Hell: The Evilest Doctrine

The single most influential idea on my religious outlook is undoubtedly the doctrine of hell. It was hell that sparked my initial interest in religion during my teenage years, it was hell that kindled the scrupulosity which tormented me for years, it was hell that ignited my investigation and subsequent deconversion and it is hell that continues to fuel my antipathy toward Christianity. It's difficult to envision how my life would have been if I had never believed in hell, but it certainly would have followed a markedly different course.

Every person values and seeks happiness. It's the ultimate motivation for all our thoughts and actions, whether we pursue it directly or indirectly (by making others and then thus ourselves happy) and even paradoxically when we find it in feelings of sadness. Hell is the antithesis of happiness and is by definition the worst possible concept imaginable. It's a place (or “state”) of eternal pain and suffering and has been symbolized as an unquenchable lake of fire. And it is, despite its simplicity, without a doubt the vilest concept ever conceived of by humanity.

No person could ever deserve to be consigned to hell, for the pain endured therein would be infinitely more than any pain inflicted by a finite being. Even the most brutal dictators caused only a limited amount of suffering and would be unjustly punished in hell, even by the most vindictive standards of justice. And I find it both laughable and depressing to hear believers argue that an omnimax deity cannot prevent people from being roasted for eternity. This claim can only result from complete ignorance or from a complete lack of imagination.

Whenever I hear Jesus referred to as loving or merciful, I wince. While the gospels do contain some benevolent teachings, these are completely overshadowed by Jesus' recurrent threat of unending torture for anyone who fails to accept his message. One cannot expect praise for preaching love while simultaneously executing divine blackmail. An objector might arguing that hell is only a metaphor and that Jesus' threats weren't meant literally. To this, I respond that this isn't the Jesus of Christianity but instead a sanitized caricature of Jesus that has been altered in response to moral progress of the past twenty centuries. To claim that the vast majority of Jesus' followers throughout history have totally misunderstood him and that the true message of Jesus perfectly corresponds with modern western humanistic values is to engage in completely unsupportable historical revisionism.

I simply cannot imagine that the billions of people who profess to believe in hell truly do so, or at least not that they believe they themselves might actually go there. If there is truly even the slightest possibility that one could be tortured forever and ever, then no response is too radical to prevent this possibility from being realized. For many, however, hell is just a place for murderers; everyone else will be admitted to heaven upon death. With this thoroughly unbiblical perspective and because most of us aren't emotionally close to any murderers, hell is relatively easy to ignore. I would like to stress that this is a very good thing; billions of people obsessing about it would result in worldwide chaos. It was, after all, belief in hell which fanned the flames of the crusades and inquisitions. We would all do well to toss the concept of eternal punishment into the trash bin of history.

I would like to comfort my readers by reminding them of a truly glorious truth which finally ended my personal religious struggles and which I hereby resolve to reflect upon each day: Smile! There is no hell!

No Sacred Cows

Atheism, unlike religion, has no sacred cows. There is nothing that someone can do which can cause especial offense to atheists beyond the mere desire to offend. There are no gods to blaspheme, no prophets to mock, no dogmas to ridicule, no scriptures to desecrate, no temples to profane, no sacred objects to defile and no rituals to parody. This is certainly not to say that you cannot offend atheists, only that we don't set ourselves up for offense by treating something or someone as inviolable. You never see an angry atheist mob form in response to a cartoon caricature, an obscene sculpture, an incisive documentary, or the publication of a controversial book. We might well feel upset over any of these but only because they misrepresent our position and not simply because someone had the audacity to portray it differently from ourselves. Even then, our response is far more measured than that of most believers.

Muslims in particular are known for the extreme amount of offense they claim and for their verbally and physically violent reactions thereto, but Christians aren't immune to emotional reactions to alleged blasphemy. Although they very thankfully almost never threaten real violence, we have all probably heard believers threaten and even wish others hellfire for even questioning their faith. It's difficult to appreciate just how violent this response is unless you realize that these people actually believe that hell exists and that they want you to suffer unspeakable torment there for all eternity! Perhaps even more remarkable is that the majority of Christians only condemn the desire to see others in hell and not the threat itself, which is an integral part of the gospel message. (Most people think the message is love and forgiveness whereas it's actually, “Believe or fry!”) Even if an atheist dismisses all believers as fools, that doesn't even begin to compare with what the average believer thinks about atheists. And atheists certainly don't express the same level of emotion when someone insults their beliefs.

It's not surprising there is no reaction when you believe that blasphemy is a victimless crime.

False Tolerance

Freedom of expression is today informally limited by a false sense of tolerance widespread in our culture. Many people are reluctant to express their thoughts critical of religion out of fear of offending someone. Self-censorship thus silences many who would otherwise contribute to the public discussion of religion and its place in our society that is so badly needed. In light of this lamentable situation, I would like to encourage my readers to assert your right to express your opinion and disregard any attempt to invoke an imaginary right not to be offended in order to prevent you from speaking your mind.

As for me, I refuse to recognize anyone's claim to a right to be automatically respected. If you don't want anyone to criticize your religion, then you should defend it rationally and show why the detractors are wrong. If you can't do this, you should abandon your beliefs as indefensible or humbly accept the criticism. Demanding that someone else respect your faith and refrain from criticizing it, however, is not an acceptable response. You have the right to promote your opinions and I have the right to promote mine. You have the right to criticize my opinions and I have the right to criticize yours. Any respect in the marketplace of ideas must be earned and not arbitrarily granted. If one's beliefs don't hold up under scrutiny, then they simply they aren't worthy of respect. Religion doesn't receive any immunity from criticism merely because of its importance in some people's lives, especially since its effects are far from uniformly benign. It's in fact far more disrespectful to insulate others from your ideas, assuming their justifications for the beliefs or their feelings are so fragile that you must protect them from the hard truth like little children.

I want to be clear that the above applies only to public society and not to private society. The latter has a totally different set of standards regarding politeness and access. If you fail to respect the beliefs of the company you keep by attacking or mocking them, then you cannot expect that company to continue welcoming you. They have the right to exclude you from their homes for whatever reason they deem appropriate, just as you have the right to exclude them from yours. In the world of public discourse, however, no one should be excluded. Anyone should be able to express their opinions by making speeches, writing books, publishing websites, distributing pamphlets, organizing rallies, singing songs, creating paintings or sculptures, producing films or television programs, and no one should attempt to silence them by labeling them intolerant, fundamentalist or militant for simply expressing criticism of the ideas of others. Attacking an intolerant ideology is a service to, not against, tolerance.

I'm very thankful that I myself was able to find books and websites critical of my former religion when I undertook my investigation several years ago. If those authors had chosen to censor themselves, I wouldn't have found the necessary resources to escape the mental prison of irrational faith. Think of how many more people could bask in the light of reason if only they had more opportunities to join the conversation and think for themselves.

The Necessity of Doubt

I simply cannot respect anyone who claims to have never doubted their beliefs. This statement tells me they have never really examined their opinions, no matter how much time they have spent thinking, reading or discussing them. Whatever your beliefs regarding religion, the vast majority of the world disagrees with you. I find it incredible that a person can go through life, aware that billions of people hold opposing viewpoints, without once thinking, “Perhaps I'm wrong.” While it's possible to understand this failure to doubt in the culturally homogeneous societies of the past where literally everyone you knew belonged to the same religion, it's nothing short of inexcusable in modern, cosmopolitan America. Despite this absurdity, I still occasionally read interviews of religious leaders in the local newspaper in which they state they have not once doubted their faith. And very few of those who do acknowledge their doubts then say they have pursued and investigated them logically, instead preferring to rely on prayer and scripture to resolve their uncertainties. Of course, if they approached the question of religion from a rational perspective, it's extremely unlikely they would have become religious leaders in the first place.

Why I Joined the Green Party

UPDATE: I re-registered as a Democrat on 15 May. I decided to accept the reality of the two-party system and make my liberal voice heard within the big tent of a major party. In addition, Florida has closed primaries and I want to vote as often as possible.

My trek across the political spectrum has been as radical as that across the religious spectrum, and for much the same reasons. Within a few weeks of turning eighteen years old, I registered to vote for the first time. Since I was religious and conservative, I chose to affiliate with the Republican Party. Several years later I became so frustrated with the Republicans for not being conservative enough that I almost registered with the reactionary Constitution Party. I acquired a new voter registration form, filled it out, but then decided not to mail it in for whatever reason. After my deconversion during my mid-twenties, without the influence of religion, my politics quickly changed. I had been taught my entire life to listen to ecclesiastical authority instead of thinking for myself and now, having thought for myself by investigating my doubts about the faith, I had very explicitly rejected that authority. So I carefully examined my political positions, which had mostly been based on dogma and ignorance, not on reason and wisdom. As a result, many of them changed radically; some remained the same. In the end, however, I came to identify myself as a liberal. I wasn't in a hurry to change my party affiliation, but I did switch to the Democratic Party before the next major election. That's where I remained until yesterday, when I mailed off a new registration form in order to switch to the Green Party.

My departure from the Democratic Party is primarily the result of the party's failure to represent my voice. The single largest issue is the Iraq war. The newly elected Democratic majority in Congress has failed to bring any troops home and there's still a real possibility that the superdelegates will award the party's nomination to someone who voted to authorize the war in the first place and who has shown utter contempt for the democratic process throughout her campaign. If Obama wins the nomination, I still intend to vote for him in the general election. If Hillary wins, I absolutely refuse to vote for her and will most likely cast my ballot for the Green Party nominee. Other issues are the party's connections to corporate interests, its pandering to the religious, and its lack of support for democratic reform of our electoral system. I acknowledge that my joining the Green Party is mostly a symbolic gesture of protest against the Democrats and in support of the Greens, but it feels good and I'm glad I've done it.

When I examined the Green Party's 2004 platform, I found a number of my own views in it which the Democratic Party's 2004 platform lacked:

• unequivocal opposition to the Iraq war
• reduction of military spending
• repeal of the Patriot Act
• establishment of single-payer universal healthcare
• abolition of the death penalty
• full support for gay marriage
• support for proportional representation, preferential voting, and neutral redistricting
• abolition of the electoral college
• support for statehood for the District of Columbia
• support for stringent environmental standards (naturally)

There was even one section entitled “Religious Freedom and Secular Equality” which I would like to present in full:

The United States Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion. We affirm the right of each individual to the exercise of conscience and religion, while maintaining the constitutionally mandated separation of government and religion. We believe that federal, state, and local governments must remain neutral regarding religion. We call for:

a. Ending discriminatory federal, state, and local laws against particular religious beliefs, and nonbelief. The U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. This requirement should apply to oaths (or affirmations) for holding public office at any level, employment at all government levels, oaths for witnesses in courts, oaths for jury membership, and the oath for citizenship.

b. Prosecution of hate crimes based on religious affiliation or practice.

c. Elimination of displays of religious symbols, monuments, or statements on government buildings, property, websites, money, or documents.

d. Restoration of the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version, eliminating the politically motivated addition of “under God.”

e. Ending faith-based initiatives and charitable choice programs, whereby public funds are used to support religious organizations that do not adhere to specified guidelines and standards, including anti-discrimination laws.

f. Ending school vouchers whereby public money pays for students in religious schools.

g. Ending governmental use of the doctrines of specific religions to define the nature of family, marriage, and the type and character of personal relationships between consenting adults.

h. Ending religiously-based curricula in government-funded public schools.

i. Ending the use of religion as a justification to deny children necessary medical care or subject them to physical and emotional abuse.

j. Ending the use of religion by government to define the role and rights of women in our society.

k. Revocation of the Congressional charter of the Boy Scouts of America. Any private organization that practices bigotry against certain religious beliefs and classes of people should not have a Congressional endorsement or access to public property and funds.

Of course, I can't say that I agree with everything in the platform, but it certainly reflects my views much more closely than that of any other party. I'm glad to be a Green. I don't know whether my political journey has ended, but it has certainly been a wild ride so far. I might be the only person in the country to have voted for both Alan Keyes and Barack Obama in presidential primaries. I can only claim mental illness in the first case.

Happy Earth Day!

The March equinox is one of the two different days recognized as Earth Day by the United Nations. I want to wish my visitors a pleasant spring or fall, depending on which hemisphere you call home. Let's all work together to protect the planet from ourselves.

Atheists Have Values, Too

It troubles me that people tend to interpret atheism as the repudiation of everything that religion happens to represent in their minds rather than simply the principled rejection of the core of religion, belief in the supernatural. While it's true that someone could be diametrically opposed to absolutely anything even remotely associated with religion, it's wrong to assume that atheists necessarily are; I certainly have never encountered one who was. As for me, I embrace a number of values which religions commonly profess to promote such as peace, justice, empathy, compassion, honesty, loyalty, responsibility, temperance, introspection and reflection.

I also, however, strongly embrace skepticism, which has led me to disbelieve the supernatural claims of upon which believers (wrongly) claim to derive their moral values, and freethought, which allows me to evaluate the worth of moral values with my own individual judgement rather than deferring to an unquestionable authority such as scripture or a religious leader. These twin values foster others which most religions don't inherently support and which some even explicitly oppose such as liberty, equality and secularism. They have also led me to reject irrationality, superstition, fear, hatred and ignorance, which most religions support or have supported to varying degrees throughout their histories. It is my skepticism and freethinking which distinguish me from believers, not a lack of virtue.

In truth, I yearn for a community in which I can foster my personal growth through contemplation of, discussion about and action based on my values without any compromise to supernaturalism. My several visits to a Unitarian Universalist congregation and my casual online investigation of Buddhism were part of an as-of-yet unsuccessful quest for such a community and identity. Humanism presents the greatest promise for fidelity to my beliefs, but it lacks the type of formal structure that I desire, perhaps for fear of being too similar to religion, and it's not distinct enough from increasingly humanistic western culture to provide a unique focus and identity. All I can say is that I'm a naturalist in search of a place to call home.

Happy Groundhog Day!

“It's Groundhog Day...again.” – Phil Connors

According to tradition, the groundhog awakes from hibernation and emerges from his hole today, in the exact middle of winter, in order to check on the weather. If it's sunny, he will see his shadow, get scared and return underground, giving us six more weeks of winter. If it's cloudy, he won't see his shadow and will remain aboveground, giving us an early spring.

Groundhog Day is my favorite holiday of the entire year. I love it because it has the perfect balance between popularity and obscurity, it's a uniquely North American observance, it has some history behind it, it requires no shopping or decoration, and it's just silly and fun. The 1993 Bill Murray film that shares the same name as the holiday is my favorite movie of all time. I have watched it more often than any other film and I can recite large portions of the script. I have already watched it twice this year and I might watch it again later today. It's of course rather ironic that I've watched that particular movie so many times!

In case you're wondering, the most famous groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, saw his shadow this morning. Don't put away your jackets just yet.

Obama for President

In my initial entry almost two years ago I stated an intention to discuss a variety of topics in addition to religion and irreligion, but until now I had never done so. Today I would like to talk politics and announce my endorsement of Barack Obama for president of the United States. I already cast my vote for Obama in the Florida primary earlier this week and I would like to publicly discuss my support.

My favorite candidate entering the primaries was in fact Dennis Kucinich because of his thoroughly progressive stances on the issues, but he never had a chance to win the nomination and he had even withdrawn his name before election day in Florida. I liked John Edwards about the same as I like Obama, but the latter's viability made it an easy choice to support him. I don't like Hillary Clinton because she voted to initiate the Iraq war, because she seems to be little more than a political opportunist, and because the Republicans would be able to easily incite their voter base into a frenzy against her. Obama, on the other hand, can excite the Democratic base and bring people to the polls who had never voted previously. I think he has a much better chance of winning a general election, especially by electrifying the black vote in the otherwise deep red south.

Obama is the most progressive of the remaining candidates and in particular I believe that he is the best choice to preserve the separation of church and state in this country. When I read his book The Audacity of Hope, I noted that whenever he discussed the issue of religious freedom, he always explicitly mentioned the rights of nonbelievers along with everyone else. He is a committed Christian and his faith has certainly influenced his life, but he appears to appreciate the importance of secular government and the necessity of justifying government policy without any reference to religion. Perhaps his diverse familial and personal religious background helps him understand the necessity of building coalitions based on principles which appeal to citizens of various beliefs. In the United States, we need someone to bring us together and I think Barack Obama is the best choice for our nation and the world.

More Lies About Evolution

The local debate over evolution and creationism will never end. This letter by Harold J. Adams was published today under the heading “Evolution: Theories are not understood.”

Apparently, we do need more instruction in the theories of evolution in our schools and elsewhere. Recent letters reveal the fact that many of those who attempt to defend organic evolution do not really understand it themselves. One writer stated that the fossil record supports evolution. It does not! All creatures, living or extinct, enter and exit the fossil record fully formed. The glaring absence of fossil evidence of any true transitional steps between any two different kinds of creatures is admitted by all knowledgeable scientists, regardless of their stand on evolution. Charles Darwin based his theory upon finding millions of such transitions sometime in the future. None exists. Another writer used examples of the variation that occurs within a given kind of creature to try to prove evolution. Variation occurs, but that is not evolution from one kind of creature to another kind. The flu virus, for example, that mutates is still a virus, and it will never become anything else. That's because mutation and natural selection are conservation agents. They conserve and re-sort information already existing in DNA, but they are incapable of adding anything new. Thus, they will never change a reptile into a bird, for example. If we do force more evolution on our children, hopefully, the evolutionists, themselves, will occupy the front-row seats.

Just like yesterday, the numerous untruths contained in this letter are addressed in great detail on many websites; I won't repeat the corrections here. I'm really starting to tire of posting these letters even for the sake of completeness. It seems that the series won't be complete until the creationists realize that the fossil record is sufficiently complete and that every “missing link” discovered creates two more in their mind.

Lies About Evolution

The local debate over evolution and creation simply will not die. This letter by Frederick J. West was published today under the heading, “Evolution: Theories cannot be proved.”

This is in response to recent letters concerning the theory of evolution. When the theory sticks to natural selection and genetics, it can be tested and proved correct. For example, new generations of moths changing colors to match the color of the tree bark they hide in, cockroaches becoming immune to certain pesticides and the flu virus mutating so that it renders vaccines ineffective. But it should be emphasized that over time moths do not become robins, cockroaches do not become puppies and the flu virus does not become the polio virus. When the evolutionists take the giant leap to the theory that millions or billions of years ago slimy creatures climbed onto the beach and some became turtles, some became giraffes and others humans, then they are entering the arena of fantasy, not science. The changing from one species to another cannot be tested or proved. If these changes occurred over billions of years, the fossil record should contain millions of crossover species. However, not one crossover fossil exists. Not too long ago, modern scientists were hoodwinked by a Chinese peasant who attached the bones of a bird to the bones of a dinosaur. This find was plastered on the front page of Natural Geographic. When the hoax was discovered, the disclaimer was printed in small type on a back page of the same magazine. Evolutionists cannot test or prove the monkeys-to-men theory or the dinosaurs-to-birds theory, and they should not be taught to highly impressionable youngsters.

The numerous untruths contained in this letter are addressed in great detail on many websites; I won't repeat the corrections here. I will only say that if the author objects to the teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection on the grounds that it's “fantasy,” then he must also object to the teaching of creationism by the same account and recommend that science classes completely ignore the most fundamental question of biology. I suspect, however, the author is not so logically consistent as this.

Evidence Supports Evolution

The local debate over evolution and creationism continues some more. This letter by J. Carlson was published today under the heading, “Evolution: A valid scientific theory.

A recent letter titled "Teach students the truth" is a great example of intellectual dishonesty. People are trying to have creationism taught in schools. Only when their efforts are unsuccessful do they start to backpedal and try to undermine the credibility of evolution once again. They first need to learn the term "theory" as used in science classrooms. That word holds more scientific credibility than the word "fact." Scientific theories are ideas that have been put through rigorous testing before that title is applied. If scientific theories were just random ideas, there would be millions of them instead of a select few. The letter writer leaves out pivotal parts of the theory of evolution, which are natural selection and genetics. Those two components of the theory have been and are being tested, recreated and observed constantly. If evolution is such an absurd theory, why is it every time a new fossil or new species is found, it seems to fit? Microbiology proves evolution almost singlehandedly. What about the flu? Every year the virus mutates into a form that the body doesn't recognize. That's why the flu shot is an annual deal. It is not because that's the shelf life of the vaccine, but because we need to be re-immunized against the same, but mutated, virus. There is a reason evolution is taught in schools. It is a valid and highly regarded scientific theory that is responsible for some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history. Without it, we would still be dying from the flu instead of getting vaccinated from it. Let's be intellectually honest. Keep evolution where it belongs: in the biology class. Keep creationism where it belongs: in the theology class.

This letter in support of teaching only evolution in public schools is fairly standard like the previous two. I'm publishing it for the sake of completeness and I have no additional comments.

Evolution is No Myth

The local debate over evolution and creationism yet continues. This letter by Marcia Greer was published today under the heading, “Science: No place for creationism.”

I was dumbfounded by the poor reasoning and arguments in a recent letter titled "Teach students the truth." The letter writer asked for intellectual honesty, and for our students to excel in science, yet wants stories of creation taught. That's exactly what they are: stories. Yes, evolution is a theory. A theory is a framework that guides scientific research. It is not a guess; it is not based on written stories by men who had their own agendas thousands of years ago. The fossil record does show evolution. For example, evolution of vertebrate legs is well documented in the fossil record. The evolution of some dinosaurs into birds also has documentation; the most famous fossil is the Archeopteryx, showing a creature with traits of both dinosaur and bird. If, as the letter writer said, we need to include creation stories, how about all the other myths including Aztec, Hindu, Norse, etc. I think it is only fair to give those myths the same focus another unproven story deserves - the Bible. What makes our creation myth so much more believable than anybody else's? Nothing. While we're teaching all these stories, we'll crowd out the real science that our kids aren't learning. Evolution, while much is unexplained, can be documented, tested and researched. That is science. Keep religion in religion class or mythology. This nation is already lagging in science.

This letter in support of teaching only evolution in public schools is fairly standard like the previous one. I'm publishing it for the sake of completeness and I have no additional comments.

Theories & Ways of Knowing

The local debate over evolution and creationism still continues. This letter by Ed Brunson was published today under the headline, “Science: Evolution is a theory.”

The fact that the scientific theory of evolution is being debated in the same breath with the religious theory of creationism and intelligent design is appalling. In the 1920s, Tennessee was the scene of the famous Scopes monkey trial that debated the legitimacy of teaching evolution. Since that time, scientific evidence has continued to come in supporting the theories involved in natural selection and evolution. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine published their updated edition of Science, Evolution & Creationism. In it, they state, quite succinctly, "The evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future." Evolution is a scientific theory, testable, but not 100 percent provable. Isaac Newton's theories, including that of gravity, are theories. Not provable. But you don't need to prove gravity, because, when you try to deny it, you fall. Creationism, and intelligent design are not scientific theories; they are religious explanations for unknown happenings. The story of creationism is allegorical, nothing more, nothing less. The infusion of religious theory into scientific teaching is folly; it should have ended in the 1920s along with the Scopes monkey trial.

This letter in support of teaching only evolution in public schools is fairly standard and I would just like to comment on the texts written by other parties.

First, I find the heading printed by the newspaper misleading. Many detractors of evolution argue that it's “only a theory,” implying a lack of supporting evidence, but the author of this letter emphasized that a scientific theory is not something to be proved. Perhaps they could have written something like, “Evolution: Gravity is also only a theory.”

Second, I have objections to the statement by the National Academy of Sciences. Evolution can be compatible with religious faith, but that depends entirely on what that religion teaches. It's not compatible with the belief that humans were miraculously created by God six thousand years ago. It's not compatible with the belief that humans have existed on earth for all eternity. It's not compatible with the belief that humans were brought here by space aliens. No one is placing science and religion in any more opposition than they actually are; some people just aren't willing to pretend that there's no contradiction when there actually is, radically change their religious beliefs, and sweep the issue under the rug. I don't object to changing one's religious beliefs and acknowledging that this change was made in the light of new evidence, but it's simply dishonest to strip a belief of its original meaning in order to save face, especially if while still claiming infallible certitude for this and other completely unsupported assertions. Science and religion aren't two different ways to understand the world because religion just isn't a way to understand the world. One might as well say that a magic eight-ball is yet a third way to understand the world since it's no less reliable than religion in ascertaining the truth.  Of the various ways to gain knowledge, only science offers consistent results and we shouldn't give religious dogma receive any more respect than any other variety of quackery.

Quackery in the Classroom

The local debate over evolution and creationism continues. This letter by Marjorie Ramseur was published today under the heading, “Science: Teach students the truth.”

The recent letter titled "Prohibit myths" in relation to science standards missed the point. People are not trying to have creation or intelligent design taught in the science classrooms of public schools. Good science is what is needed, and it must be taught objectively and truthfully. The theory of evolution is unproved. Its validity is being questioned by hundreds of scientists around the world. The fossil record does not show evolution. Microbiology does not show evolution. Embryology does not show evolution. Comparative anatomy does not show evolution, only similarities. Students must be able to distinguish the data of the Theory of Evolution; analyze and recognize its strengths and weaknesses, its assumptions and presumptions, along with its frauds and gaps. The scientific method used by experimental sciences stresses the testability and repeatability of a theory. The theory of evolution falls short since it has not been observed, cannot be tested and cannot be repeated. Evolutionary scientists may claim that evolution is the basic principle of biology, but the processes involved and the mechanisms needed are still the subject of much diligent research, discussion and, I might add, skepticism among the scientists themselves. As brought out in the 1925 Scopes trial, ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow stated that it is the "height of bigotry to have only one theory of origins taught in our schools." This was when creation was the main view taught in public schools. Let us be intellectually honest and teach students the truth. After all, what we want is for our students to excel in their knowledge of science.

Despite what the author claims, people are trying to have creationism taught in schools. She even indicates her desire for this by presenting a quote from Darrow which condemns teaching only one view! The rest of her claims are equally untrue; the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution and only a tiny portion of scientists even have questions about its validity. It's inappropriate to teach both views when the second view is held only by a fringe group with a clear political agenda using claims that simply aren't supported by the evidence. I doubt that Ms. Ramseur would support teaching the views in the history books that the moon landings were faked, that extraterrestrials actually crashed in Roswell, or that President Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks. I also doubt that she would support adding astrology, alchemy, or homeopathy to the science curriculum. Schools shouldn't make exceptions to teach anyone's favorite pseudoscience or conspiracy theory. Actually do research to support the objections and have them accepted by the scientific community before demanding that children learn them in school.

Thought Control

Although I have previously written about my past experiences with a condition known as scrupulosity when I was a devout Catholic, I would like to go into more detail regarding a particularly torturous element thereof which I endured for a few years, in order to illustrate the absurdity of certain religious prohibitions. As I have discussed in a separate earlier entry, the Catholic Church teaches an especially strict sexual morality which condemns every sexual act except that between a husband and wife without contraception and, per clear scriptural authority, condemns even willful indulgence of sexual thoughts. While the prohibition against actions is severe, it's not impossible to obey it if one is truly careful to avoid opportunities to succumb to temptation. The prohibition against thoughts, however, proves practically impossible to obey if one takes both it and the threat of eternal damnation seriously. I struggled mightily for years to control my thoughts and, despite my most strenuous efforts, I failed to achieve anything except an unhealthy suppression of my natural desires and the development of violent compulsions against myself.

The most relevant fact about the condemnation of consenting to impure thoughts is that it's simply impossible to control one's mental activity, most especially with respect to such a basic animal instinct as sex. It's almost always on our minds, subconsciously if not consciously. Most people realize this, especially psychologists and advertisers. Healthy adults automatically respond to the sight, sound or smell of attractive individuals by becoming sexually aroused. Now while the church teaches that mere instinctive thoughts aren't willful and thus aren't at all sinful, it does teach that to consciously entertain and indulge these thoughts constitutes such a serious offense that you could burn in hell forever if you commit it and die without repenting and confessing it to a priest. That idea in itself is absurdly evil, but notice that there's nothing even resembling a clear boundary between an event that happens automatically and an action that can condemn one to eternal damnation. That's just an open invitation for obsession.

Let's say that a sexual thought enters one's mind as it does innumerable times each day. If one dwells on it for even a moment, then one risks sinning by “entertaining” or “consenting” to it. If one attempts to banish it from one's mind, the thought only becomes stronger and more persistent. I found it impossible to simply “let it pass” as I was repeatedly advised by confessors because I was afraid that I had not done enough to avoid sin and had thereby sinned already. My response to this fear was to work harder and harder to banish any sexual thought as soon as it entered my mind. I shouldn't reveal much detail, but I will say that my attempts to immediately distract my mind from unwanted images became more and more manic over time and that it was simply impossible for me to function properly until my deconversion.

If I saw an attractive woman who aroused any sexual feelings in me, I forced myself to avert my eyes and drive out with a physical response against myself any sexual thoughts that the sight of her generated in my mind. I then thought about whether I was thinking about it and then about whether I had sinned by thinking something lustful about her, often subtly appearing like I suffered from a mental condition, which in retrospect was not entirely inaccurate. This rumination could last from a few seconds to several minutes to the rest of the day and all I had actually done was happen to a see a woman in completely normal and acceptable attire. My mind even seemed to revolt at the suppression of its thoughts. The more I struggled not to think something, the stronger the urge I felt to think it out of frustration and anger. This tendency, by the way, extended to violent and blasphemous thoughts as well, though these caused much less trouble due to far weaker instincts to think them. It's notable that I came to believe that the vast majority of women dressed immodestly and that I noticed every single inch of cleavage on every woman, perhaps similar to how a Saudi man might feel in a western society.

Contrast that to how simple life has become with respect to sexual thoughts since my belief in God and hell disintegrated. Now when I see an attractive woman, the exact same sexual thoughts arise, but they present no trouble whatsoever. If I want to and have the time, I can indulge in a sexual fantasy for a short time and move on. If I'm busy or focused on something else, I can let it pass because there's absolutely no fear that I have done anything which might result in neverending torment. Either way it lasts for a few moments at most and I can concentrate on actually living my life, all without any guilt or fear. There's no obsession; it's natural and normal. And I'm sure there's just as much cleavage and as many pairs of tight pants as there were a few years ago, but I hardly notice except in the most exceptional cases, when such a sight most likely presents far more potential pleasure than anguish. It feels so good to be normal again.

Intelligent Design is Myth-information

Outside of the prayer in public venues fiasco in October, it has been many months since I have commented on an editorial piece or letter to the editor appearing in the Florida Times-Union. It's time to start the new year with a fresh letter on an old debate. This letter by Tom Brady was published today under the heading, “Science standards: Prohibit myths.”

I was somewhat dismayed to see in a recent story that people were challenging Florida's current attempt to bring our education standards concerning science out of the realm of theology and into that of rational thought. Trying to equate "creationism" or "intelligent design" with the scientific approach to the evolution of the species is tantamount to comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. The first two are manifestations of a belief system; the third is a demonstration of the scientific method. If we are going to teach creation myths in our schools, then we should not limit those teachings to Judeo/Christian myths only. The Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Animists and even many American Indians have their own creation stories. If the school systems choose one myth over the others, they are making a choice to advance one religion over another, which violates the Constitution. For those who claim that the theory of evolution is not proved and is "just a theory," they obviously don't understand the definition of the scientific term. Since none of us knows, or can know, from whence the universe ultimately came, a discussion involving the possibility of an intelligent designer is perfectly appropriate. But this should be in a philosophy or theology class, not in a science classroom.

Since I don't read the entire paper, the article referenced in the letter had escaped my notice until today when I did a search. The original story was about a public hearing about a new public school curriculum which explicitly teaches evolution and the debate which took place over whether also to include material on intelligent design. I agree with everything that the author of the letter wrote, but there really isn't much new to say about this debate. Intelligent design simply isn't science and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

What I find remarkable is that the most valuable player of the National Football League has time to write letters to the editor in Jacksonville when one would expect him to be preparing to play the Jaguars this Saturday evening in Foxboro!

Santa Claus: A Web of White Lies

Although with respect to religion I've gone from devout believer to devout skeptic, I've always opposed encouraging children to believe in Santa Claus. It has always struck me as very strange that parents spend so much money on gifts for their children and then lie to them by saying that a magical elf snuck into their house in the middle of the night to drop them off, thus giving him all the credit for their work. I don't like the idea of lying to children in general, but this seems like a rather odd lie. I understand that some parents truly enjoy playing along with the idea of Santa Claus and sometimes use him as an unassailable authority when kids whine for a toy late in the year, but it seems that children would enjoy the holiday just as much if they knew their parents were responsible for all their gifts; older children and adults certainly like receiving presents despite knowing where they came from. As a Christian, I wanted to avoid lying as much as possible and I was concerned that children who learned that Santa Claus is imaginary would then start to think that God is imaginary as well. As an atheist, I also feel uneasy about lying unless truly necessary, though I certainly don't lament any nascent skepticism created in children about what their parents tell them about invisible beings. Still it strikes me as a bad idea to build and maintain this web of white lies for children.

Despite what some readers may suppose, I myself didn't have a negative experience with belief in Santa Claus. As is common, I believed in him as a young child and stopped believing in him sometime in elementary school. I don't remember being at all upset when I learned the truth. I didn't feel disappointed, deceived or disillusioned. I've heard stories, however, about children who do experience some amount of grief and who do sincerely struggle to accept the truth for some time. No, it's not a tragedy, but it is completely avoidable simply by not perpetuating absurd stories about an ageless magical elf who lives where there is no land, who can make deer fly, and who can deliver free toys to hundreds of millions of households in a single night though still unable to give nice presents to poor children.

I don't want anyone to get the impression, however, that I have some sort of weird vendetta against Santa Claus. It's not something I spend much time thinking about and it hardly even qualifies as a minor issue. Since I don't intend to have children, the question of what to say will probably never arise, but I decided long ago that I wouldn't lie to any children that I might end up raising one day. I certainly don't interfere with anyone else's parenting choices by telling children the truth about Santa Claus. When children talk to me about him, I listen attentively, but I don't ever say anything to suggest that he's real or that I myself believe in him. It's actually completely identical to my personal policy regarding children when they talk to me about God.

Bah Humbug!

I don't really like Christmas, but my reasons are mostly unrelated to religion or consumerism. Maybe I'm just a scrooge, but I dislike how Christmas dominates the month of December such that one can hardly think of the month without thinking of the holiday. I'm just tired of Christmas decorations, Christmas trees, Christmas lights, Christmas sweaters, Christmas cookies, Christmas candy, Christmas drinks, Christmas songs, Christmas poems, Christmas TV specials, Christmas movies, Christmas parties, Christmas travel and the incessant chatter about Christmas. I don't inherently dislike any of those things; it's just that it's too much for too long. We have other holidays, of course, but Christmas is unquestionably the holiday of the year. I would prefer to have several smaller holidays throughout the year during each of the four seasons rather than focusing so much energy on one particular winter day. One of the primary reasons that New Year's Day is one of my favorite holidays is that it's the unofficial end of the Christmas season and that our lives can return to normal after a little more relaxation. I'm already looking forward to it.

Religious Justification for Bigotry

I've only recently begun to fully realize the oddity of the obsession that certain religions have with homosexuality. Since I was raised as an observant Catholic and grew up in a relatively traditional society, I used to unreflectively consider homosexuality abnormal and homosexual acts morally wrong. As a heterosexual, I didn't really give the topic much thought during my religious years, but I assented to the teaching that to engage in homosexual behavior was gravely sinful and I opposed efforts to grant all persons the legal right to marry whomever they choose. To be fair, I in fact believed that every sexual act except that within a sacramental marriage and without contraception was gravely immoral, so homosexuality wasn't particularly singled out and was never an issue of much personal concern, but I still certainly thought it was immoral. All of that changed when I rejected the authority of religious leaders to dictate to me what was and wasn't acceptable. This change of opinion regarding homosexuality upon deconversion seems to be almost universal; I can't recall ever encountering any unbeliever who objected to homosexuality or to granting everyone the same legal rights with regard to marriage. And it's not that secular arguments against homosexuality are fallacious; I haven't even ever seen one. The only objections to homosexuality are religious and authoritarian and they exemplify the problems caused directly by religion.

It seems that the primary reason that many believers still consider homosexuality so morally abhorrent is that they personally find it disgusting, unlike other sins that also once received strong public disapproval. Fornication, i.e., sex between two unmarried persons, is equally condemned in the scriptures, has traditionally been regarded as taboo, and is still considered gravely sinful by the Catholic Church and certain other Christian sects, but there are no political efforts to prevent unmarried heterosexual couples from living together or to deny them certain legal benefits, at least after a certain number of years. What was once forbidden has become perfectly normal. Today it's not at all uncommon for even church-going Christians to live with their boyfriends or girlfriends while dating. Society has shed some of its former moral restrictions and most people today seem happy with the change as it grants them more personal freedom to indulge their natural sexual desires. The change happened quietly without becoming a political issue. Unlike with the situation with homosexuality, the majority of the population is composed of heterosexuals who by definition find straight sex appealing, so there was no issue of disgust or otherness to impede this repeal of the former moral code.

Where exactly does this feeling of disgust originate? It seems to me that the initial negative feelings were the result of simple xenophobia, i.e., antipathy toward anyone who is different from oneself or one's group, and that these feelings have been sustained by culture, especially by religious dogma. For my own part, I can't remember what I thought the first time I saw a homosexual couple together, but I definitely can't remember a time when I was aware of homosexuality when I wasn't also aware that it was considered strange and objectionable by most people. I know that I learned it from others, some of whom must have given an explicitly religious justification for their intolerance toward people who are different from themselves, for there are no other reasons to object to what sex of person mature adults choose to associate with. Since the time I cast off the heavy chains of religious devotion, however, my reason and my compassion for fellow humans have overridden any prior feelings of uneasiness about homosexuality. It seems high time that American society as a whole discard its religious obsessions, overcome any involuntary distaste it still experiences, and fully acknowledge the rights of all people. We do seem to be moving in that direction, but as is often the case, it's primarily religion that's hindering social progress. Whether religion actually creates bigotry or simply provides hypocritical justification for it, irrational belief is the enemy of human advancement.

A Man of No Faith

In dialogues with atheists, I regularly see theists pose the following inquiry:

If you don't have faith in God, then what do you have faith in?

The most typical answers include rationality, science and humanity. While I find nothing truly objectionable in these responses, it's my opinion that the most appopriate response is in fact, “Nothing. I have no faith.”

The problem is that a believer's faith and an unbeliever's faith are completely different. When a believer says they have faith in God, they mean that they believe in his existence without sufficient evidence, that they trust God to always do what's right, or both. When a nonbeliever says they have faith in rationality or science, they mean they think that's the best method to discover the truth about the universe, and when they say they have faith in humanity, they mean that humans must solve their own problems and that they have hope they in fact will, but it's never unbounded confidence like believers put in their deity. These two religious and two secular varieties of faith just don't truly overlap. Support for the scientific method and recognition that we must address our problems without divine assistance are not at all equivalent to belief without evidence and absolute trust in an invisible being, even though we often call them all by the same name of faith.

So in the sense that theists probably mean when they ask the question, most atheists simply have no faith whatsoever, but I don't really fault them for providing a seemingly more positive and optimistic answer than what I recommend. For my own part, however, I prefer to answer as honestly as possible and to challenge the assumption of the believer that I must have faith like they do.

A Man of No God

UPDATE: I officially resigned a week later. While I originally became ordained for the sake of novelty and as a protest against the special status of religious leaders before the law in performing certain ceremonies, I became increasingly concerned about confirming misconceptions about atheism, about my own conceptual clarity, about the apparent seriousness of the organization and finally about potential legal issues.

Today I have become an ordained minister with the First Church of Atheism. From time to time over the past few years I considered being ordained online with other groups, but I always decided against it because they always seemed too mystical or spiritual despite being completely non-dogmatic. This is not an issue with the First Church of Atheism. I'm fully legally ordained, but by an organization whose principles I support and which cannot possibly be mistaken for a liberal Christian denomination.

When I was a devout Catholic, I seriously contemplated entering the seminary to become a priest. Then as now, I didn't want any children and I knew that I couldn't in good conscience marry with the intention never to have any children, so it seemed like a reasonable option. I went so far as to write to a traditional seminary and look into scheduling a vocational retreat but no further. Eventually my scrupulosity came to dominate my life and removed the possibility from consideration. It surely would have been a major mistake to pursue that path and I have no idea what my life would look like today if I had. It probably though wouldn't have been as disastrous as if I had married a devout woman and had a child with her before undergoing a deconversion! It's remarkable that I might have become a Catholic priest and that now I'm an atheist minister.

I'm currently considering ordering the package which includes an official ordination certificate and identification card. I don't actually intend to perform any services, but I'm rather pleased that my new status means that in theory I have the same legal rights to preach my ideas to congregations and to perform weddings and funerals as any believer in the supernatural. I also like referring to myself as an atheist minister!

’Tis the Season

Regular visitors, if indeed I have any, will notice that I've added a logo to the site indicating that I celebrate Humanlight, a Humanist winter holiday about reason, compassion and hope. In order to avoid any possible copyright violations, I've created my own image without the logo from the official website and I'm rather pleased with the result. In my opinion, a burning candle symbolizes the idea of Humanlight much better than a shining sun. The festival occurs at the time of year when the sun provides the least amount of light and heat in the northern hemisphere, where the majority of humanity resides. Furthermore, the sun is a natural object whereas a candle is a human artifact, one which represents our ability to illuminate a dark world using the power of our reason and creativity. If anyone wishes to use the image I created on their own websites, then please do so.

This is my third year observing this festival and I intend to make this year the most meaningful yet. I've enjoyed starting my own traditions and personalizing my observance of this new holiday. Last year I purchased a simple metal candlestick and a white candle which each evening several weeks prior to December 23rd I lit while saying, “May the light of human reason illuminate a dark world.” This year I plan to repeat this ritual, to decorate my balcony with colored lights and to devise other ways to mark the holiday. I still observe Christmas by exchanging gifts, dining and visiting with my Christian family on December 25th as well as with my co-workers earlier in the season, but I would like to focus on Humanlight rather than a formerly religious and now essentially consumerist holiday.

Not Following Jesus

If Christians fully embraced and lived their lives according to all of the teachings of Jesus rather just those which still allow complete integration into society, the history of the western world would remarkably different. Jesus preached voluntary poverty, radical pacifism and irresponsible spontaneity; he told his followers to sell all of their possessions, to actively do good to their enemies and even to avoid thinking about tomorrow! How many Christians do you know who practice all of these teachings? Even the vast majority of monks, friars and nuns live in communities where they share possessions and which require a certain amount of administration. There are some truly nomadic and mendicant groups, but they are extremely rare. Perhaps less than one Christian in a million actually lives their life completely according to the Gospels. The rest generally enjoy a more conventional and comfortable lifestyle, excluding the significant number in the third-world who are involuntarily poor. Why is there such a disparity between what Christians teach and what they practice?

The key to understanding this divergence is to realize that Jesus' ministry as portrayed in the Gospels was essentially an apocalyptic cult. The major theme of Jesus' preaching was that the “Kingdom of Heaven” was coming very soon and that his followers were to repent of their sins, ask for forgiveness and amend their lives. His followers expected that the end of the world would happen at any moment and only with that in mind can we make any sense of his directives to live so irresponsibly. If he had intended to found a religion that was supposed to last for millennia, then he surely would have given some more practical instructions. When Jesus' didn't return very soon, his followers did what they had to do in order to survive: they compromised with the world. All of the difficult guidelines, which technically appear optional in the Gospels themselves, have been de-emphasized, especially in Protestantism. The majority of believers don't seem to worry about their possessions making them larger than a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. Christians today are no more likely to give money to charity than any other group and, here in the United States, they seem more likely to start a war than many other groups.

When I first started reading the Gospels on my own as teenager, I was very disturbed by what I read because I lived a normal lifestyle, not a radical Gospel lifestyle. I owned some possessions. I didn't start fights, but I would defend myself if attacked. I planned for tomorrow by studying. I wanted to get married. I loved my family and I didn't want to leave them to serve God. I didn't really spend any time volunteering. All of this made me feel very guilty and very afraid that God would damn me to hell for not obeying his commandments well enough, but I didn't want to live the insane life preached by Jesus. I didn't see anyone else worrying about this, but it was impossible for me to see Jesus' ministry for what it was, for that would mean that Jesus was mistaken and therefore not God. Eventually I learned the Catholic Church's teachings that one only has to die in a state of grace, not give away everything you own, to go to heaven. Similar yet distinct problems arose because of this, but that's another story. I knew I wasn't really following Jesus and it bothered me. I don't know why it doesn't bother more people.

I was prompted to write on this topic by the now annual coverage of Christians' war on “The War on Christmas.” I find it ironic for Christians to demand that minimum-wage employees explicitly say “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays” while they spend hundreds of dollars on frivolous gifts, often manufactured in dirty and dangerous factories by malnourished children in third-world countries. What an odd way to celebrate the birth of their lord who instructed them not to own even a second pair of sandals!

Death as Non-Existence

I find it remarkably difficult to fully conceptualize the extinction of my consciousness and personality upon my death. While I logically expect my subsequent non-existence to be identical to the billions of years prior to my birth, it seems that I actually tend to imagine it more like a deep sleep from which I will eventually somehow awaken at the end of time. I have to consciously remind myself that I won't ever even know that I'm dead because I won't exist. I then naturally wonder what it will be like not to exist and I have to remind myself again that it won't be like anything because it simply won't be. My mind simply cannot grasp what it means not to exist since from its own perspective it has always existed. It has been argued that fear of death is the principal cause of religious belief in humanity and I would argue that our instinctive tendency to think of our minds as always existing greatly contributes to it as well.

Like practically all humans, I certainly want to exist indefinitely. I say indefinitely rather than forever because I don't preclude the possibility that I might want my existence to end at some point. The only aspect of religion which I sincerely miss is the belief that life will continue forever. And it's not that I want just to believe; I want it to really be true. The promise of eternal bliss in a never-ending paradise is alluring, even if inconceivable, but I'm much more intrigued by the idea of repeatedly reincarnating and leading radically different lives in radically different circumstances. I would like to know what it's like to be both sexes, every ethnic group, attractive and ugly, strong and weak, intelligent and stupid, rich and poor, in every combination thereof, in every locale and in every age. It would be necessary that the memory of those lives be maintained, perhaps for later review and reflection outside of the physical universe, in order to distinguish it from an existence of only a single life. It seems that such a spiritual paradigm would be far more satisfying and poetic than the unchanging heaven of Christianity. None of this matters in the least, however, because I have no reason to believe that it's anything but an idle dream.

It's rather difficult to accept that I have no even remotely reasonable hope for life after death and that my consciousness will almost certainly be extinguished in a matter of decades at the latest. It's not that I really fear non-existence; I simply dread an existence filled with the despair of ever realizing my desires. In the end, all I have is a wish to exist indefinitely and all I can do is live this life to the fullest, trying not to waste too much precious time on idle dreams.