You are here: Home > Atheism & Skepticism

Archive | Atheism & Skepticism RSS feed for this section

My Thought Evolution on Freedom: Remembering 9/11

By on September 11, 2015 in 9-11-2001, Atheism & Skepticism, Government Reform, Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-liberty-image26285626Two obvious points: 1) Its been a really long time since I’ve blogged!  2) Obviously, its the 14th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/2001.

I’ll skip the boring and lame reasons for #1 and focus on #2 today.  Every year on 9/11 I feel like I should have something profound to say. I never really do, and today its especially true, but I do have something to say.  I started this post on my Facebook page, thinking it was just going to be a sentence or two, and it quickly blossomed into a full post, so it sparked my enthusiasm to fire up the old blog again.  This should be a short one, though.

9/11 changed the course of my life. That is not hyperbole. If it had not happened, I’d be leading a different life in many ways. Not a better or worse life, just a different one. And I’d be a different person with very different viewpoints on many topics, if I had a viewpoint on those topics at all. 9/11 was the butterfly flapping its wings across the world creating the storm of my life.

I’ve spoken before about how 9/11 changed my views of religion (specifically here and here), but I think what stands out most to me today, is how 9/11 changed my view of what it means to be free. 9/11 was also my birth, or maybe the beginning of my adolescence, as a libertarian (although I had no idea what that term meant at the time).  9/11 itself evoked extreme feelings of patriotism for me, as it did for many Americans.  It sparked me to join the fight by going to work for an agency involved in the “Global War on Terror”.  That experience led me to learn more than I ever had before about economics and Classical Liberal philosophy.  Perhaps a future post will dive more into why that happened.  In turn, what I learned in those areas has altered my view of 9/11 from what it was the day it happened and the first few years afterwards.  I no longer think of today as a day of unbridled patriotism.  Instead I think of it as a reminder of how far the country has come from the ideals it was founded upon.  I still believe that the “American Experiment” was one of the greatest endeavors humans have ever attempted. We always have been and always will be a work in progress. I’m worried that we have given up on the effort to live up to our ideals, however, and are heading down a path of becoming the thing we fought against.

I feel truly lucky to have been born in America.  I’m one of the lucky few of the billions who have lived in my time and before.  9/11 taught me that where a person was born shapes a lot of who they become, and I don’t take that for granted.  But I also don’t accept blind patriotism anymore.  I believe in the ideals of individual liberty, and I fear that 9/11 pushed us as a nation further away from living up to those ideals.

That terrible day should never have happened. The lives lost should have been able to continue their days as if nothing had happened, but instead they were stopped in time too early. Not a single person deserved what happened to them that day, except for the 19 participants in the plot. So, I remember those lives today with honor, even though I never met one of them.  And I will continue to honor them by remembering that they were individuals with hopes and dreams, wanting to live their own lives in peace.  That those men who took their lives thought more of the next life than this one, and took away the choices of 2,958 (I do not count the hijackers in this total) in this life is haunting.  9/11 taught me that this life is the only one we know we have, and that my right to interfere in the lives of others going about their own business is (or should be) limited.

Peace,

PersephoneK

world-trade-center-lights

Comments { 0 }

How I learned I’m a Religious Marxist and Other Silly Things

By on December 10, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Liberty & Freedom, Ruminations

dreamstime_s_7671893_GOLDCoinsToday, I was told two things about myself I didn’t know (add groan). The first being I’m a Marxist. The second being that since I’m an atheist, I subscribe to a religion. While it’s entirely possible I misunderstood the person’s intent (this was after all a Facebook discussion, which aren’t known for their details and included people I’ve never met in real life), I don’t think I did. And it made me want to explore these hilarious ideas more in depth.

As an atheist, I’ve been told many times by religious people that atheism is a religion, and the variation of that is it takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Let me start by using the dictionary definition used by the person who told me atheism is a religion:

Religion (noun): a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

There is a lot there, but from what I can tell, atheism does not meet any of the criteria listed. Atheism is not a set of beliefs about anything. There is no universal doctrine about creation, the purpose or nature of the universe. There are no devotional observances or rituals that all atheists must subscribe to. There is no one all-inclusive moral code. Atheism is merely a rejection of any supernatural supreme being aka god(s). That is the only thing that binds atheists together. Now, from that lack of belief, there naturally come many similarities in world views, but not always.

Religious people often mistake passion for religion. One can be passionate or outspoken about the topic of atheism or theism. But that passion does not automatically make one religious. This distinction confounds me, and most atheists I know. It’s usually thrown out as a red herring in order to make the atheist look like a hypocrite for daring to care about whether or not people believe in god. I care about world peace, ending hunger, women’s rights, music, and movies. Does that mean I am part of corresponding religions for each of those? Any reasonable person would have to say no. Religion, as its definition states, includes a supernatural agency (or agencies), and devotion or rituals related to that agency. Atheism does not meet this requirement.

Regarding me being a Marxist… this is even funnier. There was a time, in my younger and Christian days, when I very well was headed down a somewhat Marxist path. I’ve always been a capitalist, but I can remember a window of time during high school when I began to see the world from a Haves and Have Nots lens. When I saw the pursuit of material wealth as crass and corrupting. I saw Jesus Christ as the ultimate example of an egalitarian leader, showing us how to live together in peace and harmony. I did not want to be thought of as one of the greedy money changers in the Temple that angered Jesus so much in the gospels. And those money hungry Ferengi on Star Trek just seemed gross.

Then I learned about Adam Smith and John Locke. I read Frederic Bastiat and Milton Friedman. I learned, despite not being exposed in public school or through the mainstream media, that Capitalism overwhelmingly has increased human well-being over pretty much every other social strategy every conceived by man. This isn’t theoretical. Its reality. That data was supported by my anecdotal observances, especially when I worked for the Federal Government. I learned about incentives, and how they really matter. I learned that what many people think is Capitalism, isn’t. Capitalism is not the dominance of big business, riding on the wings of big government to squash the little guy. That is crony capitalism, where the government colludes with business to control the markets and pick winners and losers. True Capitalism is the most democratic process there is. It’s the way I as an individual can most make an impact every single day in the course of society. The United States currently leans more towards Crony Capitalism than most libertarians would prefer. This results in “too big to fail” banks, local restaurants crowding out the food truck competition, and ridiculous licensing rules making entry into a business all but impossible for many would-be entrepreneurs. All of which leads to more power for the established businesses and entrenched politicians, and less power and higher prices for the consumers. In true capitalism, businesses must serve their customers well, or they will exist no more. Serving consumers (read you and I) well means a better economy. A better economy leads to more prosperity for all. This is not Marxism. This is not shared work and shared fruits. Crony Capitalism may be closer to what Marx was fighting against. He saw the businesses and the governments with all the power, and the little guy getting beat up time and time again (figuratively and literally), powerless to control the winds of fate. In true Capitalism, the little guy holds all of the power. The little guy gets what he wants for better prices, leaving him with more money to get other things (or services) he wants.

The person who called me a Marxist did so because he Marx was an avowed critic of religion. He called it “the opiate of the masses.” This might be one area where Marx and I see eye-to-eye (hey, I’ll give credit where it’s due), but his prescriptions (ore his followers interpretations of them) for overcoming religion were about as far in the other direction as I could be. Communist governments are usually a-religious. Christians I have met often assume that where atheism resides, so must communism, socialism, or Marxism. I won’t even get into the ridiculous barb often thrown at atheists that most of the atrocities committed in the 20th Century were committed by atheists, but I will merely say that it is a logical fallacy to suggest that because one is an atheist, one must be a Marxist. As I mentioned earlier, atheists have no universal moral code or philosophy. It is merely the lack of belief in a supernatural deity or deities. Marxism is a philosophy for how society should behave. As an atheist libertarian, I believe in the proven power of capitalism to solve many of the world’s problems. If I could ever be accused of being religious, it would be regarding my love of capitalism. It has done far more in the name of ending human suffering than anything else the world has known.

But to do so, would defy the definition of religion. So I won’t.

Cheers,
PersephoneK

P.S.  I wrote this extremely quickly and didn’t edit it at all (except to spell Ferengi correctly and add some hyperlinks).  Apologies if that’s evident.  Sometimes you just have to get ‘er done!

Comments { 0 }

Defending Truth Can Mean Defending Jesus

By on October 9, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Science & History
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Jesus-Christ-from-Hagia-Sophia.jpg/170px-Jesus-Christ-from-Hagia-Sophia.jpg

Source: Jesus-Christ-from-Hagia-Sophia

Over the past few days, an announcement has been circulating primarily among atheist-focused Facebook pages.  The topic: proof that Jesus never existed according to American Joseph Atwill who will be giving a presentation in Britain this month about his “new discovery” in promotion of his books, no doubt.  As a result, I have found myself running all over Facebook as the details are shared to try to persuade people to be very skeptical of what this man has to say as atheists there get lulled into the wishful thinking that their greatest nemesis, Jesus Christ, may never have existed at all.

Denying that Jesus was a real person is just as bad as believing in supernatural explanations for things.  My criticism of religion is merely an extension of my belief that believing in lies is bad, and believing in reality is a better path for life and humanity.  For that reason, I want to let anyone know who’s listening that whatever Atwill is peddling is likely bunk.

Let me set the stage a bit and summarize for you Atwill’s claims.  According to the announcement’s website, his thesis is that “the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.”

I have several problems with this and Atwill’s credentials in general.  First of all, according to Atwill’s own blog he “studied computer science in college” (never saying whether or not he obtained a degree), and prior to college he attended Japan’s Jesuit-run St. Mary’s Military Academy where his “school days was spent studying Greek, Latin, and the Bible”, but it never clarifies whether he has achieved any level of mastery of those languages (I’ve “studied” Greek and Latin myself, but couldn’t claim to even have a beginning level understanding of them).  Although the British presentation announcement lists Atwill as an “American Biblical scholar”, I would have serious issues with calling him that.  What exactly is he a scholar in?  From what I can tell, no actual Bible, Theological, or History scholar would call this man their colleague.  Recently, Bible and Christian History scholar Bart Ehrman (who I recently wrote about here) wrote on his blog about what it takes to be a Bible scholar in response to the new book “[easyazon-link asin=”B00BIOG1ZU” locale=”us”]Killing Jesus: A History[/easyazon-link]” written by Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly.  I think its important to understand what it takes to be recognized as an expert in the field.  According to Dr. Ehrman:

“To become an expert in the historical Jesus (or the New Testament broadly, or Hebrew Bible, or first century Roman empire, or pick your cognate field) takes years of diligent study. My own graduate students at UNC typically enter into our PhD program after already started taking ancient languages (e.g., Greek, Latin, and/or Coptic) in college; then doing a two or three year master’s degree mastering ancient languages, learning modern languages (usually French and German) so they can read scholarship done overseas, and getting sufficient background in the field that can *prepare* them to *start* doing a PhD. O’Reilly of course never even went this far. Once my students are in their PhD program, they spend two years doing seminar work – full time, two years – then they take a semester or two to prepare for their five PhD exams; after they take their PhD exams they write a dissertation, in a well-defined and narrow field in which they become absolute experts; the dissertation almost always takes two years of full time work. In other words, after a 2-3 year masters degree, they spend five years (if they’re fast) to get the PhD.

And *then* they are beginning, *junior* scholars. At that point they are not ready to write a book for a general audience even in their own field of expertise. First they have to spend years more working in their field, writing another scholarly book, and developing even further expertise.

Source: http://nttext.org/index.html

To be a real scholar of the historical Jesus you need to be able to read the New Testament in Greek; you need to be able to read Jesus’ own scriptures, the Hebrew Bible, in Hebrew. You need to be able to read all the sources about Jesus, which requires Latin and Coptic. You need to delve deeply into scholarly research, which has been going on, at intense levels, since the 1770’s. And then you’re ready to say something to the world at large. You can’t just read the Bible, take it to be historical, fill out the details with your imagination, and imagine you’ve written something that people should buy into (or buy! O’Reilly and friend will make millions on this fluff.) (Then again, maybe the rest of the book isn’t as crazily fluffy as this excerpt?).”

By those standards, Atwill doesn’t come close.

Moving to Atwill’s claims that Jesus was invented by the Romans as some kind of conspiracy to quell Jewish revolts, I’ll try very hard to not to simply say its ridiculous (because it is), but also provide a few nuggets of evidence according to what the scholars say.  Most scholars accept as fact that Jesus of Nazareth existed.  I’m going to remain brief, but if you want all of the details in an easily digestible format, I strongly recommend reading Ehrman’s [easyazon-link asin=”B0053K28TS” locale=”us”]Did Jesus Exist?[/easyazon-link].   To summarize here, the main reasons for believing this comes from several ancient sources, including those from the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman Senator and historian Tacitus, and of course, the New Testament itself, which include writings from the most famous Christian missionary of all, Paul.  There is no archaelogical evidence, or Roman records, but that is not surprising.  There are not these kinds of things for most of the people who lived in first century Palestine.

What does Josephus say?  Writing in the end of the First Century (some 60 years or so after the death of Jesus), Josephus references Christians and Jesus twice in his work called, “Antiquities of the Jews”.  Certain aspects of those writings are debated among scholars, but generally speaking the conclusion of most scholars (atheists and believers alike) is that they can be used as reliable sources to show the existence of Jesus based on several criteria that I’ll not bore you with here.

What does Tacitus say?  Tacitus, a Roman pagan writing in the early decades of the second century, mentions Jesus in his work called “Annals.”  According to scholars, Tacitus provides a dispassionate perspective on the persecution of Christians after the burning of Rome (probably by Emperor Nero) in 64 CE, and on the crucifixion of Jesus.

What about the New Testament?  A full discussion of the evidence within the books of the New Testament (NT) would take too long for me to discuss here (this is already much longer than I first intended), but the key points are found in the works of Paul.

The Last Supper, Da Vinci.

There are several books written and claimed to have been written by Paul in the NT.  Scholars generally agree that 7 of the 13 letters in the NT were actually written by Paul (and 6 were forgeries or otherwise mistakenly attributed to him).  To see a detailed list, go here.

Of those letters believed to be written by Paul, the key pieces of compelling evidence for Jesus’ existence come from Galatians 1:18-24.  In these versus, Paul expressly states that three years after his conversion to Christianity, he visited the Apostle Peter (aka Cephus aka Simon Peter), and Jesus’ brother James, for fifteen days.  Peter, was known to be Jesus closest companion in the Gospels, and James is mentioned to be Jesus brother in other NT writings as well.  Scholars estimate this event likely took place less than ten years after Jesus’ death, sometime in the 30’s CE.  Basically, what this proves is that Paul has first-hand knowledge of a man who was named Jesus who died by Roman crucifixion recently, provided by people who actually knew Jesus (including his own brother).  To me, this is very compelling information.  As with the writings of Josephus and Tacitus, there is much more I could go into to show why scholars generally agree that Paul’s writing is historically reliable, but that information is out there should you want to find it.

Lastly, for me, Atwill’s claims just do not meet the smell test.  He has asserted that “Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century… When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That’s when the ‘peaceful’ Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to ‘give onto Caesar’ and pay their taxes to Rome.”  Basically, he thinks the Roman’s fabricated the myth of Jesus in some grand conspiracy to get Jews to chill out and stop revolting.  Aside from this being completely revisionist history of the first century Roman Empire and Palestine, its just absurd for this reason: If the Romans wanted to invent a story, why would they have invented the story of Jesus with so many inconsistencies and contradictions?  The NT is fraught with competing ideas about the details of Jesus’ birth and ministry and death.  Ideas that cancel each other out in many cases.  Ideas that wouldn’t convince first century Jews that he was the Messiah who should be followed.  Its just nonsense.

There was a time when I briefly flirted with the tempting notion that Jesus never existed.  It would be simpler to be an atheist if this were true.  But I am a skeptic and a truth-seeker first and foremost, and after reading about the evidence and learning what the scholars who have devoted their lives to this subject matter have said (and I’m still learning), I have accepted as fact that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist, and that he was crucified by the Romans sometime in the 30’s CE in Jerusalem.  As I’ve learned more about the history, I’ve found the reality is much more interesting than the possible myth of Jesus being a fabrication.  I do not believe that Jesus was supernatural, that he was the son of god, or god himself.  I don’t even believe that he believed that, but that is a discussion for another time.  Of course, like Atwill, I’m no scholar either, but I never claimed to be.   All I know is the evidence (as analyzed by professionals who have devoted their lives to the study of this subject matter)  for a historical Jesus is compelling, and I choose to base my conclusions (in all aspects of my life) on what can be reasonably proven, not what I want to believe, or wish to be true.   That is my wish for current believers, and my fellow atheists alike.  Don’t be sucked in by things that make no sense in reality.  The world will be better for it.

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Check out Dr. Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist” for more information about what the historical evidence is for Jesus’ existence.

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0053K28TS” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A0vgJPUrL._SL160_.jpg” width=”104″]

*10/10/2013: Some edits made to fix typos and remove my annoying misuse of apostrophes.  No content altered.

Comments { 9 }

Atheists Can Love the Bible for What It Is

By on September 25, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Science & History

bible-sunset-2One of my academic and religious studies mentors is someone I’ve never met, or technically studied under.  His name is Dr. Bart Ehrman.  He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  He is very respected as a scholar of the Bible and is an early Christian historian.  He writes scholarly papers as well as books directed at the layman, many of which point out misunderstandings of the Bible and who Jesus was.  Much of what he writes about is widely taught at Seminary schools and generally accepted among scholars (secular and believers), yet often not taught to regular parishioners and church goers.  But another reason why am drawn to his work:

He is also an atheist who loves the Bible.

I feel a bit of a kinship with Dr. Ehrman.  He and I were both once Christian believers.  He calls himself a former fundamentalist.  And while I never would have used that term when I was a Christian, looking back on myself, I’d have to call my younger self that now.  I believed that the Bible held the key to understanding the truth about what God wanted from me and all humans.  I believed that the Bible was the inspired Word of God and that through its study, I could learn the right way to live.  [easyazon-image align=”right” asin=”B004IWR3JW” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ijk9vgS%2BL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″]Also, like Dr. Ehrman, as he writes in his book [easyazon-link asin=”B004IWR3JW” locale=”us”]Forged[/easyazon-link], he wanted only to follow the Truth.  That obsessive desire for Truth ultimately, and ironically, led him (and me) to abandon our faiths.  The more we learned, the more we could see the Bible is a very human book.

Many atheists out there, in particular those who are not apostates, but even some who are, have a fervent hatred of the Bible.  I can understand this to some degree.  The Bible has been misused and abused throughout history to shape Western culture in often oppressive ways antithetical to human well-being (yes, yes, many Christians have done great good in the world in the name of the faith as well, I’ll concede this point).  I share many of those concerns.  There is much within the Bible that is quite frankly appalling.  But the truth is, I still love it.  I no longer revere it.

One thing that led me to atheism is my love of history.  I wanted to learn more about the early Christian Church.  The more I learned, the more I came to realize, there’s really not that much out there.  But what is out there paints a completely different picture of Christianity than I had come to know and understand through my faith.  This was another factor that led me to Dr. Ehrman.  He is a rare hybrid of religious scholar and historian.  There are very few scholars out there, arguably, that have a better understanding of the early Christian Church from a historical perspective than he does.  For me, those two points of view (religious and historical) deserve great weight and respect.  One cannot understand the books of the Bible without also understanding the historical circumstances under which they were written.  This is often lost on those who read the Bible from a purely theological perspective, and has often led to the abuses of the Bible’s teachings.

I had not planned on writing a blog today, so this one isn’t very well thought out, or focused, but mainly what is on my mind at the moment is how I wish more people out there understood the Bible from a historical perspective.  I feel it should be taught in schools (along with the Koran and other religious texts).  The Bible is probably the single most influential book ever written in human history, yet the average person knows almost nothing about it, even those who use it as a basis of their spiritual lives know next to nothing about it.  I challenge my Christian friends to learn more about what the Bible is and isn’t.  This doesn’t mean you must leave your faith behind.  I personally find belief and understanding the bible’s historical truths to be incompatible, but there are plenty of scholars out there who believe the same things about the Bible’s authorship and context who still have faith.  Do not let fear of losing faith prevent you from understanding what is true and what is false.  If there is a god, why To my atheist friends and readers, do not let what religion has done to human well-being interfere with your ability to read and learn about the Bible for what it is.  Its a beautiful collection of writings that people in antiquity wrote for various reasons and agendas that helps inform us about their lives and what mattered to them.  There are philosophical lessons within its pages that we can adopt and internalize, while dismissing the lessons that are better left to history.

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000SEGJF8″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512kDCXRwJL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″]For all readers, a good place to start to gain this understanding is pretty much anything written by Bart Ehrman.  If I had to pick something for you, I’d say, start with “[easyazon-link asin=”B000SEGJF8″ locale=”us”]Misquoting Jesus[/easyazon-link]” and go from there.

Never be afraid to challenge your beliefs.

Cheers,
PersphoneK

 

Comments { 1 }

Ricky Gervais Summarizes My Philosophy Beautifully

By on September 16, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Stuff by Others

A few days ago, Hemant Mehta from the Friendly Atheist posted a link to an interview by CNN’s Piers Morgan of comedian Ricky Gervais, an unapologetic atheist.  I think it so perfectly highlights the beauty of leaving religion, that I wanted to share it with you all.  You can view the full interview at the Friendly Atheist, but the best line by far is this:

I think there’s this strange myth that atheists have nothing to live for. It’s the opposite. We have nothing to die for… We have everything to live for.

It succinctly explains what many theists get wrong about atheists… For me, while the thought of no afterlife is sad and a bit unsettling (I won’t lie about that, and I wouldn’t say this is true for all or even most atheists), what it has done is made me focus on this life.  Every second my life continues in this blink of an eye is precious, and any time focusing on what comes after death is wasted.

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 0 }

Fighting Magic with My Word Sword

By on July 2, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Liberty & Freedom, Recommended Reading

PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD by PenywiseIn my recent post “Disagreement Does Not Equal Intolerance” some readers called me out on what seemed to be a contradiction in my message. While the contradiction was unintended, I can understand why it was interpreted in such a way. Such is one of the reasons I have this blog… to tidy up my writing and work to be more clear, as well as working through viewpoints I have that may need refinement. In the beginning of that post I wrote:

“changing minds about religion is not my primary motivator when I talk about my worldview on this blog and other forums, or social media, and in real life …mostly I simply want to be true to myself, be authentic. Come out from the shadows. And find like-minded individuals to commiserate with,”

but then later I said:

“it is my goal that one day, faith-based religion ceases to exist.”

The simple way to clarify this apparent contradiction is to say that while it is a goal of mine that faith-based religion ceases to exist one day, it is not a primary goal of this blog, or of my decision to discuss atheism in general, or of my life for that matter. But I want to explore and expand on this idea of potentially ending faith-based religion for a while. Hopefully I will not muddy the waters further.

JAIN TEMPLE OF AMAR SAGAR by PixattitudeI have said before that I do not think all religions or ideas are on par with each other. Some are worse than others, and therefore require different levels of concern, or attention. While I believe that it is better if as a species we all stop believing in things without sufficient evidence, I have few concerns with the beliefs of a radical Jain over the beliefs of a radical Islamist. Likewise, if time travel were no object, I’d worry less about the teachings of the Catholic Church today than I would during the period of the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades or how it is compared to many other religions. So, even if I had the power or the inclination to suddenly remove faith from your life, I wouldn’t see the need to tackle them all at once. However, since I am a Christian apostate, naturally my emphasis will be geared towards concerns I have with Christianity over other religions I may understand less.

Absurdities and Atrocities

Stepping back for a moment, the time travel exercise highlights part of why I dream of all faith-based religion ending. Although the Christian church of today is much different than it was 1000 years ago (and obviously there really is no one “Christian Church”), the fact that it has changed so drastically over the years despite allegedly having the same beginning and end game, shows that human interpretations of unclear directives from an unseeable supernatural entity are ripe with ways they can be distorted, misunderstood, and corrupted, sometimes in benign ways, but other times in horrific ways. Even if I believed the bible was the inerrant word of god, as it sits today, it is still completely unclear to most followers as to the intended meanings of most passages. Are there two people in the world that agree on the meaning of every sentence in the bible? I seriously doubt it. That is a problem. And that problem has and can still lead to bigger problems.

Voltaire summarized my concerns more clearly than I have so far:

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

The truth is, that while I am an agnostic-atheist, and obviously believe that is a world view that makes the most sense (otherwise, I’d be something else), I’m less concerned about people adopting unbelief than I am hopeful that they adopt a skeptical approach to the world. If I am to be called an evangelist or proselytizer of anything, I’d prefer it be that. I do not want to tell you what to think, which is a common denominator approach I see as a massive problem with most religions, especially those led by a hierarchy of humans. I want people to acquire the mental tools to be able to critically and skeptically think for themselves, and come to their own conclusions using the fundamentals of logic and reason. From my perspective, I believe this way of training our thought processes will most likely lead to atheism, as it has done for me, but not necessarily. Humans are adept at compartmentalizing beliefs. I have to continually work to put aside preconceived beliefs, intuition, and preferences embedded in my psyche in order to understand the natural world better. I’m still learning how to be a good skeptic, and probably will be learning for the rest of my life. It’s not an innate skill. It’s a learned skill, one not helped by our current public school system (a topic I’ll save for later) or cultural biases against logical thought. It is sad to me how many people who work in the sciences have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science even is, much less the rest of us. But because I know that most of us (myself included) are not naturally skilled at thinking scientifically, I want to do whatever I can to promote that bias. If that then leads to agnostic-atheism and total abandonment of faith-based supernatural religion, great! But if instead it leads to a higher percentage of religious scientists like Francis Collins, the director of the National Institute of Health, or like believer and evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, that’s at least a start. I think we’ll all be better off if scientific critical thinking dominates over irrational intuitive, dogmatic, magical thinking in pretty much every arena of our lives.

Fight for your Right!

I want to make one thing crystal clear: I would stand up for any religious person’s right to practice their religion in peace and without coercion from the government. My methods for eliminating religion end with promotion of any kind of force. If you have read my blog, you know I’m a strong advocate of Classical Liberal points of view, which espouse the right to live as one sees fit so long as the rights of others are likewise respected. My approach to ending religion by adopting skeptical thinking is purely based in rhetoric, with the exception of instances where religious freedom tramples on the Constitution, or the rights of others. I believe in the power of ideas and words, and my way of promoting skepticism and atheism is by educating, discussing, and sharing personal experience to induce introspection. Or, because I am not necessarily the best thinker the world has to offer on such issues, by promoting the words of others who have more clearly articulated viewpoints I agree with (if you have not read Sam Harris’ [easyazon-link asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us”]The Moral Landscape[/easyazon-link] or Steven Pinker’s [easyazon-link asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us”]The Better Angels of Our Nature[/easyazon-link] or Jared Diamond’s [easyazon-link asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us”]Guns, Germs, and Steel[/easyazon-link] what on earth are you waiting for?).

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life!

I often hear some version of “why would you want to take away a person’s joy by denying them their faith?” In short, I don’t want to take away anyone’s joy. I think our lives should be about promoting joy and reducing sorrow. For me, that is a primary “meaning of life.” Unfortunately, sometimes these goals are in conflict. If we all lived in a private bubble where our thoughts and subsequent actions based on those thoughts never impacted others, then I would say believe in whatever nonsense you wish to your heart’s content. Whatever makes you happy, makes me happy.

But that is simply not how the world and human beings work. Ideas you and I have affect the decisions we make in nearly every aspect of our lives, and as social primates, those decisions impact others, from our children and family, to our friends, to strangers. Case in point: The whole argument against gay marriage is almost entirely a religiously based argument attempting to prevent what should be a secular decision. That is a very real example of how religious beliefs – even of generally kind and generous people – can limit the choices of others who do not hold those beliefs. Or if you want a more graphic example, recently in the news was the story of this child who’s parents prevented him from getting medical attention due to religious beliefs. This baby should still be alive today. I’m sure many people thought his parents were friendly and loving and should be left alone to practice their faith. No one stood up for the child being corrupted by these terrible ideas until it was too late.  What’s worse… this was this couple’s second child who died due to religion inflicted neglect.

Ultimately, what I care most about is finding a way to increase the well-being of conscious creatures, with a premium emphasis on the well-being of Humans, while limiting or eliminating suffering. This is a difficult sea to navigate with many unclear choices, but I believe that it is through science and reason we will be best equipped to truly identify behaviors and strategies that get us closer to that goal. Religious beliefs often arbitrarily restrict our morale thinking for bad or unnecessary reasons, often rooted in ancient – and often wrong — understanding of how humans think and feel and work. More so, as neuroscientists are discovering every day, we can have many of the same gratifying spiritual experiences without actual belief in the supernatural. I suggest you google “God Helmet” for an interesting read. The human mind is an amazing organ. We are only beginning to crack it open and understand what it is capable of and why. Let’s base our moral choices on our best understandings of reality, not superstition. Similar to the goals of the religious evangelist, as a skeptical (or if you must, atheist) “evangelist,” I seek to make the world a better place for all humans. One way I choose to do this is by writing, because it is one skill I am most adept at comparatively to my other skills. For the Christian, or Muslim, or other religious people, their evangelism is often expressed by promoting behaviors that lead to a rewarding afterlife. Unfortunately, those behaviors often lead to terrible ways of treating living humans here on earth. There may be a heaven, but the only thing I know for sure is that there is a life on earth. Right now. I want us all to spend our lives focused on achieving heaven on earth for our fellow human beings. For me, that’s what it’s all about.

So don’t worry… I have no immediate plans to vote to end religion anytime soon, nor do I think religion will be eliminated in my lifetime (or maybe ever… sigh), but I do intend to keep talking. Can I get an Amen? No? No worries.

Cheers,
PersephoneK

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519-RISqkmL._SL160_.jpg” width=”104″] [easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51De3EFfS1L._SL160_.jpg” width=”105″] [easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516CtJiKwwL._SL160_.jpg” width=”120″]

 

 

Comments { 0 }