family feud?

Critical Thinking

I want to become a better thinker...

embracing truth

Belief in creation science seems to be primarily a U.S. phenomenon among countries in the West. There was a British survey conducted in 1999 amongst 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops, and Protestant ministers/pastors that showed:

97% did not believe the world was created in six days.
80% did not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

(Information taken from a news item in ReligionToday for 1999-DEC-29)

These numbers indicate that the educated British clergy overwhelmingly do not believe in the literal interpretation of the creation story in the Bible. According to a recent 2006 survey by the Gallup Poll, 28 percent of Americans believe the Bible is literally true, compared to 38 percent 30 years prior. Roughly 72% do not take it literally today.

On a Facebook thread a couple of days ago, my husband ran across words that went something like this, "I believe what the Bible says, that's good enough for me, I don't need anything else. No discussion needed." I used to think this way but not anymore. I've found problems with the method of literal interpretation since I decided to search out the Bible's historical origins.

.

Just a few examples of textual problems alone... the earth does not move (Psalm 93:1), the moon gives off its own light (Is. 13:10), and the sun revolves around the earth (Josh. 10:12-13) . None of these statements are accurate. What else does the Bible say that is not true? Did God not understand his own creation? If inspiration of God is at work here, why didn't he tell these writers what's what? The Bible was written by men of the Bronze and Iron Ages who wrote according to the understandings of their day. Today a literal interpretation is unwarranted.

Thousands of years have passed since the Bible was written and much has been learned in the natural and social sciences. The scientific revolution didn't start until the 16th century when Copernicus published his heliocentric model of the universe. Cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology, paleontology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, and genetics have brought much understanding to us about ourselves as well as the world in which we live. Embracing truth is the way I am going to live.

credulous creationism

What percentage of life & earth scientists in 1987 believed in evolution?

According to this Newsweek Magazine article: 99.85%

Without any serious study, I credulously believed the ideas of creationism over the proofs of science. I was one of these Christians mentioned by St. Augustine in the following...

In my view this is a primary reason why creationists are not taken seriously, except by their own. There is plenty of evidence today to prove evolution. Remaining true to the literal interpretation of the Bible will keep them forever bound in credulity.

evolution of religion

In this article regarding Haiti, voodoo, and Christian evangelicalism, we once again see religion’s influence and its value or perhaps more accurately lack thereof. The voodoo priest is complaining that the evangelicals are hogging the airport and the supplies and then distributing them in such a manner as to increase the evangelicals influence among the Haitian people. Whether this complaint is logistically true or not, I have no way of knowing. It's the thinking behind the scenes that intrigues me.

It seems like we'd all be better off if we gave up our superstitious religious beliefs and took responsibility for our behavior towards others. I'm not just talking about the voodoo priest. Religion, in general, seems to be expert at clouding relationships and separating human beings from each other.

Why didn't God make a world where love, peace, joy, and all those wonderful things just existed without the option of human beings messing things up? That would be my old brain trying to simplify things. I no longer pretend that life is simple. Trusting God exclusively to take care of all the things “out there” is no longer something I‘m able to do.

In spite of my rant above, religion is a part of the social construct of man and has been around for a long time... perhaps beginning with simple folk tales regarding the death of loved ones and bringing comfort to those still alive by explaining that they (the dead) were still present though invisible. This would be comforting indeed. We created gods or a God in order to explain the unexplainable. Religion has worked well at uniting people. Amazing civilizations have existed in history and religions have played a part as unifier in many of them.

Somewhere along the way we developed the idea that the gods or God could be placated, pleased, commandeered, or even manipulated by our actions of sacrifices, prayers, worship, idol making industries, and more. We created ways to get what we needed (safety, acceptance, comfort) even though it may have simply served psychological purposes. This went a long way in soothing fears in a very unfriendly world filled with natural and unnatural catastrophes.

While religion has positively contributed to societies, it also produces negative situations in people's lives. People have learned how to control other people by using religion in any number of ways. A few examples would be… Constantine, the Roman emperor, making it the empire’s state religion in order to maintain control of his people, hell doctrines, inquisition killings, shaming, money making schemes (i.e. tithing/prosperity gospel). Religion needs conformity from its constituents in order to survive and at the same time produces a form of security. Thus religion survives.

As I have been studying evolution (natural selection) over the past number of months, its probability has grown in my mind. I can see how evolution has worked in religion. Religious concepts evolve. In Christianity alone there appears to be an observed peace amongst the 30,000+ sects/denominations in Protestantism since its birth 500+ years ago. It certainly didn't start out that way, but you don't hear of many killings related to denominational differences anymore at least not in the United States.

The divide between world religions is another matter. Wars are being fought today because of these differences. The Abrahamic faiths... Judaism, Christianity, and Islam especially have a history. “My God is the one true God and yours is not.” Our current war with radical Islam shows the Islamists’ religion and its preservation as the motivating forces behind the terrorists’ insistence that the ways of the West must die.

War should be a last resort and I'm not saying we shouldn't protect ourselves. Evolution insists on self preservation. Each religion must evolve to the place where it recognizes its own survival is dependent on peace. Perhaps Buddhists, Taoists, and other seemingly peaceful religions have learned this, I don't know.

Religions also need to police their own fundamentalist extremists who do not understand the concept of compromise and tolerance. I know that's easier said then done. It is in everyone’s best interest that the concept “our God is the only Right One” evolve into extinction. Will we evolve quickly enough to avoid major destruction? How much pain will it take? Will religions' inability to bring peace be the end of its own existence?

religion’s paradigm shifts (small scale/big scale)

Recently I read a post that I wrote back in December 2007 on a different blog. This particular post was titled "Shifting Paradigms" and went like this:

"For the past 33 months, I’ve been replacing or putting aside some foundational paradigms that have defined “my religion” for many years. Why? Because when I needed my religion to work, it didn’t. Having experienced extremely hurtful personal problems and reaching out to God with no recognizable response, I was left with an impression that God didn't care and was far off. Expecting the church people to help my husband and me through our difficult valley I was met with disappointment and a feeling of being shunned… at least that was my perception. After many months of disillusionment and finally leaving the church our family had been a part of for 12 years, I came to realize that my expectations and beliefs about God and his followers were both misappropriated and wrong. I plan to define some of these changes in future writings.

The Random House Dictionary defines “paradigm” as “the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time”. “Shift” means “to put (something) aside and replace it by another or others; change or exchange: to shift ideas.” This is what I am doing. The process has brought great freedom to my spirit."

Almost word for word I would write the same thing today, except for the part about my spirit being free. (Don't really know what the entity, "my spirit", would be today apart from who I am. I am as free as I allow myself to be.) Since that time my expectations of God seem to have been proven correct. They were misappropriated and wrong.

My expectations of God's "followers" were also fundamentally wrong. However, since I was sitting in the same boat as other followers for so many years, any criticisms I might have apply to me first. I was doing the best I knew to do just as the majority of those around me were and are doing.

The primary criticism I give to myself today in reference to the past is that I was not thinking critically about life. This lack proved to be the catalyst to everything going upside down. Or perhaps I should say downside up. It depends on perspective. Believing that God would take care of me proved to be almost fatal to my marriage and definitely fatal to my religion. Blind faith is not something I recommend to anyone in any sort of relationship, certainly not in earthly relationships, much less with a God that is illusive and demands blind faith, love, trust, obedience, suffering, worship, and martyrdom. (If God doesn't require these actions in our earthly relationships, and I don't believe that he would if he existed, why would he require it in our relationship with him? Old Testament God or New Testament God, doesn't make a difference to me.)

Today I see religion as a control and manipulation mechanism of man over man. All you have to do is study church history and you'll see why it's not difficult to come up with that idea. If you belong to a church, unless you're totally disconnected, you've seen the "politics" of religion first hand and shook your head in dismay or disgust. Some people walk away while others maintain the same course. I maintained the same course for a long time. Why?

Religion wouldn't have stayed around for so many millennia if there wasn't something good to be gleaned from it. Religion gives comfort to people. Believing that we will see our loved ones after death is comforting. Believing that we experience life after death and won't just disappear forever is also comforting. The social scene proves to be quite beneficial in meeting peoples' core needs to belong and be appreciated by others. (My one caveat to that would be... The social scene is beneficial as long as you conform, participate, don't ask tough questions, and don't tell anyone of your personal struggles.)

Religion has evolved over many years. Individual religions endure over time due to the built-in survival mechanisms they develop. Some mechanisms are good. Some are not good. Over time the bad gets weeded out. But it takes a long time. What is today thought of as mythology once was someone's religion. It may take thousands of years for things to change significantly. We humans have always wanted someone to watch over us. I think it's natural... kind of like never growing up and wanting to be cared for by Mom and Dad. Why wouldn't we want to believe that there was a father and mother god looking out for us and planning and directing our lives? This would keep us safe.

But alas, such is not so. People are not safe. One look at Haiti would indicate that. One of religion's built-in mechanism kicks in at this point... "of course they're not safe because they aren't obeying God... or loving God... or sacrificing enough... or" (you name it, there are many options). Pat Robertson told us how these work.

The evils of this world (natural or man-made disasters) cannot be explained to my imperfect, more and more tolerant mind. The tolerance of God, if it exists, has to be greater than mine. It doesn't seem to be. This is a dilemma that cries resolution.

ideology

After several months of reading books on evolution, I’d like to say that “I am an ideologue no more.” Whether it’s possible to entirely eliminate a previous ideology remains to be seen. It’s easier to talk and write about, for sure.

What do I mean by ideology? Daniel Dennett in Breaking The Spell identifies ideology as “not just any mistaken thinking, but thinking that is pathological or bad for us in some way.” (p.374--the complete title of this book is Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon) In this same book, J.M Balkin is quoted as identifying ideology as “ways of thinking that help maintain unjust social conditions.” (p.374) These definitions will do for now.

Balkin, in his book Cultural Software, identifies something which he calls imperialist universalism: “…the view that there are universal concrete standards of justice and human rights that apply to every society, whether pre- or post-industrial, whether secular or religious, and that it is the duty of right-minded people to change the positive norms and institutions of all societies so that they conform with these universal norms of justice and universal human rights.” (p.150) I don't think that he is saying this as a positive thing. In times past I would have agreed with this idea.

Dennett also notes that many people in the United States hold the belief that the American way is the right way and we should spread it to all the world. Anything less is moral relativism. Tolerance of other cultures’ norms such as polygamy, slavery, and infanticide (to name a few) must not be granted. Imperialist Universalism sees “right” or “wrong” as the only accepted possibilities in any moral decision.

Many Muslims, Christians, and Hindus would seem to fall into this imperialist universalism category. They would agree that moral relativism is unacceptable. Where does this leave the unbeliever? Does it automatically push the unbeliever into the morally relativistic camp? I don’t think so, but the “I’m right and you’re wrong” stance won't work either. There has to be some middle ground. Scientists (many of whom admit to being unbelievers) also should not be granted final say. Science doesn’t possess moral answers to life exclusively. At best, science may provide clarity or confirmation of factual presuppositions of any moral discussion, but not the values that our ethical judgments and arguments are based on. Putting faith in science alone is no different than putting faith in one religion or another exclusively. (paraphrased from Dennett)

“Everybody should consider adopting the stable middle ground: an open mind stance that permit’s a rational dialogue to engage the issues between people, no matter how radically different their cultural backgrounds. We can engage in this conversation with some reasonable hope of resolution that isn‘t simply a matter of one culture overwhelming the other by brute force. We cannot expect, Balkin argues, to persuade others if we leave no room and opportunity for them to persuade us. Success does depend on the participants‘ truth and justice. What this means is only that both parties accept that these values are inescapably presupposed by human projects that we all participate in, simply by being alive: the projects of staying alive, and staying secure. Nothing more parochial need be assumed, and even ‘Martians‘ should be able to agree on this.” (Dennett, p.376, Breaking The Spell)

What am I saying? I think that whether we’re talking about science or religion, neither are benefited by claiming an imperialist universalism stance. Dialogue is necessary when it comes to differences. We all share the need to stay alive and stay secure. Pushing or simply holding an ideology causes separation. It causes us to devalue others. We judge others and develop feelings of entitlement, superiority, and pride. Isn’t this how wars start and continue?

Holding strongly to one ideology over another leads to irrationality. My truth is no truer than your truth and vice versa if we‘ve failed to present our cases in open dialogue with each other. Winning arguments by strong arming the other out of the dialogue is not winning. And if one thinks his ideology should rule, he needs to study his tactics and learn peaceable approaches to dialogue. If we rely on the respect for truth and the tools of truth-finding, “we can work together toward mutually comprehended and accepted visions of what is good and what is just”(Dennett).

For many years my religious views cut me off from ideas that I was taught to ostracize and deem as untruth. I'm no longer in agreement with this ideology. Learning and growing in new ways it what I require of myself today. My need to stay alive and stay secure are more important than any ideology's promise.