I am pleased to announce the opening of Secular Planet Cinema, a collection of short films on secular topics written, directed, performed, recorded, and produced by the author of Secular Planet. The first film released is The Judgement of God, an adapatation of the story and post of the same name. I hope to bring you more short films in the future.
The following is the fifth in a series of writings which I have composed previously. It is a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. It was written and published in May 2005.
Dear Editor,It received no direct responses from other readers.
The most relevant point to the discussion about intelligent design is that it simply is not science. ID is the argument from ignorance in its purest form. Evolution allegedly cannot offer a complete explanation for some phenomenon, therefore God must have done it. This offers no more insight than just saying it's magic - it contributes absolutely nothing to our understanding. If we are unable to explain something today, one is not justified in saying that we will never be able to explain it. ID is not science but rather surrender to ignorance.
We do not fully understand the nature of black holes, for example, but in the face of incomplete understanding, no one suggests that we chalk up their behavior to a supernatural act of God and stop searching for a physical explanation. The only reason that anyone does so with respect to evolution is that his worldview is threatened by a naturalistic explanation for life. The force behind ID is not scientific, but purely religious and political.
While ID theoretically could be correct about the origins of life, such a truth would remain outside the realm of science, which deals with the natural and not the supernatural. As such, ID is a theological idea which doesn't belong in a science classroom any more than the ideas of karma, atonement, or transubstantiation.
(name removed)
The following is the fourth in a series of writings which I have composed previously. It was written in December 2004.
I never realized how much Christians attempt to use public institutions to promote their religion and regard any opposition as an attempt “to take Christ out of Christmas.” (I suppose Catholics could accuse Protestants of attempting “to take Mass out of Christmas.”) This perception is simply not true. Secularists do not question the right of Christians or anyone else to celebrate as they wish in their churches, homes, and private businesses. They only oppose the use of their tax dollars to finance someone else's religious observances. Why is this so difficult for many to understand? Being the majority doesn't mean one can trample on the rights of the minority. There are two basic principles, to which any person can reasonably subscribe:
The following is the third in a series of writings which I have composed previously. It was written in November 2004. It has been slightly edited to maintain privacy.
I have listened to a local easy listening music radio station operated by a small private business college for more than a dozen years. Each weekday, they present a short segment by one of the producers in which he presents some various thoughts of the day. Sometimes they are philosophical, sometimes they are humorous, sometimes they are civic, and sometimes they are religious. Today's was religious or, more accurately, anti-atheistic. The basic story he presented can be found at Snopes Urban Legends, though I must acknowledge that he did not falsely identify the student as Albert Einstein. In response to today's commentary, I sent the following e-mail:
Mr. (name removed),No response was ever received.
I am writing in reference to your commentary of 19 November 2004, the story of the atheist professor and the Christian student who silences him with an ancient theodicy that this professor has somehow never encountered in his lifetime.
If anyone thinks that he has solved the problem of evil by such philosophical legerdemain, then he is greatly mistaken. Anyone who believes that the existence of murder, rape, theft, and disease-causing bacteria can be dissolved by defining them as “the absence of good” is not being intellectually honest but is rather seeking a cheap defense of his religious beliefs. It supposedly answers the Epicurean paradox by challenging the fourth proposition, that evil exists, but it is only satisfactory to those who will accept any answer rather than consider the idea that he is mistaken in his religious beliefs. Further, if he thinks he has found some brilliant new insight, then he is badly in need of religious, philosophical, and historical education. To the best of my knowledge, this response first appeared in the famous Confessions of St. Augustine of Hippo circa 397 CE.
Occasionally the student in the story you told is falsely identified as Albert Einstein. I was pleased that you presented it without this baseless lie; admittedly, it would have not have been dishonesty on your part if you had done so, but it would have been gullible and irresponsible.
I respect everyone's right to believe or disbelieve. I spent the first twenty-five years of my life as a devout Catholic Christian before I faced my fears, questioned my reasons for believing, and realized that my belief in the divinity of Christ was an untenable tradition I had been taught since my youth. My point is that I know what it is like on both sides of the fence.
Here is my bottomline: I resent and protest your depiction of an atheist professor as an ignorant buffoon. If you want to promote Christianity or even criticize non-theism, I have no objections whatsoever. I consider unfair mockery, however, to be outside the realm of good taste and respectfulness for even a privately owned radio station. I have been a faithful listener of (station removed) for more than half of my short life and never have I been as displeased as I am today.
With Utmost Sincerity,
(name removed)
The following is the second in a series of writings which I have composed previously. It was written in October 2004.
Religion is unique among the phenomena of human existence in at least one very important way. Only religion can demand that individuals devote their entire lives to it and get away with it: Go to church more often. Spend more time in prayer. Eat less and go hungry. Read more religious books. Give more money to the church. Give more money to charities. Spend more time volunteering. Think of yourself as less than dirt and remind yourself that everything bad is your fault and everything good is an undeserved gift from God. Surrender your most precious desires for freedom, family, and possessions to the church and vow to God that you will do this forever.
Nothing is ever good enough for God. He always wants more, more, more. You must always push towards the literally unattainable goal of absolute perfection and never rest; if you stop trying, you might slip up and be tortured in unquenchable fire forever. Imagine if your employer always made you feel guilty and imply that you might suffer eternally if you didn't work longer each day; your school if you didn't write longer reports; retailers if you didn't purchase more products. It's unthinkable. But religion gets away with it because it's “divine” and we “owe” everything to some mysterious hidden creator.
The following story is the first in a series of entries presenting writings which I have composed previously. It was written in October 2004. A film adapation, recorded in January 2006, is available at Secular Planet Cinema.
A Christian dies and ascends to the throne of God for judgment. As he has been a faithful follower of Jesus Christ throughout his entire life, he arrives in the heavenly room filled with much anticipation, knowing that God will reward him for his faith and extensive evangelization. He steps forward toward the bright light, and he hears a loud, deep voice bellow, “I am Allah and Mohammed is my prophet!”
The Christian's jaw drops to the floor, he begins sweating very nervously, and anxiously says, “But, but, what about my sweet Jesus? He said he would testify before the Father on my behalf! Where is he?!?”
Allah responds, “Jesus of Nazareth was just another prophet. I told you so in my holy book; the message was very clear. You chose to believe the lies made up by wicked men about someone who was simply preparing the way for the greatest prophet, Mohammed. I told you that you must have faith in Islam or you would be cast into everlasting fire, but you ignored my commands. I am just and I keep my word. Depart from me, ye cursed polytheistic heathen into neverending torment!”
The Christian shouts out, “Wait! Wait! I didn't know Islam was true! This isn't fair!”
Allah replies, “Why didn't you know? I made it very clear in my book! You knew exactly what I taught because I watched you every moment of your life, so I know you even researched Islam at the library! You cannot claim ignorance!”
The Christian continues, “Yes, that is true, but I didn't think it was actually true! It looked like a myth and there were other explanations that were more reasonable, so I didn't believe it. In the Qu'ran there are contradictions, inconsistencies, atrocities, absurdities, and other things that made me think it was the work of a man.”
Allah retorts, “You filthy liar! My book is absolutely perfect! Your sinfulness blinded you to the truth and made you see difficulties where a holy man would have seen nothing but pure wisdom! I gave you the grace to believe, but you chose not to accept it!”
The Christian pleads, “What?!? When did you give me that grace? I don't remember ever consciously being offered any grace to believe, so how can you condemn me for not accepting it if I wasn't even aware it was present?”
Allah says, “Who are you to question me and my ways!?! How dare you! I am mysterious, way beyond your puny human comprehension. You should have bowed down to the ground and trembled for mercy before the Almighty Allah. If you had just believed in me and trusted in me, then you would have rewarded with paradise. But in your insolence, you exalted your reason and logic above holy faith! And you shall be justly punished forever!”
The Christian desperately begs, “But I didn't know it was true! If I had known it was true, then I surely would have followed you, your prophet, and your holy religion. But I didn't know! That's just not fair!”
Allah continues, “You despicable hypocrite! You were ready to condemn all the followers of the true religion, people of all beliefs, and people of no beliefs to the exact same fate for not following your heathen cult! You even tried to lead my faithful people away from the path of righteousness with your wretched lies by telling them they must convert to your cult or they would be tortured in hell for all eternity! I will not tolerate any more demonic arguments from you, ye evildoer! Depart from my holy presence forever and ever!”
I have recently noticed three signs for churches upon which I would like to comment.
(1) The Pentecostals: The Church of Champions (local church sign)
First, this seems to be modeled after the cereal Wheaties, breakfast of champions. This is so ridiculous that no further comment is necessary. Second, this congregation cannot be very humble if they call themselves champions. Third, it entails that members of other faiths and denominations are losers.
(2) If you can wish, you can believe. (United Methodist Church billboard)
This appears to be saying that faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. This cannot possibly be what they meant, but I don't understand what they did mean and I don't understand how they could ignore the obvious interpretation.
(3) Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. (lettering under local church sign)
I realize that this sentiment is not original, but it deserves comment nonetheless. There are multiple interpretations. The first is, “Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus.” This is a reasonable claim, but that doesn't mean it's not a religion. The second is, “Christianity is true. Religions by definition are false. Therefore, Christianity is not a religion.” I reject the main premise as false, but obviously Christians accept it as true. My main objection is the defintion equating religion with false religion. Now I believe every religion is false, but not by definition.
Although I had read online about the joke that 1 April is “National Atheists Day,” it was not until yesterday that I saw a bumpersticker with this message on a vehicle while driving around town. At the top it had the name of the day, then “April 1st” in large lettering, and then “Psalm 13:1 — The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.” I fully support the constitutional right of citizens to express their opinions, including views directly antagonistic to mine. I wish to point out, however, that this message is the paragon of “preaching to the choir” as it says nothing more than, “We are smart. They are stupid.” Deprecation of the intelligence of unbelievers is a completely ineffective method of evangelization.
Purely linguistic considerations
Near the end of last year I noticed that my social life had been particularly active during that time. After about five consecutive years with very few to no dates, I had dates with about ten different women that year. I even had a wonderful relationship with a gorgeous, intelligent, responsible yet delightfully fun-loving and playful woman for about eleven weeks until she moved back home across the sea during the summer. My social life has remained fruitful since I made the observation. Until then, I hadn't pondered why there was such a tremendous change, but upon reflection I soon realized the reason: my deconversion!
When I was a very devout Catholic, I never would have considered dating a non-Catholic since I wanted someone who shared my faith, especially if I were to marry her. More than that, I wouldn't even date a weak or even moderate Catholic since I was so committed to living my life according to absolutely everything the Church taught. This meant that my potential dating pool was extremely small and on the rare occasions when I did find a woman who fit my stringent religious requirements, whom I liked, and who liked me, she almost always lived far away. This all meant that I didn't really date for about five years because of my religion.
I wouldn't have dated any of the women I've dated in the past year and a half except for my deconversion. None of them were practicing Catholics, most of them were not religious, and a few of them were even nontheists. While I would ideally prefer to be with another nontheist now, I am completely open to dating someone who believes in the supernatural as long as it doesn't adversely affect our relationship. This primarily means that she doesn't let attendance at religious services significantly interfere with our plans, she doesn't ask me to attend them, and her beliefs don't negatively affect our sex life. Obviously the field isn't totally wide open, but there are many more nontheists, apatheists, nonreligious and nonfundamentalists than truly devout Catholics. Dating is easier without one's choices shackled by religious fundamentalism.
Though atheists are the most mistrusted minority in the United States, they are in a unique position among mistrusted minorities: they can be practically invisible at will. Racial minorities cannot hide their physical features. Immigrants cannot hide limited English language ability and can never completely lose their accents if they began learning the language after a certain young age. Religious minorities cannot hide their attendance at services, special diets, special dress, or other public practices; their religions might even demand them to boldly proclaim their faith publicly. Homosexuals and bisexuals cannot hide their relationships without difficulty and considerable inconvenience, and sometimes cannot hide their orientation due to their voice and mannerisms. Atheists, however, differ from the mainstream only in terms of their beliefs, which are inherently undetectable unless expressed by the one who holds them. Atheists remain invisible until they choose to reveal themselves.
Fear of Rejection
This is a decision, however, which atheists must make, repeatedly in the case of new acquaintances. The only substantive reason either to actively hide or to passively conceal one's atheism is fear of rejection. Upon acknowledging their disbelief, some atheists are disowned by their families, some by their husbands, wives or partners, and some by their friends and co-workers. It is for good reason that revealing one's atheism is occasionally referred to as “coming out of the closet”, a term normally used in reference to revealing one's unorthodox sexual preference or identification. Fortunately not all atheists experience such negative and unpleasant reactions from those closest to them, but almost without exception they encounter varying levels of rejection from at least some people who learn of their lack of faith, ranging from a slight cooling off of fomerly fully amicable relations to immediate, hateful and highly vocal repudiation. Occasionally atheists will receive a positive reaction upon professing their disbelief, almost exclusively from fellow nontheists, with whom personal connections can often be more easily established due to mutual empathy.
Coming Out of the Closet
Despite the power of potential rejection, there are numerous motivations to reveal one's atheism:
Although I am no proponent of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, it is notable that our language fails to clearly distinguish two distinct but similar ideas which often confuse unreflective intellects. It is precisely on this account that I must explicitly delineate my meaning in order to discuss the topic. Thus, I present three definitions for the purpose of this entry, the second and third being of greater interest:
| believe | believing | believer | belief | |
| disbelief | 2,380,000 | 1,050,000 | 282,000 | 17,100,000 |
| unbelief | 35,300 | 1,560,000 | 1,880,000 | 3,000,000 |
| nonbelief | 1,543 | 164,600 | 993,000 | 312,000 |
In the interest of providing additional perspective to my thoughts, I will now share the tale of my journey from Catholicism to atheism.
The circumstances of my entrance into the Church are very commonplace. My Catholic parents had me baptized shortly after my birth, brought me to Mass each Sunday, and sent me to formal religious education until I received the sacrament of confirmation at the age of thirteen. Around that time, I developed a serious interest in religion and became relatively devout in my faith. I sought to understand the teachings of the Church more deeply. I read the Bible, the newly published universal catechism, and a few books on apologetics, though my forays into online apologetic debate were largely uneventful. Discussion of religion with two atheist friends at the end of high school, however, planted seeds of major doubt in my mind, which seemed to flower immediately before being quickly crushed by fear and anxiety.
At university I entrenched myself even more deeply into religion, leading to serious considerations of entering the seminary or the monastery, but the fear of an eternal hell which had forcefully preserved me in the faith soon created a terrestrial hell for me in form of scrupulosity. I will not discuss the details of the situation, but I will say that it truly was a nightmare. The condition persisted for years with only temporary, partial, and sporadic reprieves despite extensive assistance from the clergy and other persons. Eventually, however, the issue of doubt became a major focus of my obsession and the seeds planted years before germinated such that they were ready to blossom with the proper amount of cultivation.
A frank discussion with a friend who had earlier made a similar journey provided the catalyst to a thorough investigation of my doubts over the course of several months. During this time I read everything that I could find, online or in print, pro- and anti-religion. I spoke with family, friends and priests. I spent much time in prayer and in thought. In the end I found that I had lost my faith from a combination of the obliteration of my former justifications for belief, the establishment of numerous insurmountable objections and difficulties, and the realization that everything in life makes much more sense if Catholicism is indeed false. I left the Church almost four months after my initial decision to question my religion.
Though my sufferings certainly helped prompt the investigation, my loss of faith and subsequent apostasy were the result of logical, systematic inquiry rather than an emotionally motivated escape from the torment I experienced at the hands of religion. I am certain, however, that many believers will dismiss my reasons as less than noble. In response I would like to indicate that my decision to face my doubts and fears demanded a certain amount of courage. With my understanding that to entertain and indulge one's doubts was a sin grave enough to merit eternal damnation, I willfully endangered my soul in order to satisfy my sense of intellectual honesty and desire for truth. Additionally, I realized that it would perhaps be impossible to feel sorry and thus seek forgiveness for the sin of doubting if I found the Catholic faith to be true, meaning that I effectively had to surmount a point-of-no-return in order to even begin. Whatever the case, supposed emotional motivations do not discount rational argumentation and criticism.
My scrupulosity immediately and substantially diminished upon my apostasy, though the fear of hell lingered for approximately six months before fully dissipating. I initially considered myself an agnostic, but the more appropriate term would have been weak atheist. A further examination of the problem of evil a few months later prompted my transition to strong atheism. I have maintained that position since and that is where I stand today.
Welcome to Secular Planet, a blog for sharing my personal thoughts on religion and irreligion.
Although the primary focus of this blog will be secularism, I intend to address issues such as language, culture, society, history and politics. At times I also expect to discuss completely unrelated topics which I simply wish to write about. As such it will be a series of reflections on life from the perspective of a godless earthling. My principal aspirations in writing are to be coherent, rational, insightful, eloquent, and above all else, sincere.
Posts
All Comments
