it...

On a recent Facebook thread I noticed a bit of a battle of words going back and forth between Christians. One was espousing the grace message while the other was certain that law and grace were still in effect. Despite the convoluted thinking necessary to put forth either of these two messages I thought to myself... "this message of grace sounds a lot like atheism except for the "righteousness" part. I'm not too keen on self-righteous thinking, so I tend to wince when I hear people talk about righteousness in general. I do agree that freedom is what we humans thrive on. Without it we are less human in the here and now. And that's the only place I chose to live... here and now. Looking towards the hereafter tends to lessen the experience that I'm trying to have now." That's the way I see it...

how to start a movement

I can so relate to the part where the people who were reluctant to join finally did so once they were the last ones sitting down. Boy, does that take me back to my years of church going and participation. This is so indicative of us humans wanting to be part of the crowd. Naturally gravitating to where it's happening in order to not feel left out. Perhaps Christianity would have never developed into a world religion if Peter, James, John, and Paul hadn't joined in.

a god of goodness?

What is the Christian response to this statement by Friedrich Nietzsche?

"A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention—could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? . . . Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? Must he not then . . . be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?"

Or Robert Ingersoll's words...

"Every [Christian] sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, He must be responsible for all."

The typical response from Christians would probably be something like this... "God gave us free will because he wants us to love him freely. It's not His fault we've messed it up." To which I would say that God being God, being omniscient, knew in advance what 'free will' would or would not produce. He would have known that we mere humans would struggle in our ability to love him. That makes God completely responsible. This is why the Christian god no longer makes sense to me. An all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god cannot exist. This world is set up all wrong if these things are to be true.

the progression (progress) of christianity

I listen to The Bible Geek, Robert M. Price. In this article he talks about how Christianity shifts its standards by following the cultural trends of its day in order to remain relevant to the next generation. The gradual acceptance of movies, dancing, divorce, women working outside the home, no eternal hell, and even ultimate reconciliation has changed the face of Christianity in just the past 50 years or so.

Dr. Price says that the next bastion to fall will be sex. The fundamentalists and evangelicals have a difficult time talking about sex as a normal function of the human being. At the same time homosexuality is accepted as natural by many Christians, especially young folks. The gay marriage issue may not be resolved anytime soon, but the fact that it's on the table shows the progression which Dr. Price speaks of.

is your god a little god?

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said—grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." — Carl Sagan

The universe is more awesome to me now than it ever was when I was a religious person attempting to believe in and follow a man-made god. Constructing make-believe gods is a self-protecting activity and thus self-centered. Now that I'm thinking this life may very well be all that there is, I am taking more personal responsibility for my thoughts, words, and actions here and now.

As a Christian I always thought "it" would all get worked out in the end by God. I was off the hook for having to figure out or give an opinion regarding some of the more controversial problems in the world. Passing personal responsibility off to God was one of the most debilitating things I did to myself during my 35+ years of following religious belief. My "thinker" became rusty.

Reasoning is not encouraged in the religious world. It's dangerous. Creeds and doctrines must be preserved at all cost in order to ensure religion's survival. Reasoning and dogma do not mix. I've proved it!

that pale blue dot

necessary skepticism

"The tenets of skepticism do not require an advanced degree to master, as most successful used car buyers demonstrate. The whole idea of a democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge. All science asks is to employ the same levels of skepticism we use in buying a used car or in judging the quality of analgesics or beer from their television commercials.

"But the tools of skepticism are generally unavailable to the citizens of our society. They're hardly ever mentioned in the schools, even in the presentation of science, its most ardent practitioner, although skepticism repeatedly sprouts spontaneously out of the disappointments of everyday life. Our politics, economics, advertising, and religions (New Age and Old) are awash in credulity. Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism."

The Demon-Haunted World, (p. 76-77) --Carl Sagan

reason fails religionists

apologists needed

A religion that employs apologists for its defense must have problems. If truth is not obvious to those sincerely seeking, and an army of apologists are needed for its defense and explanation, is it really worth following?

not to be found

Finding specific scripture passages in order to solve problems was always a problem during my years as a Christian. About five years ago I ended up needing real answers in my life. Going to the Bible was not the direction I took however. It wasn't because I didn't know the Bible. The problem was in getting its words to magically do the work of instruction and healing in my particular case. It hadn't worked over the years, why should it now, was my thinking?

Learning and understanding psychological processes inside me and others helped the most. A person can't really expect ancient Hebrew writers to know much if anything about psychology? It's a fairly new science, about 100 years old. Why would we expect answers from a book that primarily tells you what not to do? At the least it should clearly tell you what to do once you've messed up the first instruction... certainly something more useful than "forgiving and forgetting" would've been nice.

the biased brain in our head

“Arriving at belief in an infallible God by way of an

inerrant Bible requires an unwarranted belief in yourself.”

Valerie Tarico, PhD., Christian Belief

Through the Lens of Cognitive Science

Human cognitive research, which deals with the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment and reasoning, suggests that none of us are fair-minded, neither are we reasonable. Valeria Tarico says from the same writing quoted above that our brain “pits itself against our natural leanings, erects barriers across the openings to rabbit trails, and systematically exposes faulty thinking to public critique. In fact, the scientific method has been called ‘what we know about how not to fool ourselves.'”

Continuing with Tarico, she says, “We distort reality in a host of ways - many of which are extravagantly self-serving. We take undue credit for successes, and blame failures on external circumstances (attribution biases). We even revise history so that, in hindsight, our failures were simply to be expected because of the challenges we faced (retroactive pessimism). We retain memories of when we were kind, funny, personable, and clever, better than memories of when we were boorish and mean. On average, we expect to live ten years longer than average. And virtually all of us who believe in heaven think we are going there. To put it bluntly, each of us is the protagonist in a custom-made Hollywood movie with the best possible camera angles. Our self-serving biases may have a positive function. They may play a role in fending off depression, feeding hope, and getting us to try harder. But they also help to explain why stunningly self-centered religious beliefs don’t trigger any alarms.”

These biases may explain why I spent most of my life believing something I would never have been able to prove if I had tried. The biases I now hold may explain why I’ve taken the direction I have taken lately in leaving religious belief. How can I know for sure that what I’m doing now is the “right“ thing to do? I can’t know for certain. I think the same is true for everyone else too.

Living from a mindset of “not knowing” instead of “knowing that I know” seems like a more honest platform from which to live. Since our brain works to support our biases, it becomes very important to examine why we believe what we believe. Are our biases supported with sufficient reason?

Since religion is all about belief (faith), and the “right“ belief at that, it becomes doubly important to examine those beliefs. Valerie Tarico says, “…Christianity sanctifies belief itself. ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house’ (Acts 16:31)”. True believers will not put themselves in the position to practically examine this verse. For many, because it’s in the Bible, it’s true. This puts the system of Christian belief in an awkward position. The system itself refutes examination. Believers believing in religious doctrines and texts are relegated to live with their blind spots. They have no choice if they are to be “true” believers. A predicament for sure, a strong case of Catch-22. This approach used to be mine, but I can no longer take it.

Religion is not going away anytime soon though. There is a complex mixture of many factors involved. Religions are married to the cultures in which they are found. And culture is very important to groups of people. Our identity and value as human beings is based on our acceptance in the group, which includes its culture and religion. We humans are unlikely to change quickly in one direction or another unless some catastrophe acts on us from the outside. For myself, that's what it took to shake me loose from my moorings of improbable ancient beliefs and superstitions.

moral relativism

Relativism is “the doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, 'relative' - that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied” according to a Dictionary.com entry.

I think all people are moral relativists. Dr. Hector Avalos wrote in Yahweh Is a Moral Monster, a chapter in the book I am currently reading called The Christian Delusion, that “human beings are always the ultimate judges of morality even if we believe in God. After all, the very judgment that God is good is a human judgment. The judgment that what God commands is good is also a human judgment. So Christians are not doing anything different except mystifying and complicating morality. Christians are simply projecting what they call “good” onto a supernatural being. They offer us no evidence that their notion of good comes from outside of themselves. And that is where the danger lies. Basing a moral system on unverifiable supernatural beings only creates more violence and endangers our species.”

The idea of a supernatural being passing morality to humans complicates the world. When different groups claim their god is the one and only true god, without being able to provide evidence, disputes break out resulting in conflicts and wars. History confirms this over and over.

Continuing with Dr. Avalos, “...atheism offers a much better way to construct moral rules. We can construct them on the basis of verifiable common interests, known causes, and known consequences.” By eliminating the religious avenue all together, morality is simplified and can be agreed upon by rational thinking human beings. The God-concept complicates things. I'm not saying that religion hasn't served humanity in some sense. I think it has, but I also think humans need to move into a higher understanding of how life works for survival's sake. In this modern age of nuclear weaponry, wars carry with them the possibility of annihilation. Religion may have provided us with emotional and psychological support over thousands of years, but perhaps it has also taken us closer to Earth history's end.

Relinquishing our beliefs in unverifiable premises (god/s) and analyzing our human situation rationally seems to me to be a better common solution to the warring problems we humans have created through our many religious differences.

the way i view all religions

Sam Harris wrote in his 2006 book, Letter to a Christian Nation, the following…

“CONSIDER: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian. And yet you do not find their reasons compelling. The Koran repeatedly declares that it is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. Muslims believe this as fully as you believe the Bible’s account of itself. There is a vast literature describing the life of Muhammad that, from the point of view of Islam, proves that he was the most recent Prophet of God. Muhammad also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believes otherwise will spend eternity in hell. Muslims are certain that Muhammad’s opinion on this subject, as on all others, is infallible.

“Why don’t you lose any sleep over whether to convert to Islam? Can you prove that Allah is not the one, true God? Can you prove that the archangel Gabriel did not visit Muhammad in his cave? Of course not. But you need not prove any of these things to reject the beliefs of Muslims as absurd. The burden is upon them to prove that their beliefs about God and Muhammad are valid. They have not done this. They cannot do this. Muslims are simply not making claims about reality that can be corroborated. This is perfectly apparent to anyone who has not anesthetized himself with the dogma of Islam.

“The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims. Isn’t it obvious that Muslims are fooling themselves? Isn’t it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Koran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe has not read the book critically? Isn’t it obvious that the doctrine of Islam represents a near-perfect barrier to honest inquiry? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.”

(Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris, pgs. 6-7)

are your beliefs true?

This recording of a man named Ken Pulliam gives a synopsis of how and why he left evangelical Christianity. His blog is one of my new favorites which can be found at Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity. His process of stepping away from religion runs parallel to mine in many ways. Better yet, his qualifications seem to take a higher road. Apologetics was one of his specialties and never one of mine.

Social and psychological pressures are reasons why people continue in their faith. "What would others think or say if I showed doubt?" and "It makes me feel good" are typical reasons for why people stay in religion. Is that enough though? Not for some. Not for me.

What about the truth? I heard a man say recently that he would no longer have discussions with people about religious matters who would or could not answer these two questions affirmatively:

1) Do you care if your beliefs are true?

2) Do you care what effects your beliefs have on the world?

Beliefs are not healthy if they are not true. Life is difficult enough knowing the truth. It becomes dangerous when you think you have the truth and don't. That's why I'm on a course to find the truth about many different things in the here and now. Take a listen....

convoluted choices

I saw this article in my survey of the news this morning. Everything was fine for this newly married couple until the wife, the teacher requesting maternity leave, was forced to admit to having premarital sex with her now husband and father of their child. To the Southland Christian School principal this called for the termination of her job. Many people would agree and say, "what kind of an example would she be to her students when they find out? Fourth grade students know math and understand the nine month pregnancy cycle." At least I think they do in a Christian school setting. It's all about appearance, after all. Never mind the inability of humanity throughout history to actually achieve moral perfection.

What could this couple have done to avoid the job loss? A number of ideas come to mind.

#1) She could have aborted the baby and never revealed her pregnancy to her partner. Depending on how a person views abortion, this is a viable solution for many. Although keeping the secret from your partner may not be all that comfortable an idea to live with.

#2) If abortion was unacceptable to her, she could have planned to go back to work right after the delivery thus avoiding to have to ask for maternity leave and maybe she'd be able to fly under the radar of questioning by the Christian authorities in the school. I doubt highly that this would work though. People (maybe even her students) could figure out the math because that's what we do. Besides, maternity leave is an expected and reasonable benefit to receive today. So scratch that idea.

#3) Or perhaps she could have resigned her position, while keeping the baby and the future husband, and finding a teaching position in some secular school. I think a lot of women would vote for this choice if they had the foresight to comprehend the embarrassment and judgment that would be brought on her by those in "seats of judgment". I don't think most people have this type of foresight though. We want to believe better of others.

The truth of the matter is that she didn't choose any of these options. She chose to tell the TRUTH, and for that she gets fired! Is there something wrong with this picture? She loses her job for doing what her religion teaches her to do... tell the truth. Sounds strange, doesn't it? You might say, "she shouldn't have 'sinned' in the first place." Okay, but she did. Is there no remedy once the deed is done? Don't Christians call it "forgiveness"?

Religion does not know what to do with human beings' humanity. Religious belief systems will continue to push good, honest, human people out if they don't change their message. In the distant future we may see that the majority of people remaining in these types of religious institutions may well be the morally perfect worshiping alongside those forced to lie, which could be the same person I suppose. The arrogant and self righteous are content to believe that all the rest of the world is wrong and they are right. The distant future... the near future... maybe it's already upon us.

losing religion

Here's an article about the effects of leaving one's religion. I'm living this. The video is worth watching at the end, if you're interested in the process or in the people who go through the process. I personally was vulnerable at a certain point in time to be drawn back into religion. But that time period has passed for which I'm thankful.

Amazingly, not one person came after me, which in turn reinforced my belief that it was phony and that people don't really believe it themselves or don't have the power to do anything if they did believe it. I thought, "How's that for Christian love, compassion, and family values?" It spoke louder than anything else to the ineffectiveness of the Christian religion. I eventually got past the ideas of people failing me, but I never could get past the uncertainty of the Christian God's existence.

Some might say that I just didn't try hard enough or that I was rebellious or that I am angry or that I somehow misunderstood how it was supposed to work. I know what I went through in trying to find and believe in this god. Educating myself was key. Refusing face value pulpit declarations won me my freedom from religion.

My current course is to live life as if there is no personal deity directing me. There's a freedom in this new place that is not the same as the freedom experienced in religion. Religion always had strings attached, which is not freedom at all. Now there are none.

sex on steroids

Here's a video that will make you laugh and cringe at the same time.

The hypocrisy is probably what stands out to most normal people. Never mind the "everyday/twice a day" sex lies from Haggard's associates. If those stories are true then I was certainly ripped off in my youth. Maybe these men don't work hard enough in their daytime jobs. Maybe Christian teachings on sex have changed a whole lot since I was a younger woman. I never heard hot sex sermons from the pulpit of any of the churches I ever attended. There seems to be some sort of fantasy going on here.

Don't get me wrong. I think sex is great. Without it we could not survive as a race. At least not so far. The procreative and recreative byproducts of sex are unsurpassed in comparison to any other human activity. Sex is good. But male testosterone stories like this make women cringe. Ugh!

I can't help but think of Gale.

is it true?

Christopher Hitchens boldly declares and believes that Christianity is false, harmful, and immoral. Even though he's not my favorite atheist, I admire him for his unswerving delivery and commitment to message.

Does it sound harsh? If you've spent your whole life believing the opposite, sure it does. But is it true? That's what I want to know.

thomas jefferson

I can see why some Christians want to remove Thomas Jefferson from public school curricula here in the U.S. If it was not for the fact that he is one of the most recognized writers of foundational documents in regards to the history of the United States they might get away with it.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children,

since the introduction of Christianity,

have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned;

yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

-Thomas Jefferson, (Notes on Virginia, 1782)

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be onehe must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."-Thomas Jefferson, (letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787)

inquisition

"Hell was made for the inquisitive." St. Augustine (354-430)

Now that's just a grand idea! I'd love for my children to learn this outstanding truth! NOT!!!

I was reading through a list of St. Augustine's quotes. He had some interesting things to say. Some that make good sense and some like this one. In my opinion, it is a better world when people's minds are turned on.

Here's another one...

"God judged it better to bring good out of evil

than to suffer no evil to exist." St. Augustine

For me... it would have made more sense if God had created the world with no evil. After all, isn't he God? Couldn't he have made it perfect without any chance for human failure? Perfect love with no free will? Why not? Free will appears to be a flaw in his scheme.

Yes, I dare question the plan. Inquisition is the order of my every day. Have a good one...

what's more important?

Today I’m thinking of my cousin‘s 25 year old son who committed suicide last week. I think many more people struggle with this issue than we care to admit. Some people are more prone to it than others and young people seem to be particularly vulnerable.

Depression, feelings of failure, poor self respect/self esteem are some of the things I can think of that might lead to thoughts of suicide. Thoughts are one thing. A person is in real trouble, however, when thinking turns into planning a method to carry it out. This is the time to get help. A person is in serious trouble and must seek professional help when planning starts to take root.

I do not know what figured into the specifics of Seth’s death. I am saddened that he was unable to come to grips with his situation, whatever it was, and decided to end his life. My heart cries for his mom, dad, and sister left behind, not to mention the aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents who now are all forced to try to make sense of it all. It will take time, maybe a long time, before they are able to move forward.

If life can be looked at as a game, then the cards we’re dealt are the ones we have to play. Knowledge and understanding can help us better cope with life’s circumstances. However, too often, ignorance, shame, or fear play into the game and we are unable to choose a clear path and as a result we not only hurt ourselves, we hurt those who love us. Sometimes we hurt them seriously, most often not meaning to.

I want to be more aware of my children and the plights which they face in life. Is there something I can help them see more clearly or vice versa? This requires dialogue and time. What could be more important?

a very sad day

I learned late yesterday that my cousin's 25 year old son committed suicide last week. A young man with most of his life yet to be lived felt that the road was just too difficult. I hope that his family will be able to make some sense of this tragedy and take solace in the time that they were able to share with him. This is a very sad day.

prickly life

Here's life. Enjoy the flowers. Not too far away though are the prickly parts that keep things in perspective.

it's all in the genes

For the past month I've been working on my children's genealogy tree. I started the project over 10 years ago, did quite a bit of work on it back then and then got sidetracked. After seeing a TV program about genealogy two months ago, the bug has become active inside me again. The project consumes long periods of time searching for the next fact to fit my puzzle. Fascinating and addictive is how I would describe the process. Birth, marriage, children, residences, and death are the parts of the puzzle for each individual which I search out.

There are more resources online now than there were 10 years ago. Accumulating facts is one thing, but imagining how the different families survived is another. Life was difficult for these families not so very long ago. Many children did not live past early childhood because of disease. Many didn't survive birth. The sorrow that parents and siblings must have suffered seems overwhelming in some families. I've found a handful of mothers that died during childbirth and within months their husbands remarried a local widow who recently had lost her husband also, both families with lots of little children each. Large families by today's standards are repeated over and over as I fill in the blanks.

On both my mother and father's side of the family are Germans from Russia going back as far as the 16th century Germany for some of the family lines. It wasn't called Germany then but that's the geographical area from which they came. Other familial backgrounds my children can identify with are Finnish, Norwegian, Scottish, British, and German again on their dad's side. There are a whole lot of farmers and laborers in the bunch. The original immigrants to America came between the mid 1600's to the early 1900's.

I've been able to connect with several cousins who represented branches of my tree that were blank. I had the common ancestor, spouse, and children by name only. Four generations later they show up in my inbox asking questions about our common relative and we help each other fill in missing generations on both of our trees. There was an immediate kinship felt. It definitely produced in me a sense of awe and appreciation for mankind in general. We are all in this thing called "life" together.

I figure it will take me about 3 months more to finish the project.

In addition to all that stuff, I haven't stopped reading. I recently finished Dan Barker's godless. He was a music evangelist back in the 60's and 70's in southern California in the charismatic movement. He wrote children's musicals and traveled. He's co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation today.

Currently I'm carrying around the book Why I Became An Atheist by John W. Loftus. He's a former evangelical preacher/apologist who got to thinking too much. His is a similar story to mine... disillusionment, introspection, study, and reinvention.

a matter of interpretation

Does it move?

What else does your brain tell you that may not be true?

living by faith or fact? which is more reliable?

On a more serious note... there was no world-wide flood as the bible reports. This article is representative of the kind of material that I find fascinating. Years of following the evangelical mindset prohibited me from reading this sort of thing. Today I am amazed and disappointed to an extent that for so many years I was brainwashed and didn't have any idea of it. How can I say this? Maybe I'm brainwashed today?

The difference is that today I am making a choice based on knowledge gathered from investigation. Basing one's world view on one book is risky at best. What if the book is not totally reliable? What if it is a collection of myths gathered from earlier cultural myths? Building on what is believed from previous civilizations is all we can do, I suppose. This is how science works. I'd say religion is no different. The difference in religion is that the method of testing for factual reliability is not carried out. It's all a matter of faith.

Living a life based on faith seems scary to me now. It was scary when I was in the evangelical church. The idea of "trusting God" was given lip service for the most part. Exhibiting fear and anxiety about life's events was never acceptable, so you had to say that you were trusting God. In actuality taking things into my own hands is what I usually did and still do today. It was the times when I was trusting God and things turned out totally bad which initiated the gradual breakdown of my belief system. Was it God's problem or was it me not hearing clearly. After all, I'm only human. Years and years of disillusionment can only go so far. Right?

aliens, stay away

I agree with Stephen Hawking in this article. Aliens showing up would not be cool. If they were here we'd know it. I don't give any credibility to the UFO cult phenomenon. If aliens had the ability to find our planet and then show up, they would be more technically savvy than us earthlings. Harvesting is the term that comes to mind. Oh dear...

Probability is interesting to think about though. The numbers say, yes, it's possible that other life forms exist somewhere in the universe. But what the heck do we do with that information? Until we have the ability to go places, we won't know. Unless we see them coming. That's a little scary to think about.

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the idea that we can see history through our telescopes. Millions of light years away means an even longer time ago when the event occurred. Change the subject. My brain is beginning to swell.

20 years old

Happy Birthday, Hubble!

"Hubble's unprecedented capabilities made it one of the most powerful science instruments ever conceived by humans, and certainly the one most embraced by the public. Hubble discoveries revolutionized nearly all areas of current astronomical research, from planetary science to cosmology. And, its pictures were unmistakably out of this world." (HubbleSite News Release)

Source: Hubblesite.org

brain waves

I've been told more than once in my life,"It's all in your head." A number of years ago I came to the place where I decided that the idea of a devil or a Satan was nothing more than a mental experience. This threw other ideas into play. What about feelings in general? I have experienced "hell on earth" at times in my life. But I also found relieve from these feelings by changing the way I thought about the circumstances.

The brain is an amazing and complex organ. Science has just begun to study it in the past 10-20 years. I think there's a significant chance that whatever seeming realities religious experiences bring to us are simply mental exercises. I found this article this morning that speaks to this idea.

what would happen if the world believed in...

An excellent article... long, but informative... Do you fear what might happen if the world believed in evolution?

the predicted one

the real world

" ...to deny that reality will make us a cult -- some odd group that is not really interacting with the real world." --Bruce Waltke, Christian conservative and former Bible scholar from the Reformed Theological Seminary in Florida, speaking about evolution.

Waltke has been canned by the fundamentalist police at his seminary for speaking what he truly believed. Ken Ham thinks that believing evolution undermines the moral authority of the Bible because it turns the Garden of Eden story into fable. He's right in that sense. But he's wrong about morality. There are just as many immoral, literalist, inerrant-Bible believing persons as there are immoral unbelievers, maybe more, in the U.S. anyway.

Evolution's proof has been ongoing for over 150 years and has made a healthy collection of facts. Ham would only be expected to defend the multi-million dollar investment of his Creation Museum in Kentucky. He must hang on to the 6,000-year young earth theory. The disgrace of admitting error would change his whole life. Not many people are willing to make that leap. Especially in a religion that punishes those that do not conform to its standards.

Professor Waltke has rearranged his life and now works for another conservative seminary, one who's "belief police" are evidently slightly more liberal than the previous one.

start with doubt

"If a man shall begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts,

but if he will be content to begin with doubts,

he shall end in certainties."

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) The Advancement of Learning

To end in certainty, however, depends on a continual searching for the truth.

"alone again, naturally"

My religious life is finished. I no longer believe in mythical mystical religion. What I can know is what I will base my life on. A happy life is my pursuit.

it doesn't frighten me

Richard Feynman (May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988) was an American physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world. ----(from Wikipedia)

ain't she cute?

Right off the bat I know this post is probably going to offend many but perhaps those with an evolutionary sense of humor can appreciate it. This baby wombat was rescued from the pouch of its mother. The mother had been run over by a car and a passing motorist retrieved the baby from her pouch. An organization in Australia is nursing the baby, named Karmann, and keeping her well as she grows to maturity. Here's the story and more pictures if you're interested. That's all well and good.

But why do wombat babies look so much like human babies? One brain, two ears, two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two arms (ulna & radius included), two hands, ten fingers, two legs (complete with fibula & tibia), two feet, ten toes, a backbone, on and on we could go... and this one is definitely a girl. Does anyone else see this? Maybe we humans are not so unique after all? That's not to say we don't have many more advantages in life than wombats.

Comparisons of wombat and human DNA would show us why the similarities exist. Humans and mammals share over 90% of the same genetic makeup. Either God thought DNA discovery in the 20th century would make for interesting conversation and bewilderment as humans tried to understand what the heck was he thinking when he created the world... or evolution really is true and our future is in our own hands. (Both could be true, but what kind of a god do we have then?)

how did it all begin?

So how did it all begin? In my study of evolution in recent months, I've decided to be content with not knowing the answer to this question. Even though I think that natural selection is the best explanation for how we've developed to this point, it does not answer the question of how it all began. That question has yet to be answered.

I'm reading an online book called Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary, by Kenneth W. Daniels. He states a position which I have similarly come to. Admitting ignorance goes right along with my determination towards honesty. Here's what Mr. Daniels wrote on the subject of origin.

"Consider the following fictitious scenario, set in 1000 BCE in southern Asia. Tradition has established that the earth rests on elephants. A boy named Rajah, like all his peers, grows up accepting this view, but as he reaches intellectual maturity, he begins reflecting on the difficulties associated with it: What are the elephants standing on? Where did the elephants come from? What do the elephants eat? Rajah begins posing these questions to some of the community sages, but instead of answering his questions, they accuse him of disloyalty to the sacred traditions and ask, 'If the earth is not standing on elephants, what supports it? The earth is firm; it must be supported by something, and if you can't come up with a better solution than elephants, you must accept that elephants indeed support it. Or do you think there is nothing to support the earth? Virtually everyone from every culture accepts that there must be something solid underneath the earth to support it—whether pillars, turtles or elephants. To doubt the existence of these supports is simply ludicrous! You must make a decision one way or another.'

"Rajah agrees that it seems reasonable for the earth to be supported by something firm, but, in the absence of any evidence as to the nature of that support, thinks it best to withhold judgment as to whether that support consists of elephants, pillars, or turtles, or perhaps something else that no one has yet considered. So despite the threats of the sages, he does what he must do: he professes his ongoing ignorance concerning the nature of the earth's foundations. He remains an agnostic, and in his lifetime he is reviled and fails to be vindicated. It is not until centuries later that science empirically determines the true nature of the earth's support: gravity and centrifugal force, which no one in their wildest dreams could have imagined in Rajah's day.

"Given the track record of premodern speculation versus the results of science, it is unwise to commit oneself to ungrounded answers to ultimate questions such as the origin of the universe until or unless empirical evidence can be brought to bear on them or until God reveals himself personally, directly, and unmistakably to us—not to ancient writers whose claims of inspiration cannot be authenticated—but to us. However uncomfortable it is for us to accept that there are things we simply do not know, we are on surer ground to admit our ignorance than to fill the vacuum with our imaginings or with tradition; we must not pretend we know that which we do not know. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, 'He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors'. Thus, the Oracle at Delphi said Socrates was the wisest man in the world. He did not know any more than anyone else, but unlike others he was willing to admit his ignorance.

"But ignorance is an unsatisfying state of mind, so scientists continue to seek answers to the big questions, and they have floated a number of hypotheses that are not presently subject to testing. It is profoundly ironic to hear theists' most common response to the multiple universe ("multiverse") hypothesis: 'There is no proof of such a thing.' They may be correct in observing there is no evidence for it, but the same may be said of the god hypothesis. The difference is that most scientists who subscribe to the multiverse option do so only provisionally—at least not with the same air of finality with which most theists hold to the god hypothesis. And they certainly do not threaten with eternal punishment those who do not subscribe to their untested point of view."

free thinking slaves

Isn't this oxymoronic (I love that word)? A slave is anything but free!

This is typical religious-speak. Demonize those that are different in order to feel better about who you are. Just what I was talking about in my last post. It is not seen as name calling or a put down of free thinking people. It's seen as a back slapping, high five hand clap to fellow believers. Put "that" group down so we can feel exalted. After all... we're God's favorites.

I'm telling you believers out there that this is the absolute wrong way to go about "winning the lost". You are alienating and pushing away those you see as "lost and missing God". This is why I think religion is bankrupt. It's man-made and phony.

Not to mention that it is Christianity (in this case) that does everything it can to keep your thinking to a minimum. That sounds like slave talk to me.

morality without religion

While redefining my life outside of religion and its influences, despite what some might think, morality continues to play an important and necessary part in my life and in the lives of those I love. The idea of there being such a thing as an absolute moral code however leaves me shaking my head. Absolute anything is a problem right off the bat.

It is obvious to me that an absolute moral code has failed to materialize over the past umpteen thousands of years of civilized humanity. Today millions of Christians and Jews, who both study and interpret the Bible carefully, cannot agree on the more important moral issues. There is still heated debate over topics such as abortion, ordination of women, women's rights, gay rights, birth control, capital punishment, physician-assisted suicide, and war, to name a few. If there is such a thing as a divine moral code, we certainly don't know what it is and therefore it does us no good.

To me, morality is about being accountable to others. When I was a Christian, I believed I was accountable to God first and foremost and to people secondarily. People became less and less important to me as individuals and as groups over time. My religious group had the answer for the world while others didn't. Many years of this kind of thinking developed an attitude inside me which minimized others. I saw people as different and "lesser" rather than as human beings trying to make sense of life, like me. This was not a healthy disposition.

The arrogance of "being right" spreads readily amongst religious groups and at the same time isolates the group and the individual from the real world. The real world is the one we all live in. This physical planet is the only place we have to live our lives. What comes after this life, if anything, is not known and is a subject on which I am not qualified to speculate. Basing this life on an unknown future does not make rational sense to me. I've decided to give religion no further opportunity to diminish my here and now life.

One such diminishing is the message of "forgiveness of sins". I think it works against humans. Accountability is short circuited. A sense of morality is developed when we see our bacon on the line. If I receive a "get out of jail free" card and am mentally or emotionally challenged what is going to stop me from acting on whatever whim comes into my brain? Certainly there are already people doing whatever they feel like without religious input. Does religion give an extra push toward irresponsibility if they believe God will forgive them? I suppose it depends what we're talking about. But generally speaking, if I may say so, taking personal responsibility is better than laying it on God.

Absolute moral codes do not work. If you think your religion has one that works, take a second look. Perhaps your religion minimizes moral corruption inside its own ranks. Accountability to God is not enough. Accountability to humans inside a religious structure won't work 100% either because of the "get out of jail free" card. The card alone gives many permission to "sin" because they don't know how to deal with their own personal humanity. God is supposed to take care of that for you by making you a better person. Remember, the "new heart" idea? Sorry, I don't believe it. I am the one responsible for making me a better person. Waiting around for an outside metaphysical force to act may just be the ticket that gets me into real serious trouble. Therefore, taking personal responsibility for our own welfare can only make the world a safer, more livable planet.

TED talk with sam harris

does God have a future?

I thoroughly enjoyed this Nightline program from a few nights ago.

there's something terribly wrong going on here

I don't think God should have to fire the Pope. The Cardinals voted him in. They should get rid of him in like manner.

religion is the problem

Perhaps philosophers will be the ones to set us on the right track...

gossip

Why are humans prone to gossip? The media, at least here in the U.S., pushes gossip, usually sexual in nature, to the top of the news chain, especially when the figure is a politician, a sports icon, a Hollywood star, or a religious leader.

Gossip is natural. It provides a sense of security in a perverse sort of way. If we can position ourselves in a more favorable light than the person we gossip about, we feel better about our situation. Even though our own life is not aided one fraction of an inch closer to improvement, we feel we’re “okay” or “better off than that other person” if we can talk about them and commiserate how horrible a situation they are in. We even “have all the answers” of what we would do if in a similar situation.

Another reason we gossip is we feel a need to separate the offender from the group while stating our disapproval of the particular behavior involved. By doing this we punish the offender and at the same time enforce the “rules” of accepted societal behavior. Again all quite natural.

Like everything else in life there are positive and negative aspects to gossip. In the positive, it makes us feel good individually and it reinforces societal rules. It is a good thing to express gratitude for our personal situation. We become more thankful for our good relationships. It’s better yet if we understand why our relationships are successful and we teach this to others by example or word. Teaching unacceptable behavior is a way of changing our society, even if only to those we speak to.

The negative side of the “good” feeling which gossip creates is that it tends to increase a sense of superiority in us, “I’m better than them” sort of thinking. Arrogance is a worm that burrows itself deep into our psyche and then manifests in not so good ways. It is very difficult to detect arrogance in ourselves and it makes not only our life miserable but also the lives of those around us. We cannot see it for what it is. We think everyone else has or is the problem. We defend our thinking at a cost however. We lose friends, spouses, jobs, children, etc. All in an attempt to be right. It usually takes quite an upset to turn us so that we can see our own arrogance.

Another negative is the effect gossip has on the one being gossiped about and those close to the situation. The condemnation, guilt, and shame associated with sexual failure specifically can be overwhelming to the offender and those close to them. Religion especially magnifies these effects. What is most needed is usually least given, that being support, understanding, and acceptance of the individual (not the behavior). In addition, family members are included in the punishment and are left “out in the cold” also.

When failure is treated as a disease, people stay away because it may be infectious. This is understandable. Not even religion can overcome the effects of the way our societal DNA works. By shunning and exclusion those who break the rules are punished. Those “put outside the camp“ are then left to their own resources to find a life worth living again.

political blurb of the day

Ryan for President...

The health care debate in this country reached its highest pitch this past Sunday night when the House of Representatives passed a semblance of a bill. This is what government does. It figures out ways to spend our tax dollars. I am concerned for how we go about paying for this one. Rep. Paul Ryan, in his articulation of this dilemma, becomes a likely candidate for President in 2012 in my opinion. (I don't even know too much about him, except his fiscally responsible approach, I like.)

The bi-partisan screaming is so ridiculous. The extremes on both sides of the issue only polarize our country more. When was the last time you "yelled" your way to a satisfactory reconciliation of two or more differing viewpoints? Find the next best thing to do and get on with the careful planning necessary to accomplish it.

burning light

"What is to give light must endure burning."

Viktor E. Frankl