A Professor vs a Student, via Facebook.

I recently spotted a photo on Facebook that was accompanied by what appears to be a transcript of a conversation between a Student, and a Professor. In it, the Student and Professor debate the existence of God. I thought I would share this important debate with you. My thoughts are in read, for your viewing pleasure.

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ? 

Student : Yes, sir.  

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ? 

Student : Absolutely, sir. 

Professor : Is GOD good ? 

Student : Sure. 

Professor: Is GOD all powerful ? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm? 

(Student was silent.) 

Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor: Is satan good ? 

Student : No. 

Professor: Where does satan come from ? 

Student : From … GOD … 

Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it? And GOD did make everything. Correct? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor: So who created evil? 

(Student did not answer.) 

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they? 

Student : Yes, sir. 

Professor: So, who created them ? 

(Student had no answer.) 

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD? 

Student : No, sir. 

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD? 

Student : No , sir. 

Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter? 

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t. 

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him? 

Student : Yes. 

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? 

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith. 

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has. 

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat? 

Professor: Yes. 

Student : And is there such a thing as cold? 

Professor: Yes. 

Student : No, sir. There isn’t. 

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.) 

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
[“Cold” is a relative concept, like so many other concepts that we have (bald, tall, short, skinny, fat, long, wide, etc), meaning that it’s use and definition are relative to something else. In this case, when we speak of “cold,” we are referring to a level of heat that is relative to what we normally experience in our normal, everyday lives; we’re also referring to the sensation that is “cold,” which is also relative to individual experience. Think about how someone from Hawaii might find 50 degree Fahrenheit weather to be cold, but someone from Minnesota just after winter has passed might find 50 degree weather pleasantly warm. “Cold” then, is the term we use to describe a certain level of energy, not just its absence, as well as a particular sensation.] 

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.) 

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness? 

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness? 

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
[Since “darkness” is also a relative concept, referring to the amount of light present in a particular area as compared to a level of light that lets us see normally, “darkness” does, in fact, exist as a relative concept. And when my room is dark at night, I can actually make it darker, simply by taking steps to block the various sources of light that allow me to see, however slightly.] 

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ? 

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed. 

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how? 

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. [As were you, Student, when you called God “good.”] You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. [Whether or not God is a finite thing doesn’t matter, so much as whether the effects of an existing God can be measured, and determined to most likely be caused by God, and not some completely natural force. So far, no such effects have been identified.] Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. [And once upon a time, science couldn’t explain gravity, sound, where babies come from, or why some people have blue eyes instead of brown. Now it can. The only appropriate response to a lack of understanding is “I don’t know” or “I’m not able to explain that.” Saying “I don’t know, therefore the answer is God” is intellectually dishonest at the very least.] It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. [“Death” is certainly the absence of life, but it's a term that is used to refer to the absence of life where life previously existed. We do not call rocks “dead,” because they were never alive. In other words, it’s one of those relative terms again.] Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey? 

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do. 

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? 

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.) 

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. [Wrong. Evolution has been observed at work, both in the lab and out of it. Scientists are, in fact, able to demonstrate very conclusively that evolution is an on-going endeavor. Check that link for a few examples, or just google "observed evolution."] Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? 

(The class was in uproar.) 

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain? 

(The class broke out into laughter.) 

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
[Evidence. To be fair, the Professor sort of set himself up for this, by not being clear that science relies on evidence, sometimes indirect evidence, and not just the five senses. For example, we can say that every time a human skull has ever been opened up for examination, there’s been a brain in there. We can also say that every time we’ve used advanced technology to peer inside a human body, there’s been a brain in there. The Professor, presumably, is human, and therefore we can say, with a very, very, very high degree of probability, that he has a brain. Other things that we use indirect evidence to be aware of include radio waves, microwave energy, odorless and tasteless poisons, and the love of a parent for their child.] 

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.) 

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son. [It’s not faith, it’s confidence based on a high degree of evidence. And the disbelief in God is based on a severe lack of evidence. The disbelief in an all-powerful, all-good God is based on the evidence that there is no all-powerful, all-good entity interfering in the world in any way that an all-powerful, all-good entity would be expected to: preventing cancer, natural disasters, random birth defects, and all other forms of suffering that humans may be unable to prevent, but an all-powerful being could do something about. If an all-powerful being exists, it is clearly NOT an all-good being.] 

Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving. 

[Faith tells us nothing, it demonstrates nothing, and is never a good reason to believe. It does not keep “things alive and moving,” and if faith is the only link between man and God, then there is no link between man and God.] 

P.S.
I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?
Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.
By the way, that student was EINSTEIN. [Citation seriously needed. Maybe it really was Einstein, or maybe this entire conversation was made up. Regardless, the Student is wrong, and the Professor didn’t do a very good job of calling him out on it. For example, the Student never did address the problem of evil that the Professor brought up.]

So, what do y'all think?

Does religion do more harm than good?

So, earlier I wrote a response to an article called "Myth 2: Religion Does More Harm Than Good," sparked by an exchange on Facebook. In that response, I simply went through the article and pointed out the good and bad parts. I didn't actually address the question "Does religion do more harm than good?" That's what I aim to do now. Of course, there have been entire books written on this subject ("God is Not Great," by Christopher Hitchens, for example), so it's unlikely that I would be able to properly address this question in a single blog post. It should also be noted that it's unlikely I can do this without treading ground already walked by others, but I'll do what I can in giving a (relatively) brief answer.

Before I begin, it would be helpful if I define how I'm using religion. This may seem an obvious thing, but the definition has been debated before. So, the definition I'm using is as follows: religion is  a belief in supernatural forces and/or entities that have an effect on the natural world. It's a belief in entities or forces that are undetectable by any natural means (invisible, inaudible, etc). And yes, I'm blatantly stealing that definition from the one Greta Christina uses in her talk "Why Are You Atheists So Angry?" It's useful, and tends to be how we see religion playing out in the real world, rather than in sociological circles (not that sociological definitions are necessarily bad, but the ones I've seen are so broad you could toss in love of a sports team and have it match).

So let's start with a look back at a few things in the "Myth 2" article. Father Williams had this to say:

Hitchens and company claim to follow the Gospel principle of judging a tree by its fruits, but as for the tree of religion, they consider only the rotten fruits, never the good ones. The innumerable saints, geniuses and benefactors nourished by the Christian faith simply count for nothing. 

In making their case, Hitchens and company refrain from considering the almost countless ways that Christianity has benefited the world as we know it today. 

What of the hospitals? What of the orders of nuns established to care for the dying or educate young girls? What of the soup kitchens and orphanages? What of the preservation of classical culture? What of the artistic and literary treasures?

Let's start with hospitals. I really don't need to enumerate the good that hospitals have done, but I'll list a few points anyway: setting broken bones, treating cancer, helping heart attack victims, and oh yea, saving lives. Lots and lots of lives. This is the case for secular as well as religious hospitals. This is unequivocally a good thing. However, in December of 2010, Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a hospital, St. Joseph's, of it's Catholic affiliation because the hospital performed an abortion for the purpose of saving a woman's life. From the letter the Bishop sent to the hospital administration:

I now ask that CHW agree to the following requirements by Friday, December 17, 2010. Only if all of these items are agreed to, will I postpone any action against CHW and St. Joseph’s Hospital. Specifically, I require the following in order for me to postpone any further canonical action directed against St. Joseph’s Hospital: 

1. CHW must acknowledge in writing that the medical procedure that resulted in the abortion at St. Josephs’ hospital was a violation of ERD 47, and so will never occur again at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

The abortion in question was performed to save a woman's life when she developed severe symptoms of pulmonary hypertension. She was dying, and without the abortion, she would die. Plain, and simple. There was no saving both. Yet, the "good" Bishop is requiring a promise that it would never happen again, even if it was the only way to save the woman's life. (I recall seeing an article written by a woman who went through a circumstance that sounded just like this, including the five kids, Catholic hospital, life threatening pregnancy, and reluctance on the hospital's part to have the abortion performed, but have been unable to find it. It might have been the same woman, but have been unable to find it. Anyone have a link to it?)

That Bishop uses his religious views to claim authority to let a woman die. He apparently wants all the Catholic hospitals to follow his authority in this matter (his letter is full of his claims to authority). That's a whole lot of harm, right there.

But there are other goods that religion does. For example, orders of nuns who take care of the dying and educate young girls. Mother Teresa is perhaps the most famous for taking care of the dying. She founded the Missionaries of Charity to care for the poor and sick, believing that she was following a calling placed on her by God. Here's a quote from Mother Teresa, which was given in response to a question at a 1981 press conference:

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

That passion for suffering was on display in her 'hospices.' She did not provide painkiller, even in the worst cases. She felt that suffering was a way to be closer to Jesus. In other words, her religious views provided a very direct harm to people.

Moving on. In 2004, The Salvation Army threatened to close all of their soup kitchens in New York City if the city enacted legislation that would've required them and other businesses that deal with the government to provide benefits to the partners of gay employees. That's thousands of homeless who would've been affected. According to one Army official, "You cannot change theological views. Those are so deeply embedded, they form the root of the faith itself." The Salvation Army thinks gay sex is wrong, and was willing to cause harm to the homeless as a result.

I have very little to say about the preservation of classical treasures, or of the artistic value of religiously inspired pieces. Those things are important, although it's an open question if they're more important than the other, very real harms I've mentioned. I would however note that for the longest time, the patrons of artists were religious (and truthfully, probably the artists themselves), so it's hardly surprising.
_______________________________________________
But all I've really done so far is list some examples of harm caused by religion, using Father Thomas Williams's questions as a jumping off point. I have not yet shown clear reason to think religion does more harm than good, on balance. So, let me do that now. For this next part, I'm indebted to Greta Christina and JT Eberhard, as well as William K. Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief" (1877), specifically for making arguments that inform my views on this.

There is one thing that religions everywhere have in common: Faith. Now, before I go further, let me define how I'm using that word in this argument:

the belief in something without sufficient evidence to warrant belief, or the belief in something when the evidence contradicts the belief

Keep that definition in mind when you read my argument. "Faith" is often used in normal discourse to refer to things unrelated to religious belief, spiritual beliefs, or anything else that definition might refer to. For example, a husband might say to his wife "I have faith in your abilities" when she's worried about a job interview, or a college test, or some such. His "faith" in such a case could be better described as confidence, a confidence based on past experience with her, in which he's seen that she's talented, skilled, and good at what she does. Or, in another case, he might say "I have faith you haven't cheated on me," and in such a case "trust" is what he's actually talking about, based on the evidence of his experience with her, in which she's demonstrated integrity, and that she loves him enough to maintain the monogamy they've agreed to. I'm sure you can think of other examples. The point is that to avoid confusion and the fallacy of equivocation, I need to define how I'm using the word.

Anyway. Religion of all sorts have as a base faith. This faith underpins not just the factual claims of a religion ("God created the Universe, and us," "There's an afterlife," "We are judged upon death to determine if we belong in heaven or hell"), but also the moral claims that are supposed to follow from the factual claims. When you believe that God exists, and believe that God has moral authority, and dictates how we spend eternity, then you have good reason to follow the rules that you believe God has laid down, no matter if they conflict with your own thinking and reason.

Faith inspires people to do many things. It inspires people to be honest, to give to charity, to be generous, avoid violence, and to have hope. It also inspires people to engage in bigotry, oppression of women (see "Does God Hate Women?" by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom for an excellent showing of exactly how religion oppresses women, even today), oppression of homosexuals, child abuse ("spare the rod, spoil the child"), and ignorance of science:

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

It may seem that the balance is coming out in favor of calling it equal in the question "Does religion do more harm than good," but I don't think it is. Faith provides a cop-out of any question. It let's you claim "It just feels right," "It makes me happy," or "I had a dream" as valid reasons for believing basically anything. Even when this leads to a positive, agreeable conclusion, such as "Don't rape women," it's still dangerous. If the reason that you agree with "Don't rape women" is because you think women are, in all but name, the property of their fathers first, and then husbands after marriage, rape becomes a matter of property vandalism, rather than a violation of a woman's right to control her body and sexuality. And if your reason for believing that is "God declared it so" and your reason for believing in God is faith, then faith has become a serious problem. Arguing against the premise that women are property is going to be very difficult, maybe impossible, if your faith tells you that God is the dictator of morality.

It's not just the extreme views in which faith can become a problem. If you have faith in karma, and that everything will work out all right in the end, then there's a strong chance that you won't do everything you need to do to help everything work out in the end. You're more likely to do all that's necessary if you consider that not everyone has a happy ending, and good people do have bad things happen to them, and that bad things sometimes never go away before death.

Of course, it's possible that if religion didn't so very often treat faith as a virtue, and advocate for it, that the dangers of faith could be minimized. I don't know, but I would certainly like to see a world where we tried that out for once, a world in which this quote by William Lane Craig didn't make sense to apparently 64% of the American public:

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.

 Yet, that is the world we're in. A world in which faith, and therefore religion, harms far more than it helps.

Something positive

Recently I've been challenged. I've been challenged to not just talk about what I'm against, or what I don't believe, or what I'm angry about, but to talk about and present things that I'm about, positive things. What do I value, in other words? So, ok, that sounds like something I can get behind doing. But before I do that, a little defense of talking about things we're against, and don't believe.

It is not always possible, or even a good idea, to avoid discussing what we're against, or don't believe. If I support universal health care as a secular humanist, then I have to respond to those who do not support it. I have to say why I don't believe that the free market will lead to everyone getting the health care they need, and why I'm against extreme libertarian viewpoints as they relate to health care. If I believe that we should follow the evidence in forming our beliefs, and I live in a world that overwhelmingly is filled with people who think it's ok to believe things, important things, without evidence to back it up (or even against evidence, in the worst cases), then I need to speak against the latter. It is not enough to simply speak for the former if I want to make the case, but rather I must say why the latter is wrong.

But anyway, moving on to the good stuff.

I'm a secular humanist. I seek to live in a society in which no one is coerced into following the creeds and practices of any religion, and in which no one's ability to follow their religion is suppressed. This protects everyone's rights: mine, yours, and that crazy guy on the corner with a megaphone.

I'm looking to be in a society that supports and encourages reason, critical thinking, logic, and the scientific method. The power of reason and science is impossible to deny. Just look around at the marvels that have been the result of men and women studying the world around us, and applying what they learn! Heart transplants, cancer treatments, the eradication of smallpox, deaf people gaining hearing, amputees walking again with artificial legs, and that's just the medicine! You're reading this on a technological marvel that is running multiple algorithms in the background in order to coordinate the colors, the layout, the music you might be playing at the same time, the antivirus software that you have running in the background, and so much more. With programs like Skype, we can communicate face to face with people who are on another continent. And if we ever wanted to get together in person, we can take a plane and cross oceans in less than 24 hours. As a species, we know more than we ever thought there was to know about the universe, about other stars and galaxies and worlds. We know so much as humanity, that no one person could ever hope to learn more than a small fraction of our accumulated knowledge. All because of reason, critical thinking, logic, and science.

I have hope. I know there are many reasons that I have to be cynical, untrusting, and angry. But I also see people who work hard to make a world in which those reasons will be minimized, and that gives me hope. When I write about the things that I'm against, and that I don't believe, it is because of my hope that I do so, and not because of my anger. I have hope that those writings, and the actions and writings of others, will move us toward a brighter world. Science continues to advance our knowledge, and as such I have hope that the children of the world will have longer, healthier, and better lives than my generation, and the generations that have come before me. I do not know or believe that any of these things will happen, I have no faith in the future, but I most assuredly have hope.

I have meaning in my life. That meaning comes from sharing my thoughts with others, with discussing and debating the things we agree and disagree on. It comes from the work I do with the disabled in my job. It comes from sharing and building a home with my wonderful wife. It comes from my friends, who are the family I choose. It comes from listening to Greydon Square rap about moving forward and Onward, despite any resistance offered. It comes from Tim Minchin singing about sipping White Wine in the Sun at Christmas with his family. It comes from staying up late to write posts like these, or comment on posts at other blogs.

I seek to be an ethical, moral person. I analyze, I judge, I put myself in other's shoes, all so that I can come to a better understanding of what it means to be ethical, of how to be moral. I care about humanity, and I care about us being better than we've been, better than we are. I believe we must strive for the equal treatment and dignity of all of us. I feel compassion, but seek a world in which compassion is not frequently felt, not because we're all unfeeling assholes, but because the reasons for the compassion have been eliminated. I believe in restraining compassion in favor of respect and dignity, or as the late Christopher Hitchens said "Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others." (Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001))

I have laughter, joy, and love. Few can make me laugh like my wife, who herself laughs often and loud. Little can compare to the pleasure, even the joy, of making her laugh myself. There is joy in visiting my best man and his daughter, my niece. He provides great discussions, cooks an awesome steak, his wife is fun to have around, and his daughter calls me "Uncle Nathan." If you're lucky, you know exactly how awesome it is to hear something like that from a toddler's mouth. That I can bring a huge smile to her face just by walking through the door has been the highlight of many a weekend.

I love stories, especially fantasy. My first rule for a good novel is that the story must be good, regardless of any theme, or even no theme. But if the author manages also to make me think, then that is awesome. I value fantasy not just because dragons are cool, but because it provides a rich medium in which to explore humanity, what it is to be human, how we might relate to each other in extreme circumstances. Fantasy and science fiction stories can be thought of as opportunities to engage in massive thought experiments. How could a society full of amoral, selfish individuals survive and function, if at all? What of a society that sought true harmony with nature? What might it mean to be immortal? Does the method of immortality matter to that question? What happens when certain individuals have power so far beyond normal people as to be almost godlike? And so on, and so forth. But also, dragons and sword fights are just plain cool.

I have not always had a good life. I have been told that the place I thought was becoming a home, would no longer be making me welcome. I have been bullied, shoved, and cruelly teased. I have had to sit back and take it while my family was abused for eight long years, because I was a child, and powerless. I have had times when I was terrified of my anger, and then discovered that I had no idea who I was without that anger when the reason for the anger was shown to be a mistake on my part, and not a cruelty on someone else's part, as I had believed. It took me years to build an identity that was not based in anger (and no matter how often I post something with anger in it, anger is not central to my identity). I have held the knife to my wrist after signing the note. I have swallowed the pills with a chaser of alcohol. I've had a relationship in which I spent months just fighting and having sex. So not healthy. I've wandered the streets at night before, looking for a place I could lay my sleeping bag that would not be discovered by the cops, because I had nowhere to go. I've sneaked onto corporate property and slipped into the back of semi-trailers that were clearly going nowhere, just to sleep. I've sneaked into the garage behind an apartment building, and out at the crack of dawn, ever fearful that someone from the building would see me, and report me, and I would lose my shelter. I've had to clean my pants because I could not find an open, public bathroom fast enough. Being homeless sucks. There are many, many, many people who have had it worse than me, who continue to have it worse than I ever had. I survived. Many have not, many do not, and many will not. I grew. Many have not, many do not, and many will not. But many CAN.

That preceding paragraph is not there to elicit your pity, or your compassion. I do not need either, and I do not want either. It is there so that you can know that when I say I have a life of hope, a life of meaning, a life of joy, and a life in which I strive to be moral, I know what the fuck I'm talking about. I kept my ethics even when I was cleaning shit from my pants, but the hope, meaning, and joy had to come later. I found that meaning through hard work, by examining my emotions, and by applying reason to them. My brain was broken, and medication helped me combat the Severe Depressive Disorder that I had. Therapy and critical thought helped me to combat the thoughts and emotions that contributed to the disorder, and to find ways to live a life of meaning and happiness. I have to continue using those skills every day, because depression is a disease that's never truly gone it seems, but is only in remission. But I persevered then, and I do so now. And like now, there was no "higher power" then. There was me, and the support and assistance of people who helped me. There was science backing the words of my therapist, and science backing the medication prescribed by my psychiatrist. There was love in the hearts of my friends and family. And if you're going through anything like what I went through, please, look at where I was then, and where I am now. Let that be encouragement for you. Because you can do it; you can survive, and thrive.

I believe in the power of people, helping people. I am a skeptic, and a secular humanist.

And I will speak against those who would drag us down, and I will express my anger at those who, no matter how good their intention, would keep us from getting better as a species.

A few quick things

Just a few quick things I wanted to bring to people's attention:

First something I should have mentioned when I talked about my aunt's death. There's now a Facebook page called "Grief Beyond Belief" that's there to provide support and resources to non-believers facing death and other things to grieve about. The religious often have communities to aid them through grieving, but these usually come with phrases such as "she's in a better place" or "they're with God now." Obviously, that's not very comforting to non-believers. So, if you have a need for grief support, or wish to help provide some, or have ideas to help, go there, read the Info page, and if you wish, "Like" it.

Second, another Facebook page (ok, they're all Facebook pages). This one is "Support the Secularity of Public Schools." It seeks to gather together those who support maintaining the separation of church and state in publicly funded schools in the USA, and doing things like keeping non-science such as creationism out of the classroom. One really cool part? The admins are Damon Fowler, Jessica Ahlquist, Harrison Hopkins, and Zack Kopplin. The first three I've talked about before, but I haven't mentioned Zack. Zack's the guy who went toe-to-toe with the government in Louisiana to repeal a law that was clearly a stealth move to get creationism into the classroom again. He succeeded too. Seriously, check out his story, and join the group.

Third, there's a new political party being formed, and they've got a Facebook page, complete with charter and platform: National Atheist Party. Now, I'm not going to come out and say I fully and one hundred percent endorse this. I have a few quibbles with parts of the platform (needs more emphasis on education, for example), and frankly, I'm not sure that this is the best idea for moving forward with the atheist cause, or the humanist cause. But I'm not sure it's a bad idea either. If the goal really is to get candidates that are avowed atheists elected, well, that might be discriminatory as well. I'm personally happy to vote for someone who's not an atheist, so long as I can find sufficient common ground with the candidate's views and policy proposals. I also think the name might backfire from a PR perspective. However, I still appreciate what they're trying to do, and the platform positions I mostly agree with, despite quibbles. Therefore, I wanted to bring this to people's attention, and let them make up their own mind. So head on over there, take a look, and make a choice.

Oh, and one more thing. Apparently, I've fallen from the Light Side and joined the Dark Side, because I signed up for Twitter: @NathanDST. Still trying to figure it out (sorta), and not sure if I'll keep with it, but I'm there for the moment. Do what you want with that info (oh dear, that wasn't a Facebook page, was it? whoops).

Pascal's Wager IS a risk . . . for the believers

Pascal's Wager is used too often by believers (especially of the Christian variety) to challenge non-believers, or warn them, or something. It's been dealt with numerous times in numerous places, and is always found wanting by the very people it's supposed convince. What I have realized though, is that it's also a problem (if indeed it is a problem) for the believers.

For those unfamiliar with it, Pascal's Wager (put forth by philosopher Blaise Pascal), was formulated with the Christian God in mind. It says that when attempting to determine whether to believe in God, it can be approached as a wager, heads or tails. God exists, or he doesn't. If you believe in God and follow his teachings and commandments in life, and you're wrong, you've lost very little -- a few fleshly pleasures perhaps, but not much of consequence. If you believe in God and do as he commands, and you're right, congrats, you get heaven. So it doesn't seem such a bad thing to believe in God. However, if you do not believe in God, and you're right, you gain little over the believer. If you do not believe in God, and you're wrong -- you get hell. Therefore, you potentially gain tremendously by believing, while potentially losing horrendously if you don't believe. The only reasonable wager then is to believe.

I'm not going to bother going through all the usual problems that are put forth with this wager, because it's been done so frequently. Go ahead and Google it,  you'll see. What I want to point out is the problem that I see for believers if they're wrong.

The wager says that there isn't much consequence if you're wrong, and you follow the commandments of God. Well, actually, there's a pretty big risk: the risk that you will cause or support needless suffering and immorality during your life. For example, homosexuality. If the believer follows the teachings that homosexuality is a sin, and uses that as an excuse to deny gay people a chance to love and be loved by their partners, but this is not in fact immoral, then the believer's wager has caused or supported suffering.

If you would like a more obvious example, then consider some of what is done under the auspices of the more fundamentalist Islam beliefs. If those believers are wrong, then things like honor killings, child marriages, female genital mutilation, and other abuses are all completely and utterly without a point. These horrible things will have been done to follow the commands of a non-existent God, causing suffering, misery, and potentially (even likely) caused the believer to miss out on some chances for positive, fulfilling relationships with the people s/he has harmed. I'd call that a huge risk.

Most of us don't like to be mistaken, and most of us don't like it when we make mistakes because of bad information. How much worse would it be to go against our empathetic and altruistic instincts because of a bad wager?

RE: The Law is the Law

It's rare that I bother to open up Forwards in my email. I see that "Fw" tag, and I click delete without opening. This time though, the title made me curious, seeing as it came from a family member, and I wondered if they were trying to tell me something. Let me show it to you.

THE LAW IS THE LAW So "if" the   US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it. And "if" that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it. I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding  US citizen. I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that those people have the American public's best interests at heart.   BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE? Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings,   I don't believe the Government(Federal, State and Local)  and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations   which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life. I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day. I'd like the"  US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays." After all, it's just another day. I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day. I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.   It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."  In fact.... I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God....) because, after all, our government says that  it should be just another day....  What do you all think???? If this idea gets to enough people,maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the "minority opinions"   and begin, once again,   to represent the "majority" of ALL of the American people. SO BE IT........... Please Dear Lord, Give us the help needed to keep you in our country! 'Amen' and 'Amen'

Interesting ideas. Let's discuss!

"I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding  US citizen. I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions. I would like to think that those people have the American public's best interests at heart." --Great! I'm glad you want to be a law abiding citizen. Hopefully our politicians really do have our best interests at heart.

"Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings,   I don't believe the Government (Federal, State and Local)  and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations   which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life." --You can pray to and trust in God all you want, that's one of your rights, and it's a good one. Our politicians are also allowed to do that, privately. Publicly, they are representatives of the government, and it's in everyone's best interest if they don't endorse a particular religious view. Yes, a generic god still endorses a particular religious view, since not all religions have a god (Jainism, for example). However, the bit about not participating in Easter and Christmas celebrations? I'm going to be nice, and assume that you're referring to the public celebrations put on by members of government, and not the employee's private lives. So in terms of the public celebrations, Christmas at least has become decidedly secular, and almost seems like two holidays that just happen to occur on the same day: one, the Christian version, and the other, a secular version. One emphasizes the birth of a mythological savior, the other emphasizes peace, harmony, and family get-togethers. I don't see why anyone would have an issue with the secular version. Peace and harmony? Our government could probably use more of that anyway.

Easter now . . . the eggs and the Easter Bunny suggest that it's not entirely Christian, and indeed, historically many of it's traditions are stolen from older religions, but I'm not sure how secular it's become. On the one hand, it almost seems to simply be a way of celebrating the end of winter, and I personally find that something to celebrate! On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that it's sufficiently divested itself of it's religious traditions, so to have government celebrations of the holiday might be seen as endorsement. Debatable.

"I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day"--Ok, Good Friday is pure religion, so I'll give you that one. Christmas and Easter, see previous comments. But Thanksgiving? Really? You can be grateful without being grateful to God. You can get together with family and friends to reconnect, have a few laughs, and tell people thank you. I see no reason the government should not endorse that, as it's not a strictly religious value.

"I'd like the"  US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays." After all, it's just another day."  --I've commented on the holidays, but now you bring Sunday into it. You're kinda mean, aren't you? Because unless I misread that, you're advocating the Supreme Court work without any days off. I've worked 7 days a week before, and it burns you out after a while. I don't really think it would be good for the country if our top Justices burned out, do you?

"I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day." --Well, that's oh so very nice of you, but I've dealt with this.

"I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.   It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct." --I'll let an economist or an accountant deal with the suggested savings, although I'm thinking you might be wrong (but maybe not). I just wanted to address the way you use "politically correct" in quotation marks, suggesting sarcasm at the popular usage of the phrase. Removing  government endorsement of religion is not just about avoiding offense, as the use of that phrase usually indicates. It's not even mostly about avoiding offense. It's about being a government that is truly for everyone. The majority is not everyone, because it obviously excludes the minority. It's about equality, and believing that you can get fair treatment from the government, even if you're, oh, let's say Jewish, as opposed to Christian. That's a little hard to do if you have government employees giving invocations to Jesus as a part of their job, or otherwise endorsing a religious view that I, or someone else (you perhaps), don't agree with.

"I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God....) because, after all, our government says that  it should be just another day...." --Well, actually, it was the seventh day that was set aside, not the first. But that's just me being petty. I will point out that this would probably wipe out any savings from your previous suggestion (more hours, more employees to cover the more hours, electricity bills from electronics being on, heating bills, etc).

"If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the "minority opinions"   and begin, once again, to represent the "majority" of ALL of the American people. " --I'll emphasize what I already said: It's about being a government that is truly for everyone. The majority is not everyone, because it obviously excludes the minority. Equating the "majority" to "all of the American people" is a gross contradiction, as well as just gross. Are you a minority? A woman perhaps, who's sex has previously been treated as second-class citizens (and still is at times)? Do you think maybe you've benefited from the government ignoring religious views about a woman's place? Are you black, or any other non-white color? Would you agree that you've benefited from secular arguments for equality, as opposed to religious ones claiming you're Cain's cursed descendants? Were you born out of wedlock? Take a look at how bastards were treated historically, with government support, and often with religious justification.

Or are you a straight, white male, with all the presumption of privilege that tradition can provide? If so, then perhaps you should try examining things from the perspective of someone without so much privilege.

Heroes

I have some new personal heroes, people who are inspiring me, adding to my courage, and frankly, renewing hope. Their names are Damon Fowler, Jessica Ahlquist, and Harrison Hopkins. All three have and are fighting to maintain a separation of church and state in our public schools, and have faced trials and tribulations that make anything I dealt with in high school seem minor in comparison. Let me tell you a little bit about them.

Jessica Ahlquist is a high school sophomore in Cranston, RI. She and a friend noticed a painting of a "school prayer" in the auditorium. Eventually, she decided to support the removal of the prayer, and when she had a chance, spoke to a sub-committee meeting about having it removed. Naturally, she thought that they would remove it, since it's obviously a constitutional violation. Well, sadly, she was wrong. After a number of meetings, and various news reports, the school board voted to keep the prayer. Many of her fellow classmates have vilified her and harassed her.  Well, happily, she hasn't given up. She's taking them to court with the assistance of the ACLU. You can find more detail at her blog. The very first post tells the story.

Harrison Hopkins is a senior, graduating this year, at Laurens District High School in Laurens, SC. Inspired in part by Jessica's activism, he contacted the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation last April regarding the plans of his school to put it to a vote whether or not to have a prayer at graduation. See, he understands that even if the majority said "yes," it would still be unconstitutional. After the FFRF sent a letter to the school, the vote and prayer were officially canceled. Despite receiving backlash from his community, he too is continuing the fight. The graduation hasn't taken place yet, so we'll see what happens.

Damon Fowler I've talked about before. A senior in Bastrop, LA, he pointed out the law forbidding prayer at graduation to his school superintendent, said he would contact the ACLU if the prayer happened, and after consulting their attorneys, the school officially canceled the prayer. When Damon was outed as the letter writer, he suffered a "shitstorm" from his community. One of his teachers publicly insulted him in a local paper, he received threats of violence, and even death threats. The worst part? Eventually, his parents disowned him. His story went international, and the outpouring of support, emotionally, pragmatically, and even financially, has been absolutely amazing. Greta Christina wrote up a very nice summation and op ed piece on Damon's story over at AlterNet, and I highly suggest reading it.

So, now let me tell you why I find these three so heroic I would call them "personal heroes," a phrase I have rarely applied -- actually, never. They have taken a stand for what they believe in, despite severe opposition. They have faced up to those who ridicule, hate, and vilify them for being atheists, for wanting to see a separation of church and state, and for daring to speak up. The hardships they've endured are appalling. They've lost friends and acquaintances (and Damon lost family). I imagine that it's been emotionally difficult as hell at times, but they maintain and continue. Not a one of them indicates any serious regret for what they've done, and continue to do. They show a courage I can only hope to mirror. Their willingness to sacrifice of themselves for a greater good, for the rights of everyone (because make no mistake: church/state separation is good for everyone, not just atheists), shows a potential future for America and the world that is bright indeed.

If you want to learn more about these three in their own words, they've got a question and answer bit going on over at Reddit. Here's the link.

----This next bit gets a lot more personal. Stop if you don't want to see it, or you think you don't want to know. Keep going, and you take responsibility for gaining that knowledge.----

Here's the hard part. Heroes, by their actions and stories, call on us to be better than we've been, and to reach for our highest potential. They encourage us to step up and show the world what we're made of. Heroes encourage us to do, rather than simply be. Heroes . . . inspire.

If heroes inspire us to do things, then these three young people must surely have inspired me to do something, right? Yes, but it's not easy. I've lived for a long time with a fear that if my family, whom I love a great deal, ever found out that I'm an atheist, it would be . . . problematic. I've feared the pain that I might cause them, and I've feared ostracism and loss. My family is (so far as I know) Christian, one and all. My grandfather's a pastor, my mother "born-again," etc. When I was given a subscription to Discover Magazine at the age of 13 by my mother, she warned me that if I started talking about evolution, that subscription would be taken away. So, I think I've had good reasons for my fear (that's just one example). And because of those reasons, I've hidden myself from them. I've not directly lied by claiming beliefs I don't have, but I've dodged topics of discussion and kept my mouth shut. When I've written online in forums or comment sections of atheist/humanist blogs, I've done so under a pseudonym, just in case (that's also just in case a potential employer should ever google me). I've been hiding less of late then in the past, and censoring myself less, but . . .

But this means that my family doesn't know me. This means I can never let them be close, know who I am. Yet, I believe truth is important, very important. Truth matters. Reality is better than an illusion. And if three young people not even out of high school can face down entire communities, then I should be able to face my own fears.

Hi, my name is Nathan Salo Tumberg. It's a pleasure to meet you. I believe that humanity is a wonderfully fascinating, evolved creature, that is hopefully still evolving. I believe we have huge potential for good, and huge potential for evil. I believe that we are completely capable of being moral. I believe that meaning is all around us, in the lives we create for ourselves, the connections we make to our fellow inhabitants of this universe. I believe that critical thinking is one of the best tools we've devised, ever. I believe that questions are good, even great, and that discussion is even better. I believe that reality is more important than comfort. I believe that compassion is powerful, and key to morality. I believe in freedom and rights, and that these are worth fighting for. I believe that humanity is capable of being greater than we have ever been before, but I do not know if we will be.

I do not, however, believe that a god, any god, is necessary to, or for, the universe, morality, meaning, hope, or anything else. This life is what we have, and it's up to us to live it. If you don't like what I believe, that's fine. You don't have to. I'm open to discussion, but if you'd rather not, that's fine too. I'm not about to force myself or my thoughts on you.

My name is Nathan Salo Tumberg. Occasionally, I think. Would you care to have a discussion?

Damon Fowler, you have our support

I realize that at this point in time, not many read this blog. But for those of you who do, I hope you'll follow this link, and do anything you can to support Damon Fowler. He has stood up for the law in Louisiana prohibiting a school prayer at graduation, and now not only is the community lashing out at him, members of his own family are cutting him off and denying him the support he needs at this time. Thankfully, his brother and sister are not taking that road, but are standing by him. What he's going through is discrimination of the worst sort. Let's do something about it.

[UPDATE, 5/20] From a post on the Support Damon Facebook page by Jerret, Damon's brother: 

Last night I heard from my sister at rehearsal that Mitzi Quinn, reluctantly and with a bit of malice in her voice, apologized to my brother publicly and privately. When my brother was out of earshot my sister overheard Mitzi speaking to someone else in the administration, she proceeded to insult my brother and talk badly against him. While this isn't illegal, it shows her character

Also, Friendly Atheist has started a scholarship fund for Damon here.  Damon's graduation is tonight, and despite threats of violence and the nastiness from his community, he's decided to walk during the ceremony and get his diploma like everyone else. I applaud his courage. 


[UPDATE, 5/23] Damon made it through graduation without any boos or violence, unfortunately, he still had to endure prayer (Friendly Atheist has the video). It was led by a student, so there may be question about it's legality. Damon has moved to Texas to live with his brother Jerret [correction, 5/26: he's living with his sister Heather], and they are considering their next moves, including possible legal action. 

Response to "Baby, You're a Firework!--Humanism and the Hereafter"

Temple of the Future has a new post entitled "Baby, You're a Firework!--Humanism and the Hereafter." I responded in the comments with a comment of such length, I had to apologize, as it should have been a blog post that I referenced instead. So, I'm going to copy & paste it here, after you follow that link and read James's post.

Ready? Good.

Beautifully written, with wonderful, evocative imagery. When you say “We promote science and skepticism – though more poetically than most,” you clearly mean it, and I quite enjoy it.

Unfortunately, I disagree entirely.

I find meaning in life, yes. I find love and wonder and hope, yes. But the brevity of life I find to be an annoyance sticking in the back of mind, like an itch in the center of your back that you can’t . . . quite . . . reach. It’s an annoyance that if I ponder it too much will turn to frustration. To paraphrase Hitchens, it’s like knowing that I will have to leave the party, well before the party is over.

What I want is immortality, physical immortality. I am not satisfied or comforted by the idea that people may remember me, whether through fame or children. Though fireworks are beautiful, I prefer to stare into a longer lasting campfire, perhaps contemplating, perhaps just… relaxing. I want to be alive when the sun expands to into a red giant, engulfing the earth as I watch from a safe distance. I want to watch my great-great-great-great-etc grandchildren grow and laugh and cry and love and do all that people do.

I consider the shortness of my life, of the lives of loved ones, of the lives of hated ones, and colors become duller, the purple majesty of the mountains loses the power to stun, and the significance of any one action, or life, seems as a spark in the wind, rather than a blaze.

Having said all that, perhaps you will not believe me when I say the following: I love life. I LOVE life. I have known a despair and depression so great that I had the note written and the knife at my wrist. Another time I swallowed pills and chased them with alcohol. And another time before that I admitted myself to a psych ward for a day, because I knew what I would do if I didn’t. I did not love life for those years.

But I survived. Because I survived, I have loved and laughed and danced and sang and had sex and had more pain and then loved and laughed some more. And I’ve learned. Oh, the wonders I have learned! About life’s ever changing, ever evolving diversity! About the strange, strange behavior of particles so small I cannot comprehend it! About stars and galaxies crashing together, releasing energies so vast and immense that not even the sun compares!

And the wonders I’ve yet to learn! What will life be in a million years? How can the descriptions of stellar movements and the tiniest of particles be reconciled? I want to know! I want to be here when I find out! I want to call my friends and family, saying “hey, did you hear about…?” I want science to get off it’s ass and make that dream a reality (oh, how I hope for that)!

Until that day, life’s brevity shall annoy me. But, if you will allow me but another moment, I’d like to quote Tim Minchin: “But here’s what give me a hard on: I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant bit of carbon. I have one life, and it is short and unimportant, But thanks to recent scientific advances… I get to live twice as long as my great-great-great-great uncleses and auntseses. Twice as long! to live this life of mine; twice as long to love this wife of mine. Twice as many years of friends, and wine, of sharing curries and getting shitty at good looking hippies with fairies on their spine and butterflies on their titties.”

 Addendum: One thing I didn't address, but should have, is James's final paragraph, wherein he says:

You could do great things in service to others, as Adams did, and as many others have. So come on – show ‘em what you’re worth! Let your colors burst! Make ‘em go “Ah, ah, AH!” as you shoot across the sky! Leave them all in awe! And when, inevitably, those colors begin to fade, and your trajectory tilts downward back toward earth, do not despair. Do not seek solace in another life for which we have no evidence. Instead remember that you live on, etched onto the retinas of those who watched your marvelous display.

Let nothing that I have said stop you from doing this! That is all.

A Few Statements of principle, values, and beliefs...

1)  I will believe in a god or afterlife when you can show me sufficient evidence that it is no longer reasonable to not believe.

2)  I'll be damned if God actually exists. The Judeo-Christian god is horrible, possessing all the worst traits of spousal abusers, child abusers, and despots. If you somehow convince me that a god exists, and it's that god, I can neither worship nor love that being, and would rather spend an eternity in hell than an eternity in heaven with such an individual.

3)  Moral relativism is logically false and self-defeating. There are right and wrong answers to questions of morality. I challenge anyone to show me a time, place, or situation in which it could be considered ethical to gang rape an 11 year old child.

4)  Secular policy and government protects everyones rights, regardless of belief or lack thereof, as well it should.

5)  My life has meaning, and purpose, and joy, and love, and hope, and delight, and wonder.  All this, and without religion.

6)  My life is my own. It doesn't belong to the government, or any church. I have every right to end it should it become intolerable, or to continue it for as long as I choose and science and reality permit.

7)  I love life, and I have a hard time imagining a time when I will not want to see what happens next, and knowing that the evidence says I will die someday is bloody annoying as hell. I want to be immortal. Being remembered through my works doesn't count.

8)  Some opinions are worth more than others.  An accountant's opinion on the best treatments for, oh, let's say cancer, is worth far less than that of a trained physician.  However, an accountant's opinion on whether strawberries taste better than blueberries is equally as valid as a physician's.

9)  Pepsi tastes significantly better than Coke, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong ;).

10)  What's real and true are more important (and often more interesting) than comforting and pretty illusions.

11)  A magic trick is far more interesting and enjoyable when I know how it's accomplished, and annoying when the magician won't tell me how they did it.

12)  Gay, straight, bisexual, or something else, I don't mind. The sex and love between consenting adults is not something I feel a need to constrict.

13)  Homosexual marriage does no harm to heterosexual marriage.

14)  If churches are going to have a tax-free status, they should be subject to audit like any other nonprofit.

15)  Good education is key to any future that actually does look bright.

16)  Just because something is natural, is not a moral defense of it. Rape may very well be natural, but that hardly makes it moral.

All of the preceding are subject to change based on good arguments and evidence, but that's not very likely.  In their current form, they're mere assertions of course, and at least one is pure opinion that can be readily disagreed with as a matter of opinion.  Later, perhaps, I shall go into more detail on some of these.

Why I'm an atheist

The short answer is: a severe lack of evidence for god, as in, none.

The long answer follows.

First off, one should know that I come from a very religious background. My grandfather has been an Apostolic Lutheran pastor for my entire life, and my mother became "born-again" at some point after getting pregnant. When I was a child, the family would play "Bible Trivia," and I kicked butt because I enjoyed me some Bible stories.

Around about the seventh grade, I started thinking, and one thing that kept going through my head is that the deck was stacked against humanity from the start, if one believed the book of Genesis.  God was omnipotent and omniscient, so he knew exactly what sort of creation he'd made, and the consequences thereof. So, here's Adam and Eve, with one rule to follow: don't eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.  What follows is well known of course, the "Fall of Man." What got me though is that God should've, indeed must have, seen it coming from the very start, and took no steps to prevent it. There are many that could've been done: don't let Satan in the garden, don't make the bloody Tree, make sure Adam and Eve really are obedient and not prone to disobeying just cuz of a few honeyed words, just to name a few.

What this would mean then is that God wanted it to happen, knowing full well he was still going to lay the blame at the poor human's feet and punish them accordingly with pain, misery, and no access to immortality (the given reason for being kicked out of Eden is not the sin itself, but so as to keep them from eating of the Tree of Life). That's an eyeopener for a child of that age. That made God out to be someone rather despicable, as opposed to the loving, forgiving deity I had been taught to worship.

Another way in which the deck was stacked, according to the teachings I had received, is the simple math about the causes of sin: the devil, the world, and our own flesh. The only saving grace was to pray to Jesus to make you a good person, and give you strength to resist temptation. "For all of sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom3:23.  Well, yea, when things are set up like that!

I'm pretty sure, though I don't exactly recall, that before I concluded I was atheist, I concluded first that God just flat out didn't deserve my worship. And this led me to believe that there was no God. Yes, I know, crappy reasoning. God could've existed but really just been that rotten. I make no excuse, except that I hadn't been taught critical thinking in my life.

I won't go into all the details of the teenage years that cemented the "God, if existing, is rotten" idea, and the conversations I had with my Grandfather during Youth Bible Study meetings that didn't help the case for religion. I will say that I gained a better understanding of evolution during that time, which my family's church views as the enemy (when my Mother gave me a subscription to Discover magazine for my 13th birthday, she warned me that if I started talking about evolution being real, she'd take that subscription away -- I kept my mouth shut), and this understanding helped further the belief that God doesn't exist.

I backslid around the time I was 18 or 19, when I had a powerful emotional experience that I believed was my soul touching another. This I took as proof that souls existed, which meant there was an afterlife, and more in heaven and earth than were dreamt of in my philosophy (thank you Shakespeare). I spent the next few years trying to understand that experience, and figure out which of the New Age beliefs, or combination thereof, were right.  I still viewed the Christian god as horrible, so I wasn't about to go there!  However, I continued to read about science, one of the loves that has remained with me since early childhood, and eventually, I simply couldn't maintain the belief that anything genuinely spiritual/supernatural had actually happened to me, or the belief that there was any sort of deity looking down.

So, I became agnostic.  Some more time passed, some more study took place, and eventually, all I could admit to is "atheist."  Frankly I find myself more satisfied with the evidential conclusion then I did with my past views. I have even come to view the world with more wonder and awe than I did when I believed in the supernatural.  Perhaps in a future post I will describe more fully that wonder, that awe, that delight that I experience when looking at the universe through the lens of knowledge.