Jesus is a friend of mine

Hey, Christians, are you tired of people referring to your relationship with Jesus Christ as a "religion"? (If you're fine with it being a religion, as I know many of you are, then just move along.)

Hey, religious skeptics, are you tired of Christians who are in denial about the fact that they are followers of a religion?

Guess what? I think that I can fix this for the both of you.

First off, I'm going to step out of my wheelhouse here and try and get into the mindset of the Christian who doesn't think of what they're doing as a religion. I hope that any "it's not a religion" Christians read this and correct me if I get anything wrong. Obviously, you all don't see things the same way, but I'm fairly confident that I can get the basic gist down. I could be wrong though, and I'm willing to write an update and/or have a conversation in the comments section until I accurately depict your point of view.

The word "religion" has a lot of baggage. There are a whole lot of people out there who have ruined it by being judgmental, violent, controlling, etc. That's not what a relationship with Jesus is about. Jesus came down to save us. He offers eternal salvation, and all you have to do is accept him into your heart and believe in his sacrifice. Doing so doesn't just win you a one-way ticket to heaven. It transforms you, on the inside. It changes your whole perspective on life, and you realize that you're living for a greater purpose. All the trivialities fall by the wayside, as Jesus makes it clear that whatever you're dealing with now is insignificant next to what he has to offer you.

Is that good? I think that's pretty good.

Religious skeptics? Are you still with me?

I know what you're thinking, because you're thinking what I'm thinking. Once you get past your huge inner "OH, COME ON!" groan, you'll point out that Christians have rituals and supernatural beliefs about the nature of this world. They're also organized, with some groups being more hierarchical than others. Those are all of the trappings of what we call religion. It doesn't matter if you think that you have a personal relationship with Jesus or that Ganesha has an elephant's head. It's all religion.

Christians, are you still with me? Because here's where I try and bring it all together and make everybody, or maybe nobody, happy.

For the religious skeptics, we need to realize that calling Christianity a religion comes off as being dismissive. When you lump Christianity in there with Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Norse Paganism, and the crockfest that is Scientology, you're not acknowledging the very personal nature of Christianity.

I know what you're thinking. "But other religions are also deeply personal!"

Yes, they are. And when we're looking at it from the outside-in, that's what we're seeing. But for the believer, it's not the same thing as all of those other beliefs. Christians have something unique, and they want to acknowledge that.

Yeah, yeah, "But all religions are unique in their own way!"

Again, to the believer, this isn't what matters. The way that Christianity is unique is what's important.

For the Christians who are still reading, maybe you can see why the talking point of "it's a relationship not a religion" doesn't get much traction with us skeptics. For me, even if it turned out that your religion was 100% the truth, and you really, honestly, literally have a relationship with the Creator of the Universe, then I still can't get my head around the idea that it's not a religion.

I guess what I'm saying there is that Christians should say, "To me, it's more than just a religion." That demonstrates the personal nature of the belief while not ignoring the definition of the word "religion" as it's understood by most people. (And again, I know of plenty of Christians who have no problem with that word. If you're one of those Christians, why are you still reading this? This isn't for you! Geez.)

And if a Christian words it that way? What should the religious skeptic say?

Nothing. Let them have it. Because to them, it's not just a religion. 

It's not just a religion in the same way that your mother isn't just "some lady". Yeah, she's "some lady" by the meaning of the term. She's simply "some lady" to most people on the planet. But she's not "some lady" to you.

And then when we're all done, we can rock out to the following:

Hope for the Ark Encounter?

Utnapishtim's, ahem...Noah's ark

Depending on how much you pay attention to issues regarding religion, you may or may not have heard of the Ark Encounter. In a nutshell, it's a museum devoted to the Biblical flood story, and it's a life-size reconstruction of Noah's boat. I suppose it's more of a construction than a reconstruction for the simple fact that NOAH'S ARK NEVER FRIKKEN' EXISTED.

Yeah, I'm being a little harsh, but if you think that the Noah story actually happened, or you even entertain the possibility that it happened, then the rest of this post isn't going to appeal to you. Unless you can provide some AMAZING evidence (you can't) of a global flood, I'm going to put flood believers into the same category as Scientologists who learn about Emperor Xenu and still stay in the organization anyway.

It opened on July 7th, and from what I've read, opening day didn't have quite the turnout that they were expecting. Maybe there aren't as many Biblical literalists as they were hoping for? Or maybe the literalists just don't care that much? Who knows? I'm not expert in these matters, and I haven't seen any official figures, but I have to wonder if this thing will one day go the way of Jim Bakker's Heritage USA, and become a monument to religious folly.

 

Let's just assume that I'm right and this thing will eventually go bankrupt and have to close down one day. Overall, this would be a good thing. Perhaps it's too bad that the state of Kentucky is losing out considering how many tax breaks Answers in Genesis (the company that built the thing) got for it, but the good far outweighs the bad. For starters, the place is basically devoted to spreading ignorance and anti-science. Even worse, it's targeted at children with its inclusion of dinosaurs. (It's funny how for some people the dinosaur thing is what puts it over the top into Crazy Town territory. Guess what? It's crazy without dinosaurs.) It will also be good to see the end of a place that has discriminatory hiring practices (no non-Christians, no gay people) while receiving taxpayer money. 

With that said, I wouldn't want to see the place get torn down. I also wouldn't want to see it just sit there and rot. Here are some possibilities as to what can be done with it:

1. Turn it into a science museum. Have a big part explaining how flood geology is riddled with fallacies.

2. Have it be a museum devoted to mythology. Utilize much of what's there, and keep the dinosaurs in a section entitled "What happens when people take myths literally." Include displays for various flood myths, paying special attention to Utnapishtim and his similarities/differences with Noah. 

3. Make a nautical museum. Yeah, it's in a landlocked part of the country. Well, who would be more starved for boat-related stuff than them? People on the coasts have their fill of that sort of a thing, thank you very much.

4. Make it a literal monument to religious folly. Have displays ranging from the weird to the outright dangerous like snake handlers and Jim Jones.

5. Why was the world flooded? Because of sin, right? Make it a museum of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. People will love it. Throw in some hookers while you're at it. See if the firmament opens and the waters pour forth. 

Understanding the believer and the nonbeliever

I've pointed out before that one of the frustrating things about being an atheist is having people tell you what you think. I've heard so many believers, from fundamentalist Christians to "spiritual" agnostics, explain what my point of view is only to get it spectacularly wrong on every occasion. It's getting to the point where I'm honestly of the mindset that once one is able to accurately and honestly articulate what atheism is, one has become an atheist.

The strange thing to me is that theists often turn atheism into something much bigger and complex than it actually is. Even when you flat-out say that all it means is a lack of belief, it needs to turn into something far more than that. It's frustrating, but it's understandable. With that said, it's my sincere hope that this blog entry will serve as advice to both the theist and the atheist when engaging in these debates.

When trying to talk to theists, it's really tempting to explain atheism by saying that it's the same as not believing in werewolves, leprechauns, The Smurfs, etc. We don't believe in any of those things, but we'd be convinced with evidence of their existence, and the same goes for any God or gods that might exist. This seems like a really easy and accurate analogy, but it doesn't work for the theist. 

And why should it? None of those beliefs carry the same history as the world's major religions do. Nobody bases their entire life philosophy on those beliefs either. People who believe in God claim to have a personal relationship with their deity. It's not like even like believing in other supernatural beings that actually do have a significant number of people accept like ghosts. To say that God doesn't exist would be to deny something that they would claim to know to be true - not just believe. It's something that affects their very identity.

So, to make an analogy with leprechauns comes off as ridiculous because a belief in God is not like a belief in leprechauns - AT ALL. I would hope that any atheist can see this and understand why a theist would bridle at the suggestion.

But here's the thing, and I imagine that most atheists reading this by now would have already caught what's going on here. And this is what I'm hoping that the believer will understand when this point is brought up:

To the believer, a belief in God is nothing like a belief in (insert supernatural being here). However, to the nonbeliever, the nonbelief is exactly the same.

What gets lost in the discussion is that the believer is talking about something that's more than just a belief to them while to the nonbeliever, that doesn't matter. However, the believer thinks that it absolutely should matter, and that's why it's not right for the atheist to be so dismissive. I'm not entirely sure what the resolution to this should be, as while I understand both sides, I ultimately think that the atheist is under no obligation to grant religious belief more weight simply because of the importance of the belief to the theist. Perhaps it's a reason to at least treat the believer with some sympathy and not just go for the jugular, but the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim of something's existence, not on the person who doubts it. To suggest that it's somehow different when it comes to a belief in God is to elevate the theist position based on reasons that nobody would accept for anything else. 

Because what if belief in leprechauns DID become as important to people as belief in God? Would that affect the belief's legitimacy one way or the other? I would suggest not, and I think that most honest theists would agree with me there.

Teaching religion at a public school

She quoted The Bible? BURN HER!!!

Did you hear the news? They've announced the plot to God's Not Dead 2. For those of you who don't know the first one, it basically featured a heroic Christian defeating a strawman. The plot for the second one promises more unwarranted persecution complexes and strawmen (straw-women?) so Christians can feel not only that they're right but that everyone who doesn't believe what they believe either secretly DOES believe what they do and/or is a horrible person.

This plot interests me a little bit more than the first, although I don't think that I'll be able to bear to actually watch it. This one features a high school teacher getting sued for making a Bible reference. That gets my attention because I happen to be a high school teacher who makes a hell of a lot of Bible references.

If I had things my way, I'd be teaching a comparative religions class. Maybe I can eventually make that happen, but as of right now I'm simply an English teacher. I teach both freshmen and seniors, and while I hardly mention The Bible with the freshmen, I do a lesson on it with the seniors. In fact, I cover a lot of religious topics simply because it comes up in so much of the literature that we read: Beowulf, Siddhartha, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and more provide me with the opportunity to cover Norse paganism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. And let's not forget the Biblical allusions in Macbeth and Hamlet. Essentially, religion is the foundation of much of literature in general, and The Bible plays an especially big part in all of that.

Now, I've never been sued, although I once had an anonymous parent complain to the administration, insisting that I apologize for one of my lessons. (The administration took my side, and while they related what was said to me, there was no direction given to me about apologizing.) From what I gather, one of the biggest points of contention was that I told the class that I am an atheist. I do this because I want to let them know where I stand so they can suss out any bias that they might detect. Apparently it's bad for me to even say that, I guess.

Hopefully the sequel can also offer rebuttals
to complaints that nobody makes.

The other problem was an exercise I call "Bible or Crap" where I give a bunch of passages and the students have to determine whether it's a Bible quote or a bunch of crap that I made up. The results are funny sometimes, as I include messed up passages from The Bible that they don't expect to be in there, and once they think they've figured out that everything horrible is from The Bible, I throw them off with a passage where Jesus strangles a puppy. (Spoiler alert - that's crap I made up.) When I conclude the lesson, I point out that I have provided no context for any of the passages I gave them and if they care to know what it all means, they have to read those parts for themselves. So, it's an exercise in how people can pull things out of context to further their own agendas, and it concludes with me encouraging them to read The Bible. I guess that's bad, 'cause I use the word "crap" - even though the "crap" is the stuff that's NOT The Bible.

I wasn't even upset about the whole thing though. I just wished that the parent and/or student could have come to talk to me. I'm not interested in making my students feel marginalized or uncomfortable, and I've had plenty of Christian kids get a kick out of that particular exercise. In fact, when I posted about this story on Facebook, some of the comments defending my lessons came from Christian kids. One even said that it made his "blood boil" to think that they wanted me to apologize. Oh well, can't please everybody.

Anyway, with all of that said, here are some things that I've noticed. Obviously, I'm only one teacher, and even if I did the same thing in a different part of the country, I might have a completely different experience with this. For the record, I live and teach in the San Francisco Bay Area, in an area that's probably more conservative than S.F. or Berkeley, but is still pretty liberal. So, here goes:

1. You have to start by clearing up some misconceptions. - I blame people on the right and the left equally for this, but too many people think that you're not even allowed to discuss religion and The Bible in a public school. I always point out that I can teach about it all I want; I just cannot preach for or against it.

2. Religious affiliation doesn't necessarily affect the attitudes of the students. - I have had Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. students who have reacted really positively to my lessons. One Muslim student this last year even told me that my lessons affected him in a profound way. I've had atheist/agnostic students tell me that they appreciated getting to learn about all of this stuff without having it preached to them. Believe it or not, I've had Christian students tell me that I made them want to get more serious about their faith and go back to church. (Dammit! Just kidding. Kinda.)

Likewise, I have all kinds of students who react extremely negatively toward it. Oftentimes these attitudes come from the nonbelievers, as they don't even want to hear about religion. I can talk about Odin and Zeus all I want, but if I get into things that people actually believe to this day, I'm placing too great of a burden on them. I guess they figure that they might accidentally convert if they hear the word "Jesus" enough times. However, I get this attitude from believers as well. I've had Christians ask me when we're finally going to be done with it. Sometimes it's clear because I introduce a lot of ideas that they don't normally hear in church, and there's probably a lot of cognitive dissonance going on when I discuss Jesus in the same terms as I would Hercules.

This makes me think that maybe it's not so much a question of theists versus atheists in this country, but we seem to have a lot of apatheists. Some people just want to believe or disbelieve what they want, and they don't want to talk about it or even think about it any more.

3. The best compliments aren't compliments. - I had a student complain about my Bible test because it was hard. She informed me that she used to go to a private Christian school, and there they simply told her what to believe. "But with you, you're always saying that some people think this, and some people think that." Excellent.

Of course I hate Jesus! He's not the real son of Zeus like me!

4. I can be subtly subversive - I really try and bend over backwards to not offend anybody, and whenever I say something like how there are a growing number of scholars who doubt that Jesus was even a historical figure, I make sure to tag on something like, "But you shouldn't just believe that because I've said it." Still, I can do subtle things like how on the test I have a multiple choice question asking them to circle which story is NOT in The Bible. I then list off some of the more absurd ones - like Samson losing his super strength with a haircut and Jonah getting swallowed by a "whale". The one that's NOT in The Bible is an nearly-invincible man who's killed when he gets hit in his only weak spot - his heel. (That's Achilles I'm talking about.) Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the question, but it is fun to put the Achilles story in the same context as a bunch of other obvious myths just to highlight how they're all pretty absurd if you believe they literally happened.

5. They still don't learn a damn thing. - I'm probably not giving myself credit, but it's amazing how even after beating them over the head with my particular pet peeves, they still get it wrong. One example is how I'll still hear students talk about Catholicism and Christianity as though they're two completely different religions. I practically yell at them that Catholicism is one form of Christianity, just as beagles are one breed of dog. All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. Yet, I'll still hear them say, "Yeah, he's Catholic, unlike me, as I'm Christian." Ugh.

Another example was just from this year when I had a student visit a synagogue as part of a "cultural excursion" project. In his presentation, he talked about how Jesus is important to the Jewish faith. I nearly plotzed.

I even had a former student share on her Facebook wall a meme about how The Bible isn't allowed to be read in public schools. I practically lost my mind. I commented, wondering how she could post that when she did an entire Bible lesson in my class. She then sheepishly suggested that I was trying to make her "feel small". Ugh. No. I just wonder why the hell I bother doing anything sometimes.

So, that's what I've got. Any other teachers out there have similar experiences?

My first (Thinking) Atheist event

Last night I attended a presentation by Seth Andrews, host of The Thinking Atheist podcast. It was hosted by The Atheist Community of San Jose.  He was promoting his book, Sacred Cows: A Lighthearted Look at Belief and Tradition around the World. During the presentation, he went over various bizarre beliefs like snake handling, "Sabbath mode" appliances, and some odd Bulgarian thing involving spinning some poor dog around. It was a pretty funny and informative speech, and at the end he got a bit more personal and talked about his personal difficulties involving his family's unwillingness to accept that he no longer shares their beliefs.

For those who aren't familiar with his podcast or videos, I recommend them. Seth's story is an interesting one, as he used to be a DJ for a Christian radio station in Oklahoma. Eventually he found himself seriously questioning his faith, and then he started creating videos on Youtube under his "The Thinking Atheist" banner. (Seth always insists that he's not The Thinking Atheist, and that the logo and name are supposed to symbolize how we should always be thinking, exploring, and questioning what we believe.) For some time, he remained anonymous, but he eventually came out and revealed his true identity at a Freethought convention.

Seth on the left, me on the right.

I've never been to any kind of organize atheist event before. I've never really seen the need to, and I'll admit that for some time after admitting my atheism to myself, I would kind of scoff at the idea. After all, I didn't like going to church when I was a believer. Why would I want to submit myself to something similar when I no longer had the fear that I was making some deity angry? Eventually, I came around and realized that this attitude was a bit of a privilege on my part, as I didn't lose a ton of friends when I came out as an atheist, and I wasn't disowned by my family members. Not everybody is as lucky as me, and for those folks, atheist gatherings offer a chance for them to be with people who embrace them for who they are. So, while I'm still not personally big on atheist gatherings, I'm glad that they exist.

Got a copy of the book, and got it signed.

I will also say that I'm glad that I attended this one. I've been a big fan of Seth's for some time now, ever since I saw his "The Story of Suzie" video.

Lately, I've been steering away from atheist books and podcasts for the most part, as I've had my fill for the most part. Still, I continue listening to his podcast. For one, it's really professional. He keeps each episode to about an hour and there's no blathering on about pointless things. Sure, sometimes he digresses and talks about his dog or things like that, but he keeps things moving along at a brisk pace. Also, he has a really positive vibe about his show. I realize that the video up above might make you think differently, but his show is never about calling people stupid or implying that believers are "mentally ill" or other such nonsensical things that some atheists are wont to say.

I'm on the left, toward the back.

Another thing that was really cool about last night's presentation is that I got an old friend to come along with me, and he brought his two kids. The two of them have had their fill of church experiences, as their mother (my friend is divorced from her) takes them on Sundays - and one of the ones she's gone to was pretty rabidly fundamentalist from my understanding. It was great to have them along so they could see a positive face for nonbelievers outside of just their father. Seth also took the time to talk to everybody before and after the show, and he had a great message for them: 1) take care of each other, and 2) keep looking for answers and the truth no matter what it might be. (Those weren't his exact words, but that was the gist.)

No, I didn't take my son. He's only four, and I doubt he would have appreciated it. (My wife would have, but she was unable to attend.) Considering he's not going to be exposed to a whole lot of religion, it's not a high priority for me to take him to things like this. I suppose that if he was older and expressed interest, I'd be happy to, but I have no interest in pushing him one way or the other. I'll be honest about my beliefs, and I'll encourage critical thinking, but I'm not looking to do some sort of equivalent to what the faithful do.

Part of me wishes that some of my faithful friends could have come along, as they probably would have enjoyed it far more than they would expect. Plus, it's always good to show a good side of atheism considering that so many people are given the message that we're horrible. I mean, yeah, we did sacrifice and eat a baby when everything was wrapped up, but lots of groups do that.

In all seriousness though, I'm glad that Seth took some questions at the end, and even better, he was asked, "What do you think the best reasons are for why there is no God?" He took the time to explain that he would never word it that way. Most atheists, like myself, don't take some sort of dogmatic position like theists do when they claim with certainty that a God exists. Most of us don't take the other extreme, as we have no way of knowing that. The best that we can say is that we find the argument for the existence of one to be totally unconvincing. If given evidence, we'll change our minds. But that evidence hasn't appeared, and when it does, it comes in the form of anecdotes, specious reasoning, and appeals to emotion - in other words, not actual evidence.

So, would I attend another event like this? Sure. I had a good time, and if I did, I'd want to bring along some people with me - especially my wife, but maybe even an open-minded theist friend as well. If you're an atheist, especially one who has lost out on friends and family members as a result, then you definitely gotta check out Seth's website and podcast. He always refers to his fans as a community and family, and I don't think that's too far off. Here's hoping Seth will find his way out to California again.

Comics teach morality

I remember watching a documentary on comic books years ago, and one of the creators that they interviewed (I want to say it was Harlan Ellison, but nobody get mad at me if he never said anything of the sort.) made a statement about how kids get their morality from comic books. I thought that this was a strange thing to say, but the more I thought about it, the more it resonated. In fact, I think that I'm definitely an example of that idea, and I'm not sure that I would have the same moral center that I do if it weren't for all those superheroes.

Before I continue, let's make one thing clear. The biggest influence on my morality was my parents. No doubt the society in which I was raised played a big part as well. Oh, and I think that Star Wars might have had something to do with it as well. Still, I was raised with Bible stories, and I can definitely say that my morals never came from that particular book of myths nearly as much as the modern myths published by Marvel and DC Comics.

I could probably come up with several examples of this, but the one that resonates with me more than any is what I learned from reading comics with The Punisher. For those who are unfamiliar with the character, he's not exactly a "superhero" as he not only doesn't have powers, but he uses guns and kills every villain who gets in his way. He doesn't bother tying them up and leaving them for the law. His solution is a bit more permanent.

I was first introduced to the character back when I was in seventh grade, in issue 285 of The Amazing Spider-Man. It was the middle of the "Gang War" storyline, where various mobsters and their supervillain henchmen were battling it out. To make matters worse, here comes this dude with a bazooka and all kinds of guns, ready to put a quick end to it by blowing every last one of them to smithereens. Instead of thanking the guy for his speedy resolution, Spider-Man tries to stop him, likening his methods to putting out a forest fire with a flamethrower.

I was intrigued with The Punisher, and I followed his adventures into his own solo series. I understood that his kind of justice would never work in real life, but there was a visceral thrill in watching a guy take matters into his own hands and cutting through the corrupt justice system. In other words, his methods do work, but they only work in a fantasy world.

Still, the stories that always resonated the most with me were the ones where he was put into direct conflict with one of the more traditional superheroes, usually Daredevil. There was one crossover where the two of them punched each other over the fate of a guy who was poisoning over-the-counter drugs. It was a fun issue with a lot of great "tough guy" lines from The Punisher. I remember it by heart when the killer protested that he had "rights" to only get the response, "You've got rights. You've got the right to go splat when you hit the pavement. You have the right to bleed into the gutter."

Before The Punisher could toss the guy off the roof though, Daredevil stepped in and the two had it out. There was also a brief exchange of ideas. Of course, it's hardly a deep analysis of the moral issue of what methods we should take in dealing with society's criminals. However, it illustrated what made guys like Daredevil and Spider-Man less miserable people than The Punisher. They understood that you don't get to be the good guy when you don't hold yourself to a higher standard than the bad guy.

How does this continue to affect me? Well, I'm the kind of guy who cares about what's true and what isn't. There are many things that I speak out against, and usually my biggest complaint is with the lies that people tell. I often say things along the line of, "If you have to lie to make your point, maybe you don't have a point that's worth making."

And I find myself getting even more upset when people whom I see as being on "my side" of various issues engaging in the act of lying to further a cause that I believe in. One of the most egregious examples of this, as I've noted before, is the movie Zeitgeist. I still see my fellow nonbelievers cite this movie as an example of how to debunk Christianity. (I think that Bill Maher's Religulous repeated a lot of the inaccuracies that the film noted as well.) I also really need to stop seeing the whole "The Jesus story is a ripoff of the Horus myth!" meme going around Facebook.

The point is, I think that my side has a strong enough case on its own. No need to repeat nonsense. But when you point that out to some folks, they don't seem to care if they're repeating something that's untrue. Just like The Punisher, the ends justifies the means, and it doesn't matter so long as it's a "win" for their side. I have such a hard time with that because one of my major issues with religion is that I think that it's dishonest. You can't fight dishonesty by engaging in more of it.

I could list other examples of this happening with other issues. Thankfully, I can find lots of other folks who feel the same as I do. (Notice that the link I provided that debunks Zeitgeist is from an atheist website?) Still, I feel too often that for too many it's more important how you line up with the tribe and if you can score points against the other side whether honestly or not.

This is also why I scratched my head in disbelief when I heard people defend things like the Patriot Act and government overreach after 9/11. I actually heard somebody say that we need to make some sacrifices in order to "preserve our way of life". So, we need to sacrifice our way of life to preserve our way of life? How the hell does that make sense?

Is it possible that I would have this same regard (maybe even obsession) for intellectual honesty and fairness if I had never read comic books? Perhaps. But I gotta admit, I often think about Daredevil and The Punisher fighting on a rooftop when these sorts of issues come up.

Spreading atheism is pointless

The last President of the United States, George W. Bush, stated that God told him to invade Iraq (among some other requests). It's stuff like this that atheists point to when they want to see religion and religious thinking to go away. God told him? You mean that being for which there is no evidence of its existence? This is what you're basing policy on? Policy that costs the lives of thousands of people?

Many of my fellow nonbelievers find a little bit of hope in the fact that religion is on the decline in this country and around the world. It certainly would remove a lot of reasons for behaviors that are difficult to justify when you don't have a supreme being commanding you to do it. It certainly seems like we're entering a new age of enlightenment, but I'm not so sure that there's any reason to get too optimistic.

Let's take the example about Bush invading Iraq because Jesus told him to do so. Would it be any better if he said that he did it because that's what his astrologer told him to do? How about the ghost of George Washington said it would be a good idea? Maybe some aliens landed and told him that he should do so, and since they come from an advanced civilization, he figured that he'd follow their advice. Would any of these scenarios be any better? Of course not because they're all irrational and not based on any kind of evidence.

I sometimes will post all kinds of skeptic-related memes and thoughts on Facebook, and it's amazing to me how I'll get some people who'll "like" pretty much everything I post, but then they draw the line when I make fun of something that's equally irrational. For instance, I know people who will laugh at religious absurdities, but then they'll defend homeopathy. Also, I have one online friend who posts all kinds of amusing anti-religious memes, but then she posted something about her astrological sign. I didn't want to give her a hard time about it, but I expressed my confusion as to how she could be such a firm atheist and yet give any credence to astrology. I ended by explaining that the reason why I don't believe that me being a Sagittarius has any significance is the exact same reason why I don't believe in a god.

Obviously, a person can be an atheist and not be a skeptic. I think that's a little hard for people like myself, who started out as skeptics and found themselves becoming atheists as a result, to understand sometimes. I'm not quite sure what motivates people to become atheists otherwise. Perhaps it's that they simply don't like what religion has to offer, and they don't feel enough pressure from their friends and family to get involved with one. Maybe they had bad experiences. I don't know, but it seems like an interesting bit of compartmentalization to reject the idea of a God yet still believe in ghosts, for instance.

Let's also not forget the fact that there are a lot of atheists out there who might be skeptics when it comes to the supernatural, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're on the right side of science. Take, for instance, Bill Maher. I have such conflicted feelings about this guy. When he discusses religion and politics, I find myself in agreement with him, and I think that he has a great way of cutting right to the heart of the matter in a humorous way. Sometimes he goes a bit over the line, but I'm fine with that. When I have a real problem with Maher though is when he goes anti-science, in particular his statements about vaccines and GMOs. I ask you now, my fellow atheist, would you feel comfortable living in a world with a bunch of Methodists who vaccinate and don't work toward preventing potentially life-saving GMOs from going to poor people? Or would you rather be around a bunch of atheists with whooping cough?

So, yeah, it might be great to imagine a world with no religion, as John Lennon explained, but getting rid of religion doesn't mean that we'll suddenly be in a more rational world. If it's not coupled with skepticism, then we might be exchanging one kind of absurdity for another. This is why trying to spread atheism is ultimately pointless if you're also a skeptic. So, consider me unimpressed that there are more nonbelievers out there. I'll be more hopeful when I see other irrational beliefs go on the decline.

This is why we should concern ourselves with encouraging people to think skeptically. It's the sort of thing that ultimately works against religion, and all sorts of other tribalistic ills like nationalism, Atheism will come with a more skeptical outlook, and if there is good reason to believe in a god, then skepticism will bear that out as well.

It doesn't convince you either!

A few days ago, I was having a conversation with a Christian apologist who was working on a series of videos that would provide evidence for the existence of God. During the conversation, I asked him if he would no longer believe if he would change his mind if I could conclusively show that each of his bits of "evidence" were, in fact, not evidence. (I've done this rodeo before. They don't have "evidence" so much as "arguments", and there isn't one that I know of that doesn't rely on some sort of a logical fallacy.) He told me that even if I was able to convince him that his arguments were bad, he wouldn't become an apostate.

I found this to be pretty curious. If those are supposedly the reasons why one should believe in God, then why would you keep believing if all of those reasons were shown to be false? Obviously, the bits of "evidence" that he was going to give weren't the reasons why he believes at all then. That's fine, but why even bring it up if it's not what convinces you?

I try and make the case for all sorts of things that some people don't believe: evolution, climate change, the safety of GMOs, etc. However, all of the reasons that I give are the reasons why I accept these things to be true. If somebody showed me that all of my reasons for believing in climate change, for instance, were actually false, then I would have no choice but to change my mind.

Likewise, if I found that all of my objections for not believing in a God were shown to be faulty, then I would have to become a pure agnostic at the very least if not a full-on believer. I don't just say things like that there is no evidence for God's existence just because it sounds convincing. I genuinely believe that to be true! And when I say that the arguments for God's existence rely on logical fallacies, I'm not just giving a sweeping dismissal of the other side's arguments. I genuinely think that this is the case, and I think that I can effectively point out where the fallacy is in each instance. If somebody can show me just one instance where I'm wrong on that score, then I'll have to take at least a step closer toward belief.

I don't think that this phenomenon is so unique to religion either. People like to pick a side and stick to their side in various debates and disputes. If they think that they have a talking point that will "win" the argument, then they'll use it, even if the truth of that point is in serious question. For instance, I don't think that anybody who says that "The United States is the greatest country on the face of the Earth" is genuinely interested in finding out what might disprove that. Even if they give reasons why (like all of that freedom, ya know) they're not going to change their minds if you show those reasons to be fallacious.

If you genuinely care whether your beliefs are true or not, it's important to understand and question why you believe what you believe. Are the reasons you're giving the actual reasons? Or do you just think that they will sound convincing to others?

Giving The Bible to kids

I have no problem identifying myself as an atheist, but there are times when I find myself disagreeing with what seems to be the majority of my fellow nonbelievers. While we all see things the same way when it comes to the God question, we don't always feel the same way regarding how to treat believers or even how to regard The Bible.

I read a story recently that was linked to an atheist Facebook group that I follow. The point of it all was that there's another affront on the part of Christians toward nonbelievers. What happened? Apparently the Gideons came to an elementary school and handed out Bibles. A mother protested, and she found that the rest of the community was against her and were all for kids getting copies of The Bible. 

Let's get a couple of things straight. First of all, I don't think it's appropriate for any religious (or even a non-religious) group to come to a public school in order to hand out anything. Secondly, I don't think that the school went about this in a very good way, as the kids who didn't want a Bible had to all stand aside for the other kids to get one, which would draw attention to them.

Aside from that though, I just can't find myself getting too upset about all of this. I remember when I was a high school student, there was a guy passing out copies of The New Testament. He didn't say much other than letting people know what it was that he was handing out. When I got home, I read it cover to cover and decided to give my life to Jesus Christ. I got down on my knees and prayed to Jesus for forgiveness.

Actually, the only part of that story that's true is the bit about the guy giving me The Bible. I took it home, probably read a little bit of it, and then I lost interest and forgot about it. This is probably more than what will happen with these elementary school kids who took a copy of The Bible home with them, unless their parents have already indoctrinated them into Christianity. And if that's the case, chances are pretty good that they already have a Bible in their home.

I guess I just don't understand what some folks seem to be afraid of. I know that some atheists bridle a bit at this scenario because they personally have bad memories from when they were believers. Also, they don't like the idea of their kids being indoctrinated into a religion. But seriously, who converts simply by picking up The Bible and reading it? If anything, I hear from people who became atheists when they tried to read it, but it's probably even safer to say that most folks give up on it when they try to read it. They probably lose interest somewhere around all the "begats".

Maybe this might sound strange, but I just don't see The Bible as a piece of religious propaganda. If it was, then there would be no need for religious tracts, preachers, and proselytizing. The Bible would do the job all on its own. Just try and put yourself in the position of somebody who was raised on a deserted island (yet could somehow still read) and never heard of Christianity. Do you think you'd convert simply by reading The Bible? Would it be the talking snake that would make you think that you were reading the word of a supreme being?

Are believers able to use The Bible to confirm their beliefs? Absolutely. But I've heard a lot of conversion stories, and they rarely involve picking up The Bible and reading it with absolutely no other outside influence (family, friends, etc.) 

If I found out that somebody gave my son a Bible at his school, then the only thing that might annoy me is the fact that we already have one, and we don't need the clutter. Either way, I would hope that my son would say either "thanks" or "no thanks".

Christians often speak about The Bible as though it's some sort of magical book that has the answers to life's problems. Nonbelievers sometimes treat it like the Necronomicon from the Evil Dead movies, and even opening it will bring all sorts of ruin. Neither extreme is justified by what it actually is - a book of myths. Some parts are great bits of mythology that reveal universal truths. Some bits tell us about the culture(s) that produced it. Much of it is tedious minutia that has little relevance to anybody who isn't specifically a Biblical scholar.

Still, it would be nice if somebody stood a little further down the block handing out free copies of The Odyssey.

The Theory of Everything and Atheist Tropes

My wife and I saw The Theory of Everything last week, and I didn't get a chance until just now to sit down and write about it. Since it's been gestating in my mind, this is going to be more than just a straight-up review, as one of my concerns going into this film was how they were going to handle the atheism of Stephen Hawking (the subject matter of this biographical picture, for those who don't know what this is about).

Why would I be concerned about this? After all, it's just one aspect of the man's life, and some would argue that it's not even the most interesting part. It probably wouldn't be too wild of an assumption to say that even Hawking himself wouldn't find that aspect of his life to be all that important. He's not an atheist activist. If anything, he's an activist for science and reason, and this has led him to conclude that there simply is no need for a God's existence. So, what's the big deal?

I think it's important for the same reason that Johnny Cash's Christianity was important in his biopic, Walk the Line. It's not all there is to the man, but he came from a spiritual household, and music and spirituality were intertwined for him. Also, one of the best parts in that movie is when his record company tells him that he shouldn't perform in a prison because his audience wouldn't like it, since they're mostly Christians. Cash's response to any Christians who think that he should stay away from sinner? "Then they're not Christians!" It's there, and it would have been a disservice to completely neglect Cash's religious feelings. I can't speak for everybody, but I certainly didn't feel that the movie was preachy.

I didn't want some sort of anti-religious screed for this movie, but I didn't want the movie to skip over what his conclusions were when it came to the God question. (I skip the phrase "how he feels" because Hawking himself has said, and the line is in the movie, that it "doesn't matter" how he "feels".) I feel that it's important for a few reasons:

1. The man is easily the most, if not one of the most, prominent scientists, and his area of expertise is
how the universe came to be. You'll hear a lot of talk from certain religious quarters that somehow the idea of God is bolstered by science, even though nothing could be further from the truth. Hawking understands, and is able to explain, how the universe came to be, and if he doesn't see the need for a creator, then you need to do more than dismiss him with a wave of the hand if you're to challenge him on that - especially from a scientific perspective.

2. As most people know, he has ALS, which had doctors predicting that he'd be dead within a few years of the diagnosis. (That diagnosis was in the early 1960s.) A common thing that atheists hear is that people find their belief in God when they are suffering hardships and need Him the most. (Which never strikes me as a good argument - it's essentially an admission that the idea becomes more appealing when you're in a state that makes you less rational.) Call me crazy, but being confined to a wheelchair and having a computer do your talking for you strikes me as a pretty severe hardship. Yet the man doesn't complain, and I even remember an interview where he described himself as being "lucky" because so many people with ALS have it even worse than he does. The fact that he has this disease and remains so positive is a pretty clear demonstration that there isn't a "need" for a God even psychologically speaking.

3. Atheists make up a small percentage of the population, and we don't get to see many of us portrayed in a positive light in the media. Oftentimes, in fiction, atheists are seen as being "broken" somehow, and the resolution of the story is that they eventually find their way back to belief in God. You get that, or you get an atheist who's cynical and generally pretty surly. The worst though is the one who claims to be a "skeptic" even though he/she lives in a world where the supernatural is consistently meeting the burden of proof. Of course, with Hawking, we're not dealing with fiction, but considering the way Hollywood usually handles atheists, I was worried that even though they'd present his views correctly, there would be some sort of undercutting of his ideas in the last few minutes.

So...how did it do? Turns out that my concerns were unfounded. Not only is it a terrific film in general, but it dealt with Hawking's atheism exactly how I would have hoped. It's a part of his overall story. Even better, the religious people in his life, like his wife, were treated with respect. The movie made both of their feelings known without taking sides. Maybe some would argue that point, as the movie ends with Hawking giving his answer to what his life philosophy is since he doesn't believe in a God. However, the movie is primarily about him, and his philosophy might be atheistic, but it certainly isn't anti-theistic. I get the feeling that Hawking doesn't give the God question all that much thought, but he'd be willing to if given some compelling evidence.

Even more important than presenting atheism accurately, the movie showed what the scientific view of the world really is. There are a lot of strawmen versions of that in the media, as people with a scientific mindset are usually shown as being closed-minded and practically worship science as a religion, rejecting out of hand anything that doesn't fit into their paradigm. What this type of representation misunderstands is that an evidence based worldview allows for the possibility for pretty much anything, provided that there's evidence for it. If anything, it's the most open-minded point of view. One of my favorite parts was when Hawking explained how once he tried to prove his black hole theory, his next mission was to set about DISproving it! This is the key thing that's different from a religious-based versus a reason-based worldview. You don't go looking for things that prove you right, as that's nothing more than an exercise in confirmation bias. The point is to accept the idea that you can be wrong about anything, and, as Hawking said, how you "feel" about what's true is irrelevant.

I realize that I'm really narrowing in on one slight aspect of the film, but there are plenty of professional reviews out there if you want that sort of a thing. As I stated already, the movie is fantastic. I found myself tearing up pretty regularly throughout. If I wasn't getting misty-eyed because of his hardships, I was getting emotional because of his triumphs. He's definitely an inspiration for a number of reasons, and I'm glad to add Stephen Hawking to my list of personal heroes.

I do think that the film should have ended with his rap battle against Einstein though:

Multiple monotheisms

A talking point that gets thrown around a lot when discussing the major Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is that they all worship the same God. Usually, the point in bringing this up is to encourage tolerance and acceptance among the three groups. While I don't want to crap on the idea of people getting along, I do feel like this is a disingenuous talking point. It's not quite as bad as those who try to accommodate other beliefs with the "it's true for me and that's true for them" talking point, but it bears more analysis than it usually gets.

Sure, they all have something in common. They all begin with the same God who kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, told Noah to build a boat, and made a covenant with Abraham. They all accept the story where Judah Ben Hur told the King of Siam to let his people go (or something like that). So, same God, right?  I'm not so sure.

According to Jews and Muslims, God is one and indivisible. According to most Christians, God came down in human form as Jesus Christ, and he is split into the Trinity, giving you three gods for the price of one. (Christians will insist that they have a monotheism, but honestly I think that the Muslims and Jews make more sense when they think of that concept as being decidedly polytheistic.) So, the very nature of this same God they believe in is different. If I told you that I owned a certain kind of animal that was a mammal, and you said that you had the same one but it was a reptile, would you think that's the same animal? (That might not be the best analogy. Work with me here. The point is, how can a Trinitarian God and an indivisible one be the same thing?)

Perhaps you think that's a nitpick, but we can go on from there. Jews don't even recognize Jesus at all, but for Christians, he's easily the most important part of the whole concept. The sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for salvation and what everything in the Jewish scriptures was leading up to. Jews don't even believe that humanity needs the kind of salvation that Christianity claims that we do. Plus, tehy can give you an entirely different interpretation of their own scriptures. (But hey, what do Jews know about the Torah anyway?) So, supposedly it's the same God who has two completely different concerns regarding what his creation needs. How is this the same being?

The difference between Christianity and Islam is similar, as Muslims absolutely reject the idea that God came down in the form of a man and "died". They also do not accept that God can be split into a Trinity. Unlike Jews, they do believe that Jesus was a prophet and he plays an important part in their overall theology, but to say that a guy's not God is saying something drastically different than saying that he is God.

I'm not denying the historical link between all three of these religions, but they each define their deity in such different ways that it's like they're not even talking about the same thing. Even when you start to break it down by denominations/sects/schools of the three main faiths, you still wind up with a singular God who's described in so many different ways that it's hard to imagine that they're all talking about the same being. Are the Orthodox Jews correct and the creator of the world gives a crap about mixed fabrics? Seems like a different sort of personality from the being of Reform Jews who is more hip with changing times. One way or the other, he certainly can't be both.

Of course, Christians aren't off the hook. We can go as extreme as Mormonism (which is arguably more different from mainstream Christianity than Islam or Judaism when you've got a God who used to live on the planet Kolob.) And it sure doesn't seem like Methodists are talking about the same guy that the Westboro Baptist Church rant on about. Same name? Yeah. Same being? I can't find my way to that conclusion.

Even in the earliest days of Christianity, there were strikingly different views as to what Jesus even was. Some considered him to be fully God. Some considered him to be more along the lines of an "adopted" son. It's like they weren't even talking about the same thing, just many different ideas that they all wanted to call Jesus.

Despite the fact that all these Gods stem from the same source, there is reason to believe that this is hardly a unique phenomenon. The Norse goddesses, Frigga and Freyja, are considered different goddesses, but there is reason to believe that they might have evolved from one singular goddess. With enough time and distance between related peoples, its not so strange to have that sort of a thing happen. You'll also find similarities in gods from different cultures. For instance, the Slavic god Perkunas shares many of the same attributes as the Norse Thor, as they both control the thunder and lightning while riding goat-pulled chariots in the sky. It's not so unlikely that the two descended from a common ancestor, if you'll pardon the evolutionary wording of that statement. (It should be noted that they have a lot of differences as well - but I'd argue that their differences are no greater than the differences you'll find within the Abrahamic faiths.)

I realize that as of this point, I've probably completely lost most theists, as I'm treating Yahweh/Jesus/Allah the same as any other mythological deity. But if you're with me so far, then consider that there has been at least one study which shows that people who believe in God generally tend to think that God agrees with them on important issues. It's pretty rare to meet two theists who see God in exactly the same way, but even when they're close, they'll ultimately be describing somebody who's more their idealized self than anything else. I've noted this before when it comes to Jesus, as people (even some atheists and agnostics) will talk about how wonderful he is, but they're essentially describing a character that they've invented in their heads, only borrowing the bits of the New Testament that they like.

I realize that it's a very inclusive, accommodating point of view that creates this idea that all of these people are worshiping the same being. Some will take it even further and say that basically any idea, be it Hindu, Sikh, Zoroastrian, deist, etc. of a deity essentially amounts to the same thing. While the motivation might be a good one, it ultimately trivializes one hell of a lot of history and a great deal of cultural diversity.

I once debated a Christian and I spoke of how there are other gods, but the Christian kept insisting that there is only one God. I tried to make it clear that while I understood that, according to his belief system, there is only one God, there have been thousands of gods that have been worshiped all over the world for a long, long time. He wasn't having any of it. But honestly, now I'm not even sure that I agree with as much as I was willing to grant him. Yeah, people might be using that generic term "God" and think that they're all talking about the same thing, but I can make an argument for many different monotheisms - perhaps even one for each theist out there.

Why do atheists seem so angry?

Do you believe in God? Do you sometimes wonder why people who don't believe in God seem so upset sometimes? Maybe I can help clear things up for you.

Let's get one thing out of the way before I continue though. Sometimes atheists aren't upset at all, even when they're being told that they are upset. For instance, there's a story that was making the rounds online recently about how atheists are supposedly enraged over a song by Carrie Underwood. This has a lot of Christians wondering why atheists would get so mad just because somebody would sing about their religious beliefs. The thing to notice though is that no actual atheists have been quoted as being mad about the song at all. In fact, the only response I've been seeing is not a response to the song but a response to the original article. In other words, atheists aren't upset about the song, but they are baffled as to why they're being called upset.

There's also a lot of exaggeration out there about things that supposedly upset us. Some comedian had a whole bit about an atheist who got offended because somebody said "Bless you" after he sneezed. Is it possible that there are atheists out there who would take offense to that? I suppose, but I think that I'll go out on a limb here and say that most atheists don't care, and many of us still say it reflexively.

Still, sometimes atheists seem upset, and sometimes they genuinely are. While I'm not the first person to explain why this happens, let me give a few possible explanations:

1. We feel like we've been duped.

Imagine what it's like to be married for twenty years only to find out that the person whom you thought was faithful to you was actually leading a double life and was cheating on you the whole time. This is how many people who are just coming out of faith feel. We feel like this idea, which we trusted to be true, has turned out to be a colossal lie.

I realize that if you are a believer, your response is that it's not a lie, so we shouldn't feel that way. But that's not my point. Even if we're mistaken in our belief that it's a lie, the point is how we feel about it. Nobody likes to be tricked about something that's important, and what can be more important than the fate of your immortal soul (if there was such a thing)?

2. We feel like those closest to us don't care.

Oftentimes, when a person loses their faith, it's due to a long process that involved a lot of reading and soul-searching. When they reach the conclusion that there is no reason to believe in a God, they want to go out and share this information. Their motivation is the same as yours would be if you found out that a particular model of car would explode if somebody barely bumped it from behind. You'd want people who own this car to know the truth. At the very least, you'd want some sort of good explanation as to why this isn't the case. Now imagine that people responded by explaining away the evidence or completely ignoring all together; instead, they chose to keep driving that death-trap.

I realize that many theists feel this way about when they share their faith. They think that they have some important information to tell those who don't believe in their religion. I've even heard Christians say that they proselytize because they want to "save people". I have no doubt that their intentions are sincere, and if you're a Christian, then you should be able to understand this frustration perfectly. Now, the question as to who's actually right is another story, of course, but hopefully you can see what I mean.

3. People don't even attempt to understand what we're saying.

Let's stay with the defective car analogy. What if you told people about this car, and their responses went like this:

"Why are you so angry at this car manufacturer?"

"You just say this because you love bicycles."

"So, are you saying that mayonnaise isn't healthy?"

None of those things have anything to do with a car that will explode, do they? How frustrated would you be if people responded this way? You'd probably start shouting and flailing your arms, I'd imagine. Well, this is how we feel when we get responses like this:

"Why are you angry at God?"

We're not. We'd have to believe in him to be angry at him. Many of us think that if he was real then he would be pretty awful, and it makes us angry that anybody would want to worship such a thing - but this idea can coexist with not believing that he's real.

Also, we're sometimes angry at believers because they want to enforce laws based on what he supposedly wants, but they aren't even able to demonstrate his existence in the first place. (And oftentimes, what this god wants is to treat certain groups of people unfairly.)

Do you want to make an atheist happy? Then respond as follows, and it doesn't require you to compromise your own beliefs:

"So, you don't think that a God exists, and you don't see any good reason to believe in one?"

From there, don't assume that they haven't considered the reasons why you believe. Chances are good that they have, and they find those reasons entirely unconvincing. (And in some cases, you'll even learn that there once was a time that they found those reasons to be compelling.)

4. Believers often create a false narrative.

This idea is related to the first one. I've had people assume many things about me, like how I must have had some bad experience, or I don't want to be held accountable for my actions and would rather "live in sin", or the most frustrating: I don't believe because I'm biased.

These are all untrue, and the last (most frustrating) one ignores that I started out with a bias to believe in God. If a bias is that strong, then how was I able to change my mind? Certainly a bias can explain why people stick to a particular position, but it's false to assume that's the reason why, and I think that I can demonstrate why it's not a matter of a bias that has me feeling the way that I do.)

Perhaps this isn't intentional on the part of the believer, but these sorts of narratives - along with the ever-popular "You're just going through a phase" - enables the theist to completely dismiss what the atheist is saying without having to consider any of their actual arguments.

And that, along with all of the other reasons I mentioned, can be very frustrating. Frustrating enough to make us a bit angry.

Talking religion with my four year old

I got a chance to hang out with my son, Logan, quite a bit today. We played some Just Dance on the Wii this morning, and then he played with some of my old toys while I arranged my comic books. My wife went out with a friend to dinner, so the two of us had dinner together and later rode our bikes to the playground.

Sometime during the day, I heard him say something about "the gods".

I asked him, "Who are the gods, Logan?"

He just looked at me, a bit puzzled that I expected him to know the meaning of the words he uses. Where did he get such a phrase? Probably me, as I sometimes say ridiculous things like "Because it's the will of the gods!" when I know that I have no actual justification for doing what I'm doing.

He answered me with, "I don't know."

After another pause, he asked, "Who are the gods, daddy?"

My response was that many people used to believe that many different gods created the world and the sun, moon, stars, and so on. I then told him that most people nowadays believe that there is one God who created everything, including people, dogs, cats...

"And horses!"

"Yeah, and horses."

Logan then changed the subject. He had a Transformer in his hand, and asked me if I could turn it into a robot. He was clearly done with this topic.

I would like to point out that I didn't say anything about what I believe, for the simple fact that he didn't ask me. I also didn't make any mention of whether those people are right or not. I just stated something that's a pretty unarguable fact.

I have written a few times before about religion and the indoctrination of children. A religious friend once posted on Facebook a quote that went along the lines of how it's important to teach your children HOW to think, not WHAT to think. I responded by saying how I don't know how one can do that while raising a child to believe in a certain religion.

The thing is, a religious person could answer my son's questions the exact same way that I did without compromising their own faith. 

But would they? I'm not so sure.

Doubt is a virtue

Oftentimes when a person dies, you'll hear that he or she was a person "of faith" listed along with their accomplishments and virtues. When they say this, they're specifically talking about somebody who held on to some sort of religious faith and/or faith in something that's supernatural. I think that considering faith to be a virtue is a mistake, but rather than criticizing faith - which would automatically turn off a lot of potential readers - I'm going to start by praising doubt.

I think that some folks might get a bit confused by the word "doubt" though. Obviously, you don't want to get so crippled with doubt that you're unable to do what you need to do. In other words, if you have a particular job to do, you don't want your doubt to stop you from doing it. However, there's nothing wrong with the doubt itself. For instance, I'm a teacher, and I doubt myself all the time. I sometimes wonder if I have even the slightest clue what I'm doing. I don't let that stop me from getting out there and teaching the class though. I listen to my doubts, but that's not the only thing going through my mind. To give an example, I had a former student - a particularly smart one at that - thank me recently for what I taught her, as she said it really helped her in college. That's but one example of what gets me through. I also know that I have a pretty good track record of being able to do what I set my mind to doing, and I know that when it comes to teaching, it does depend on some of my personal strengths. Still, the doubt is good, as sometimes I have some bad ideas, and if I never had any doubt, I'd never take the time to get rid of them.

There have been times in my life when I could have used a little more doubt. Years ago, my wife and I refinanced our house. My dad went along with us to listen to the spiel of the lender, and he told us that we shouldn't trust that company. We went ahead and did it anyway, and we wound up getting a pretty crappy deal. It could have been worse though - my dad's initial skepticism wound up getting us an even better deal than they were initially offering. Still, my dad told me to walk away, and I should have listened to him.

The reason why it's important to listen to your doubts is that we human beings have a tendency to believe what we want to be true. I really wanted to believe that some random company wanted to seek me out to give me a great deal. They managed to make it all sound very legit. I also really want to believe that a Nigerian Prince wants to hook me up with several hundred thousands of dollars, but lucky for me, that has all the hallmarks of a scam, so it doesn't require a lot of sifting through the facts to determine that it's bullcrap.

When you feel that doubt coming on, that means that your brain is working, and at the very least, you need to give it some consideration. Also, if somebody expresses to you that they have doubt about something, even if it's something you believe in very strongly, your reaction should be to listen to what they have to say. Why? Because their ideas might lead you to the truth of the matter.

Even within religious traditions, there is the precedent for doubt and questioning being a virtue. What if Martin Luther never doubted the teachings of the Catholic Church? Where would Christianity be today? If you're Catholic, and that doesn't impress you, then take a look at the life of Jesus as written in the Gospels. He questions a lot of conventional thinking at the time. You can find the same sort of thing with Mohammed and even The Buddha. 

Unfortunately, and this is the part where I badmouth faith, the problem with today's religious traditions is that while they praise the questioning that spawned their traditions, they don't think that it should be questioned any further. When a believer tells another believer that he or she is doubting the faith, they aren't met with a "Oh yeah? Why is that? Maybe you have a good reason for it." Instead, they're told to pray or they're told to read something that will reconfirm the bias that they already hold.

The problem with being told to pray about one's doubt is that it assumes that there's something wrong with the doubt in the first place. But if you've followed my train of thought so far, you can see how even in religious tradition doubt is not necessarily a bad thing. This kind of thinking, that one must ask God to "help" deal with the doubt makes it sound like there's something wrong with the person who's feeling the doubt. They've got something that needs to be expunged. What if that doubt is leading to some truth though? The believer isn't encouraged to even consider that as a possibility.

Have a look at the story that I included (on the image with the pumpkin). It lists "doubt" along with "hate" and "greed" - things that are "yucky" and need to be thrown away. (I'm with it on the second two things.) What kind of a horrible message is this to send to children? I told my son that it was a monster that was making gurgling sounds at the swimming pool (it was the filter). He just laughed at me and said, "No it's not, daddy." I couldn't have been more proud of him. Also, the day that he figures out that Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. aren't real will be a cause for (mild) celebration, as it will show that he's got a brain and he's using it.

And if he ever doubts something that I firmly believe, I'll ask him to tell me his reasons. From there, we'll try to get to the truth of the matter, and either I'll be able to show him the error of his reasoning - or he will show me the error in mine.

But is it a religion?

Want to drive an atheist nuts? Call atheism a religion. You'll probably get some of the standard comebacks like:

Atheism is a religion like "off" is a TV channel.

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hairstyle.

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

My personal favorite analogy, which I remember reading a long time ago on Usenet, said that calling atheism a religion was like saying the following:

You don't have tuberculosis, which means that you have non-tuberculosis, a form of tuberculosis.

I'll admit that I get in a bit of a huff when I hear that atheism is a religion, and those things spring to mind. For me, I find it hilariously ironic when a religious person says it in an insulting way. "You're criticizing religion? Well, you're in a religion too!" Seriously? Your best defense essentially admits that there's something wrong with your position when you accuse the other person of doing the same thing.

Anyway, now that we've covered the standard responses, let's see if I can come up with some original thoughts and unpack this notion that atheism is a religion. First off, I will fully admit that atheists can be just as prone to tribalism as any other group of people. But is tribalism necessarily the same as religion? People can be tribalistic about sports teams, but are we going to say that being a fan of a sports team is the same thing as being religious? I'm not quite willing to go there, and I imagine that both atheist and religious sports fans aren't likely to want to equivocate like that.

I think that my issue with calling atheism a religion stems more from me being a fan of clear language than being an atheist. I've already written a blog post about what atheism is and what it isn't, but in a nutshell, all atheism reveals is how a person feels about whether there is a god or not. There just isn't much to it, if you think about it. There are atheists who believe in ghosts. There are atheists who are skeptics. There are atheists who are humanists. There are atheists who are nihilists. In other words, it's too narrow of a criteria to even call it a belief system, much less a religion.

Part of the problem no doubt comes from the notion that most people in the West automatically associate the question of a god's existence with religion. There seems to be this false assumption that religions all deal with that question, but there are religions that don't give much thought to it at all, and there are some that are completely atheistic, including Taoism, Confucianism, and some forms of Buddhism. You also have some Jews who practice all the religious rituals yet are technically atheists.

Let's take just atheistic Buddhism as an example. If atheism is a religion, then what is their religion? Is it atheism or is it Buddhism? Sounds like kind of a silly question, doesn't it? I'd reckon that most of us would say that Buddhism is the religion and atheism is just one aspect of the religion.

And if atheism is a religion, then does that make theism a religion? I know plenty of people who believe in a god of some sort, but I wouldn't say that suddenly makes them members of a religion or even religious - especially when they don't engage in any rituals or subscribe to any sort of divinely revealed moral code. If you're going to say that atheism is a religion, then it makes just as much sense to say that theism is one as well, but I have a hard time believing that anybody is going to make that particular argument.

Lastly, the part that doesn't sit right with me is that it's kinda like saying that you're going to be part of a religion no matter what. You believe that God came down in the form of man and died for your sins and you need to confess them in order to be saved? You're religious. You don't believe that? You're religious too. What?

Ultimately, my problem is that by simply calling atheism a religion essentially makes the word "religion" pretty useless. I realize that there's some debate as to what might qualify as a religion. There are adherents to beliefs like Confucianism and Humanism who will argue that they're better classified as philosophies rather than religions, and honestly, I kinda side with them. I could probably do a whole blog post on that alone. But the point is that religions usually offer a set of beliefs, not just one. Also, they often involve rituals, authority figures, and revealed knowledge. Many of them also have special days that require special observances.

The simple act of not believing in any of the various gods that have been proposed being a religion? It doesn't include any of those trappings, and I just can't see my way to that conclusion.