Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Crop Circles As Art
I am not writing this blog for the 7 people that will read it. I don't expect comments on this blog because it is solely a blog to make me feel better. Apparently according to the google blog tracker most of my readers are from Germany not the United States. What? Why is that happening? Oh well, I love Germany so that's awesome. I want to move to Freiburg, Germany. The really cool sustainable Eco City! I wish America was more like Germany in this way. How many more German followers will I get now for sucking up?!
I love you Germany!
Anyways, the reason I am writing this blog is for me to one day open up, read again, and think - you know, yeah that's right - crop circles are just really cool artwork made by humans.
Let me explain:
Not more than six or seven years ago I was obsessed with UFOs, ancient aliens, abduction stories, and crop circles. So much so, in fact, that I had a crop circle tattooed directly onto my forearm following my ulna bone vertically. The crop circle I decided to get tattooed on my body was from a picture I found in a crop circle book. The picture showed a field in England (some 90% of all crop circles are found here) with a design of an arrow cutting through a circle (which apparently was supposed to mean the Earth) and the caption below the picture said Hopi Indians translated the crop circle to mean ... (wait for it!)
Mother Earth Cries
So there ya go. Another young American white boy gets a deep meaningful tattoo from some other culture tattooed visibly on his body. Don't get me started on my Chinese writing tattoos. That was a crazy time period when I was younger - getting Chinese symbols on your body. I have one that translates to English as (HOPEFULLY!):
Set Apart
... and another that says in English
Temple
I am not full of myself or so self-centered to get something like that, if you were once an Evangelical Christian teenager you will understand. I know plenty of people that went with the crown of thorns tat or the praying hands tat. It's OK. I own my past, but of course eventually I want to have these tattoos covered up with something a little less religious to say the least. I also have the "dove of the Holy Spirit" as a sort of tribal tattoo (gag) around my right arm. If any of you grew up in the Christian alternative rock scene you may remember a Christian hardcore band named "Unashamed". This design was taken from the back of the band t-shirts.
Needless to say, the crop circle tattoo wasn't my first "new age" tattoo. In fact I have a another one - a very large forearm tattoo of Quetzalcoatl. This is the Mesoamerican "feathered-serpent" god that was linked to some of the New Age books I was reading on the Mayan 2012 prophecy. Of course that day came and went and no plumed serpent god came down from the sky. Fun Fact: Apparently some Mormons interpreted Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon as Quetzalcoatl visiting the North American Natives after his resurrection. Weird. Just found that out while writing this.
So if we let the skeptics take on crop circles, let's see what happens. If you would have told me when I was getting crop circles tattooed all over my body that crop circles were nothing more than some crafty corn artists I would have laughed. HOW?! How could they make such complex patterns so quickly (sometimes even overnight!) What about those balls of light found. I never once questioned - why circles in the first place? Clearly circles means man-made right from the start. If you watch a simple compass experiment with planks and rope in a field you will see what I mean. In 1991 self-professed creators of most crop circles Doug Bower and Dave Chorley came clean with the public and created a crop circle using just those simple tools in front of journalists and cameramen. Since then the copycat artists have taken off and there has been nearly 10,000 crop circles reported in the last third of the 20th century.
Crop circles are essentially graffiti in corn or barley fields. Just as owners of residential or business buildings are pissed off at graffiti artists for tagging their walls, farmers are pissed off at crop circle artists for smashing their crops. I mean, come on! Who wants to eat smashed corn?! If agribusiness engineered pest resistant corn (BT corn) then they should be able to create crop circle maker resistant corn. No? Does that joke work here? Anyways, just like with really good graffiti, art attracts tourists and this can be problematic to everyday business.
The crop circle designs became increasingly more complex. This is where I stepped in as a believer. This is what convinced me. Well, this and the myriad of "documentaries" on extraterrestrial origins of crop circles. How can these complex geometrical designs be man-made with some boards and rope? The crop circles in the early 2000s were very complex and had fractal designs. However, it can be done. Some have suggested that the circle makers use GPS and lasers to create these intricate mathematical crop circles.
I would not have understood things this way back when I was not-so-skeptical about things, but the fact of the matter is crop circles are most likely made by circle maker artists of human origin. All one simply has to do is weigh the evidence. There is countless evidence of "pranksters" or humans creating crop circles. In 2004 a circle maker was caught in mid-creation of a crop circle in the Netherlands. Bower and Chorley explain how they made circles in the English countryside. Many other examples of humans creating crop circles count for evidence of a human origin, obviously. On the other side - the paranormal side, we have no scientific evidence presented. The scale is lopsided and we can clearly distinguish who the author of these crop circles are by looking at the evidence or lack thereof. As cool as it is to think it is either just the "hive mind" of collective humanity telling us to stop global warming or space ships passing through our dimension, the real artist is a man with some boards and rope. Throw in a laser and GPS or two and you'll have your culprit.
Sadly, I did not learn this before tattooing a big black crop circle on my forearm. But oh well. All joking aside, I still like my crop circle tattoo. It shows character and it reflects a time in my life when I felt so passionately about something I thought (and many others with me) was a deep mystery. I can also view my crop circle tattoo as cool crop graffiti made by some rebellious artists in England. His or her heart must have been racing as they smashed the crops down quietly in the night with boards strapped to their feet after tracing out patterns prepped before hand. These is the modern Nazca Line artists. It is meant to be seen from high above and it's really prettying cool. I like my crop circle tattoos and I think I'll keep it. Now time to get that "the Moon landing was a hoax" forehead tattoo removed.
This was one of the most powerful paranormal crop circle documentaries I remember:
"Crop Circles: Quest for Truth":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4e_wlLb_kk
Meet Germany's sustainable Eco-City:
http://grist.org/slideshow/2011-07-29-freiburg-a-model-city-in-germany/
Here's my tattoo:
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Thoughts on Death and Dying from a Relatively Young Healthy Atheist
We are going to die and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred? - Richard Dawkins
As I write this Aubrey de Grey and his fellow Biogerontologists are exploring ways to turn us from humans to transhumans. We are, in the decades to come, going to understand our cellular biology so well that we will be able to end or greatly push back this annoying problem called death. Aubrey de Grey and his fellow scientists are exploring regenerative medicine, which is a process of regenerating or replacing human cells, organs, or tissues in the body. This is done by replacing damaged tissue and/or by stimulating the human bodies own repair mechanisms to heal previously irreparable organs or tissues. I was lucky enough to attend a speech by Michio Kaku recently where he spoke of the future of humanity. Among computerized wallpaper, computerized contact lenses, and invisibility cloaks he also mentioned harnessing our biology. We already have 3-D printers printing prosthetic limbs and creating vegan "beef" in the lab for those that don't eat meat, the world of tomorrow is going to be very different. Death will more than likely be a thing of the past.
So I am dating myself while writing this. If for some reason this blog entry survives decades from now and people look at it, it will be in historical context of "oh that's when people died. How weird it must have been for these people." Hopefully, as we all wish this anti-aging discovery will be made available before I die. Of course my luck, it will be discovered and presented for public consumption as I'm 85 years old. So I'll forever be stuck as an 85 year old man all hunched and bitter. Stuck forever - bitching out those damn kids and their bell-bottoms and Jimi Hendrix (because you know it will have looped back around for the 6th time by then and become popular again).
I was talking to my atheist friends recently about death and I mistakenly said that I was terrified of death. They mentioned how they were not terrified of death at all. Are you terrified during Delta Sleep? When the blackness takes over you are neither here nor there. You die every night and we don't live our waking lives in a panic that we will eventually have to go into oblivion later that night when we lay our head down on our pillows. What I was really saying was, like most people, I'm afraid of dying. The process of dying is terrifying. It's the not knowing part of it. The various ways to die are endless. I could die violently and painfully (which is by the way the way most species of animals have died on this planet in Earth's history – A pleasant thought!) or I could die peacefully at an old age of 84. I could die slowly of cancer (odds are high in this country. Plane crash death - odds are low. Car crash death - odds are higher. Do you ever think about how fragile life’s moments are? When you are driving around town, looking briefly at your iPhone or flipping radio stations get that freakish realization that you are driving this hunk of plastic/metal at ridiculous speeds (that weren't really meant for our fragile human frame in case of impact.) It's terrifying to suddenly pulled yourself out of the thick veil of "I'm of course going to be fine as I drive 75 miles an hour down this uneven road" and realize, holy shit this is really happening right now.
Recently "This American Life" aired an episode called "Hit the Road". Act one was about 23-year-old Andrew Forsthoefel and his journey to walk from the east coast of the U.S. to the west coast, interviewing people along the way about what they would tell their 23 year old self if they could. He went through five pairs of shoes and met all kinds of people, recording with his hand held tape recorder their stories. He talks about different types of walking he experienced: speed walking, fear-walking, weep-walking. As he reaches the last hundred miles of his journey he describes his "weep-walking" euphoria. He expresses how he was haunted by the thought of "The End", the end of his journey, yes, but really the end of his life. Tears rolled down my eyes as he poetically examines what coming to grips with one's own death feels like.
As a Christian I believed that the end was not really the end, but the beginning. Yes, it was the end of this life on planet Earth with these bodies we inhabit, but it was the start to a new life. It was a life of being close to God and his Son Jesus Christ. As a Christian I believed Jesus died for my sins (that I inherited at birth - by just being born a human being). This, as I was told, was the single greatest act of love possible. The ultimate sacrificial Lamb - we've probably all seen The Passion of the Christ by now. The bloodier the depiction, the more real your gratefulness becomes as a Christian. This is the ultimate reward as a Christian - getting to go "home" (heaven) to be with Jesus and to thank him for all eternity for what he did for me and
all other Christians.
Well, needless to say, that's sounds terrible now. As an atheist I don't agree with the doctrine of Christianity at it's very opening act. - Original sin. If I do not accept the doctrine of original sin, I certainly don't need "saving" from it. For me, now, the whole story crumbles before it even gets going. So here I am as an open atheist. I’m no longer ashamed. I’m not in the closet about it anymore. So what do I think happens when I die? Nothing of course. We “sleep” forever. Does our consciousness move on? From what I can deduct consciousness is rooted in the functions of our brains and when we die, our brains die. There is zero evidence that our "souls" move on. There is no evidence for a "soul" in the first place. Maybe that would be nice, but that is wishful thinking without evidence to support it. So we can say these things if it makes us feel good, but it must not be treated as anymore than fantasy. As long as we are clear on this. My friend once rightly pointed out that one of the single greatest selling points to Christianity is playing on this "fear of death". It's essentially spiritual "afterlife insurance". Of course there is no evidence for this, but we are fearful animals that need comfort in our predicament of being alive and being conscious of our own demise. This may be uniquely human and it comes with understandably a whole heaping helping of fear.
What is so bad about "nothingness" when we die? Our body breaks down into the elements and feeds the worms, bacteria, and other organisms that will eventually be mixed with water and gases and be burned up billions of years from now when our sun dies. And then the elements that made up our bodies will spread across the cosmos far from this solar system and who knows, we can postulate that those molecules that made up our bodies will one day make up the body of another planet, maybe even another species. Maybe even some distant day billions of years away an intelligent being on some other planet will look up at the stars and realize that that molecules making up its body came from distant stars and planets far away. They came from you. Maybe we came from them?
The most mindboggling thing I can think of at times is getting tiny glimpses of geologic time and juxtaposing it to our primate perception of time living less than ten short decades on this planet. I once wrote this regarding our perception of geologic time and our place in it:
We are animals, living organisms, evolved. We are one species among millions of others here on this planet. A sense of entitlement has greatly hindered us. It has masked our potential and obstructed our ability to put everything in our universe into perspective. You are the ever-changing result of long twisted shells of Time. So rarely really changing we can't even use the word "changing" really. And I say Time with a capital T because I am attempting to express billions of years. Understand where you are, when you are. We are in a universe filled with grandfather black holes and great great grandmother red dwarfs. Over and over like clockwork before there were clocks, and then there are stars, and stars, and stars, and more stars, everywhere, all of the Time. There are stars being born and stars violently dying. And that's just this galaxy. That's just this universe. There are billions and billions of stars, and quite possibly billions and billions of other universes, and long membrane super-strings which could be parallel universes right next to your face at this very moment, and between all of that - a massive amount of empty space - just nothing. And even what we think of as solid, an atom... is Mostly (and I say Mostly with a capital M) empty space. So then here's the Earth – blue, green, growing... for now, but in time-lapse photography this planet is a blink of bluish-green light that flickers then dies out. It’ s been less blue in the past and it will be less blue in the future. I think it’s absolutely imperative that you grasp the endless folds of Time here. Once you get that you can get some sort of frame of reference on what a fraction of a nanoparticle this all is, just passing through. Aren't we all just passing through quickly, really?
When I think about discoveries in cosmology, biology, genetics, etc I have to sit back and bask in a wowed trance. It is enough. I don't need magical stories of elves, unicorns, talking donkeys, burning bushes, a sacrificial God-Son, resurrections, or reincarnation. I don't need to go any further to these extraordinary claims without evidence. It’s enough for me to be able to see back in time at galaxies forming after the big bang with my own eyes through a telescope. What we know because of evidence in the sciences is profound and inspiring enough. Let's just stop for a moment and bask in the discoveries of science, get chills, have our hair stand on end, and smile like a fool. Scientific discoveries are magical enough. Miracles
Well, needless to say, that's sounds terrible now. As an atheist I don't agree with the doctrine of Christianity at it's very opening act. - Original sin. If I do not accept the doctrine of original sin, I certainly don't need "saving" from it. For me, now, the whole story crumbles before it even gets going. So here I am as an open atheist. I’m no longer ashamed. I’m not in the closet about it anymore. So what do I think happens when I die? Nothing of course. We “sleep” forever. Does our consciousness move on? From what I can deduct consciousness is rooted in the functions of our brains and when we die, our brains die. There is zero evidence that our "souls" move on. There is no evidence for a "soul" in the first place. Maybe that would be nice, but that is wishful thinking without evidence to support it. So we can say these things if it makes us feel good, but it must not be treated as anymore than fantasy. As long as we are clear on this. My friend once rightly pointed out that one of the single greatest selling points to Christianity is playing on this "fear of death". It's essentially spiritual "afterlife insurance". Of course there is no evidence for this, but we are fearful animals that need comfort in our predicament of being alive and being conscious of our own demise. This may be uniquely human and it comes with understandably a whole heaping helping of fear.
What is so bad about "nothingness" when we die? Our body breaks down into the elements and feeds the worms, bacteria, and other organisms that will eventually be mixed with water and gases and be burned up billions of years from now when our sun dies. And then the elements that made up our bodies will spread across the cosmos far from this solar system and who knows, we can postulate that those molecules that made up our bodies will one day make up the body of another planet, maybe even another species. Maybe even some distant day billions of years away an intelligent being on some other planet will look up at the stars and realize that that molecules making up its body came from distant stars and planets far away. They came from you. Maybe we came from them?
The most mindboggling thing I can think of at times is getting tiny glimpses of geologic time and juxtaposing it to our primate perception of time living less than ten short decades on this planet. I once wrote this regarding our perception of geologic time and our place in it:
We are animals, living organisms, evolved. We are one species among millions of others here on this planet. A sense of entitlement has greatly hindered us. It has masked our potential and obstructed our ability to put everything in our universe into perspective. You are the ever-changing result of long twisted shells of Time. So rarely really changing we can't even use the word "changing" really. And I say Time with a capital T because I am attempting to express billions of years. Understand where you are, when you are. We are in a universe filled with grandfather black holes and great great grandmother red dwarfs. Over and over like clockwork before there were clocks, and then there are stars, and stars, and stars, and more stars, everywhere, all of the Time. There are stars being born and stars violently dying. And that's just this galaxy. That's just this universe. There are billions and billions of stars, and quite possibly billions and billions of other universes, and long membrane super-strings which could be parallel universes right next to your face at this very moment, and between all of that - a massive amount of empty space - just nothing. And even what we think of as solid, an atom... is Mostly (and I say Mostly with a capital M) empty space. So then here's the Earth – blue, green, growing... for now, but in time-lapse photography this planet is a blink of bluish-green light that flickers then dies out. It’ s been less blue in the past and it will be less blue in the future. I think it’s absolutely imperative that you grasp the endless folds of Time here. Once you get that you can get some sort of frame of reference on what a fraction of a nanoparticle this all is, just passing through. Aren't we all just passing through quickly, really?
When I think about discoveries in cosmology, biology, genetics, etc I have to sit back and bask in a wowed trance. It is enough. I don't need magical stories of elves, unicorns, talking donkeys, burning bushes, a sacrificial God-Son, resurrections, or reincarnation. I don't need to go any further to these extraordinary claims without evidence. It’s enough for me to be able to see back in time at galaxies forming after the big bang with my own eyes through a telescope. What we know because of evidence in the sciences is profound and inspiring enough. Let's just stop for a moment and bask in the discoveries of science, get chills, have our hair stand on end, and smile like a fool. Scientific discoveries are magical enough. Miracles
are nature being nature. Cheap magician tricks like turning water to wine or casting demons into a herd of
pigs are laughable in comparison to microwave background radiation, sunspots, the Aurora Borealis,
volcanoes on Jupiter’s moon IO, photosynthesis, or cellular respiration.
All life (estimated 99.9%) that has ever lived on planet Earth has gone extinct. Think about that. Death is the default position. "We are going to die and we are the lucky ones." Why are we the lucky ones? We are the lucky ones because most will never be born. All the possible combinations of DNA sequencing and YOU were born. The odds are astoundingly not in your favor of being alive, and yet you are! Will Homo sapiens be the one species that uses its superior intellect to outsmart the one thing we know for certain more than anything else? - All living things die. Let’s hope so, because I, for one, don’t want this Show to end.
All life (estimated 99.9%) that has ever lived on planet Earth has gone extinct. Think about that. Death is the default position. "We are going to die and we are the lucky ones." Why are we the lucky ones? We are the lucky ones because most will never be born. All the possible combinations of DNA sequencing and YOU were born. The odds are astoundingly not in your favor of being alive, and yet you are! Will Homo sapiens be the one species that uses its superior intellect to outsmart the one thing we know for certain more than anything else? - All living things die. Let’s hope so, because I, for one, don’t want this Show to end.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Religion Doesn't Poison Everything: Case in Point? - Me.
In my last blog entry I mentioned a Christian friend of mine named Dan. When we had our debates a few years back he asked me about my atheism. He mentioned the obvious truth - my overexposed religious upbringing caused my rejection of theism. He mentioned how growing up in the Baptist church/school environment for my entire childhood was probably not healthy. In fact, he stated that he thought that the Christian education I received wasn't adequately "Christian" enough or "proper" scholarly Christian enough. My issue with my religious upbringing stems almost solely from the education portion of my childhood. It's one thing to teach a child in Sunday School that Jonah lived in a whale, but it's quite another thing to talk about Noah's ark in biology class in junior high or high school. To compound the problem, the Christian school I went to at the time was drastically understaffed with credited teachers in the fields of mathematics and science. We had a great English teacher. I know she was good because those specific classes were actually memorable and she actually pushed us to learn. When I took my ACTs I found out just how poor my math skills were. I'm still playing catch up in college to this day. It wasn't necessarily like this every year, but some years were more understaffed in certain subjects than others. The philosophy was sacrifce quality of education for a "christian" education. (and censored education) - such as American history, for example. I know, I know Fox News would not approve of me learning a single critical thing about American history.
I have spoken often in my blog about my ferocious loathing of Christian education in place of public education (as the sort that I received). I can blame this "leg down" on life all I want, but of course in perspective just by being born a white male in twentieth century America gives me the biggest "leg up" possible. So I'm not devoid of perspective on this, and I don't fault my family for sending me to this school. Many may find that hard to believe, but I honestly do not hold a grudge. It was what they felt right at the time. I, of course, wouldn't send my kids to a evangelical school instead of public school. My father (as I've stated in previous blog entries) is very religious. My mother is a Christian. However, I am not sure if she goes to church as often as we all once did. My mother and I do not talk about religion. This isn't to say we couldn't some day or that it may just be my fault for being so afraid to talk about my disbelief with her. It's nerve-racking being an atheist when the rubber meets the road with a religious family. It's very, very uncomfortable as some of you may know. That's probably why a lot of families don't discuss these things if they disagree. It sure is much easier if you are not outspoken about your atheism or especially anti-theism. I do think being an atheist in this day and age is much easier than it used to be. In some ways it is like "coming out of the closet". Not quite as drastic as coming out as a gay man or lesbian, but awkward nonetheless with religious family members. It has generally been forbidden to discuss such things at the dinner table - such things as doubt in Christianity itself. Books by Dawkins and Harris have helped mainstream this idea of disbelief and skepticism being finally more socially acceptable. And no matter how many anti-neo-atheist books I read there is no denying that this push back towards religion in this country has helped. The latest polls show the nonbeliever group is now skyrocketing as fast as Christianity is declining in America.
As of late, I have become a little more on my heels about my anti-theism. I can't get this idea out of my head presented in Frans de Waal's book. It's so simple and not really all that profound but it shook me a bit. He says, "The central issue of atheism, which is the (non)existence of God, strikes me as monumentally uninteresting. What do we gain by getting in a tizzy about the existence of something no one can prove or disprove?" I can think of a counter argument to this - clearly there must be a pushback against the majority of religious indoctrination being shoved in our face in this country. Religion being taught in the science classroom via "intelligent design". Religion effecting women's rights to choose what to do with her body or stem cell research, etc. However, Waal is right. When we elevate above this centuries long debate between God or no God we see it's really sort of a non-issue. Religion does poison a lot of things in modern society. It could actually be a social vestige from our evolutionary past. It destroys our critical thinking skills, it robs us of our money, it brainwashes our children, it subjugates women and homosexuals, it flies planes into buildings, and gets us thinking unscientifically when we take the dogma as mandate from God or the "holy books" as literal, but above it all - it's really a non-issue. We live in a world where most people may need to take their eyes off of their Facebook accounts, set down their iPhones, turn off their Monday Night football, shut off the reality TV, and think a little more deeply about things.
I focus so often in this blog on the "bad" in my life - the religious indoctrination, the untruths, the poor science education, etc, but what did I gain from my childhood? My parents were and still are very supportive and loving parents. We always had food to eat, provided by my father working at his factory job. Did you know my father made most of the furniture in our house? He also plays the piano and was really good at basketball. He doesn't play anymore, but he is an excellent golfer. He is hilarious to be around and he's one of those people that you can make laugh and laugh til the point that they are so red in the face they look like they will explode at any moment. I love my father a great deal.
And My mother. What can I say about my courageous, self-sacrificing, loving mother? She stayed home when we were younger which probably is the greatest single cause for my brother and I turning out as decent as we have. I am clearly not perfect, and have my flaws like many others, but overall my mother and father did a tremendous job raising my brother and I. My mother knows children. She should have been a child psychologist. She understands exactly what they need (even the troubled ones). I love hearing her amazing stories from her pre-school job she works at now. She conquers problem kids, she gets them to love her and she does it all with class, grace, and dignity. She is strict but loving at the same time, and children are drawn to her like a magnet because of this. So the question is what positive things came from my Christian upbringing?
1. As I just mentioned my mother stayed home with us when we were children. In my opinion, this was probably the greatest single factor that aided in our successful upbringing. My loving mother stayed home with us as children. She didn't take us to a nursery or send us to the babysitters. We still are very close with her and love her deeply. I don't recall much religious indoctrination at that age but I'm sure Bible stories were told, which seem harmless enough along side stories of the three little pigs and sleeping beauty. Bible stories aren't in themselves wrong. It's just jewish mythology really. It's when we teach them as historical and scientific fact that we start to call that religious indoctrination. Maybe when I have children I can tell them all the fantastic stories from all kinds of different mythologies over human history, not just limit it to the Jewish stories.
2. Sunday school brought fond feelings. I remember my Sunday school teachers using flannel boards to teach us the stories in the Bible. I loved the way the cut out pieces of flannel of Adam and Eve or Noah would stick to the flannel backdrop of the Garden of Eden or Noah's ark. Of course I always wanted to mesh the stories. I was a huge fan of the cartoon "Super Friends" growing up so I enjoyed the all star team sentiment. Only recently have I begin to despise this concept (*An example would be the Miami Heat basketball team.) I also used to think it was so funny to stick Joseph's "coat of many colors" on Samson, or put Daniel's lions in the mouth of Jonah's whale. You get the drift.
3. When I visited my old church recently I was sort of saddened by the lack of entertainment. Maybe everything seemed bigger when I was younger, and I didn't attend a children's service downstairs (which is during the same time as the adult service). The size of the church attendance overall has drastically dropped since I was a kid. Patch the Pirate plays were so fun. I still have those cassette tapes somewhere. Fonda (an attendee of the church that is still currently there and runs the children's ministry) used to do the recruiting. She was the one who was in charge of cooking all that pizza, I mentioned in an earlier blog entry about my recent trip home (just in case you are really following this closely.) My brother and I were always dressed up in some pirate garb every few months for a new "Patch the Pirate" play. She also collaborated with others to present puppet shows to the kids at church. The music was fun and we all had a blast as kids, plus it was my first real introduction into theater and music. Unfortunately I can only get "pirate" gigs in my acting career.
4. The games were also always fun. Competitive sports is a blast. We used to play kickball at school and in church we would have YMCA lock-ins. We had basketball tournaments, and could have had diving competitions in the olympic size swimming pool if I wasn't so terrified of heights. I have fond memories of our Christian school's basketball tournaments. I won a three-point contest at a tournament when I was in junior high. That's right. And a sportsmanship award. So show some respect!! (- because I will obviously show you some in return.) Playing basketball was my obsession then. My Christian school provided me with a sport that had I attended a public school, I would not been talented enough to play, let alone be a starter. Our church also had Monday night "gym nights". Once I began high school I was eligible to join the adults and play against my dad and all his buddies. It was really completive and very fun. Dan was a tough, show no mercy competitor on Monday Night Gym nights.
5. There is a large social benefit to attending a church. Friends and families mix and thus a vibrant community thrives. This is the single hardest aspect of people that become agnostics or atheists. They have to leave that all behind. And we know that human beings are social animals. We thrive off of community. It's what led us to our moralities in the beginning and set up our ethics in the first place. I have friends that I grew up with in church. Some, if not most of which are now non-practicing Christians at the very least; some are open atheists. Some of my closest friends are friends from my childhood, which means friends from my church/Christian school. These connections are more than some supernatural connection. They are real human connections. I think this was the greatest thing church gave me growing up - my best friends. Frans de Waal writes in his book "The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates"
Research points to church attendance as a major factor, which suggests a social dimension. It is well known that social connectedness strengthens the immune system, and church attendance surely helps in this regard. If so, it may not be religiosity per se that protects against disease, but rather human contact. For all we know, the same benefits may apply to members of a book club or a birding society. Churches, however, produce more shared commitment, which does add to a sense of belonging. Emile durkeim, the French father of sociology, emphasized the collective rituals, sacred music, and signing in unison that make religious practice an irresistible bonding experience.
6. Church brought out the rebel in me. I was in no means as much of a rebel as many other friends of mine in my church growing up, but I had my moments. I remember getting "called down" by our Dear Leader from his pulpit during a service as me and my friend were laughing about something. There is this undeserved "father figure" "spiritual expert" respect that must be given to Pastors, sunday school, teachers, and any other authoritarian church figure in church. Typical social hierarchy. We are by nature a hierarchal primate. Talking and laughing during any public speaking event is frowned upon, understandably, but in church it was even more taboo. Especially in "big people" church services. The problem is my friend and I (and my brother as well) kept coming up with the most ludicrous of stories or alternative realities. Think "Mighty Boosh" meets "Tim and Eric", but making less sense. In this world we created all the characters were these caricatures of silly adult church goers sitting in pews next to us, or in the choir, or leading the music, or giving a sermon. Some stories were set outside of the church setting while others involved absurd moments we witnessed. Such as when they set the mortgage of the church building on fire as some dramatic jester; as the congregation cheered we pictured wooden sticks with marshmallows on the ends getting some of that open mortgage flame. As it's been said (or actually never been said), "Nothing more shameful then wasting a perfectly good mortgage blaze." We exaggerated everything, and made what would be boring to most kids into a wide range of comedic, imaginative stories. It was just nearly impossible not to laugh out loud at the absurdity of our imagination running wild in such a senselessly serious environment. Here's a few stories we came up with:
- Carrie's Giant Glasses (that require stilts, wheels, and a track they are so large.)
- Dale and his incredible stretching neck (plus beet red face to boot)
- Mel the Assassin (Mitch is always being watched as he is forced to sing)
- Crotch-walker (someone who could actually only walk on people's crotches)
- The Lizard (no explanation needed)
- Grandfather Clock Falling.
- "I wish I had a watermelon."
- Fonda and the "Ahh my bones" last words at the funeral.
- People that could fold.
- Buddy the Dog.
- Our Mandy Date
- Hoty assassins.
- Owl Towels. (The epic journey of one man.)
- Bat to the Crotch.
- Out of control fireworks
- Jeff and his timeless creed of wisdom, "guys, quit."
- Distant grunter.
- The story of Jason's Mets jacket and the chewing gum
- The Perfect Paperboy
- "Bobby, I gotta go to bed now."
- Who is Cindy Helmet?
- Dan Helmet and the failure of the pizza making machine.
- The great success story of Seth and the house pounding.
- Flies cover human. Human then lifted then dropped to his death. Pointless.
I realize out of context this list makes no sense at all. So I will go into just one of these to show you what I mean and end with that.
The Story of Mitch Troxell.
There was a great man who grew up in our church and moved on to do greater things. And by greater things I mean more professional spiritual type stuff in the Bible belt of Missouri. He had the voice of a golden god (if only calling a man a "god" wasn't so blatantly blasphemous.) He always sang specials in our church services growing up. In fact we have a wonderful old Polaroid of him in "black face" (that's right, painted black,... like a white man painting himself to look like a black man. You know, church stuff.) Luckily there were no real black people in our congregation to be offended by this joke. He always sang this song called "Hammer Ring" The lyrics went a little something like this... (and a one .. and a two...)
Listen to the hammer
as it rings on Calvary
The nails that held Him captive
They liberated me
as it rings on Calvary
The nails that held Him captive
They liberated me
Now You might say I'm callus
When you see this joy in me
But every blow was planned by God
And taken willingly
When you see this joy in me
But every blow was planned by God
And taken willingly
So listen to the hammer ring, and rejoice
Listen to the hammer ring, and thank Jesus
Listen to the hammer ring, for He's taken everything
That was against us, and nailed it to His cross
Listen to the hammer ring, and thank Jesus
Listen to the hammer ring, for He's taken everything
That was against us, and nailed it to His cross
Precious hands of Jesus
that healed the sick and the lame
His touch was oh so tender
Now those hands are maimed
that healed the sick and the lame
His touch was oh so tender
Now those hands are maimed
And those feet to travel
over rough and dusty roads
Now are bloodied by the nails
that my Jesus chose
So listen to the hammer ring, and rejoiceover rough and dusty roads
Now are bloodied by the nails
that my Jesus chose
Listen to the hammer ring, and thank Jesus
Listen to the hammer ring, for He's taken everything
That was against us, and nailed it to His cross
Ever since he moved away our church song specials just weren't the same. The aforementioned Fonda would sometimes go up front to sing. She would always preface her off key song with a long winded testimony that would inevitably end in tears. Of course my eyes were always on the Pastor or the song leader just sitting in the front pew impatiently waiting for this long diatribe to end to not throw off the schedule. THE BUFFET LINES are gonna fill up fast! There was a handful of wonderfully terrible songs by equally talentless vocalists. Some that reminds me of first round American Idol. Praise the Lord with your screeches! Amen. Our youth pastor/choir leader would sometimes sing a special when no one else would fill in. He was talented but his vibrato was so intense he would fluctuate a full few notes each time. Sort of sounded like a lamb. Which I guess, was appropriate.
Anyways, needless to say Mitch came back from time to time to visit. His parents still lived in our small town. Even though he was more like a movie star now when he would visit, (like a Bible Belt celebrity) he would be urged by the church staff to sing a special with each visit. This story actually began because my brother once swore he saw Mitch roll his eyes while singing during one of his visits. Suggesting that he really did not like lowering himself to such lower level superstitious people. So of course as always, my friend, my brother, and I ran with this story. The next thing we know, we created a full blown folklore of Mitch's return visits.
He was clearly being forced (as we imagined - probably by gun point) to sing with each visit back. As he was on stage we imagined that Mel (a church deacon) would be up in the ceiling tiles with a gun pointed at him. The red dot from the site of the sniper would suddenly appear on Mitch's forehead. THEN without a second passing Mitch's sister Peggy would stand up and weakly scream in a raspy voice,
"MITCH! .... there's a sniper on you!"
then Terri Lane shouted instantly, "HIT THE FREAKIN' DIRT, MAN!"
Mitch would in fact "hit the freakin' dirt".
In one imagining we considered (after this initially story was concocted) that one of us would actually be outside the glass doors behind the congregation with a laser pointer. Of course the rest of us would think it was true as the laser pointer ret dot follows Mitch ever so effortlessly as he dives to the ground. Pure ease. and end of story.
These are the types of things that we came up with, and you can damn well guarantee I am going to remember and write more of these stories .. maybe I'll do a blog short every week or so with another "How to Cure Church Boredom" story (that's what I'll call them). If any of you remember any of this and want to email me or comment with other stories you remember please feel free to do so. If there are any requests from the list you would like to here let me know. I MUST get this out. It's just too important to humanity.
Years ago my friends and I used to be in a band called "Early August". We actually had a small following of fans. We broke up but several years later we started sending out emails and myspace bulletins talking about us reuniting and recording a new song. Well, it was all a joke and it was a actually a rap song with lyrics solely comprised of inside jokes. Most of which were stories from the list I put up above.
The song is called, "Hammer Ring" listen to the mp3 HERE):
http://www.myspace.com/earlyaugust
Meet my old church:
http://www.wbcjax.org/
Meet my old school:
http://www.westfairchristian.com/
Sunday, April 7, 2013
"Atheism Remix" Book Review & Comments on a Christian Friend
This is my review of Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists by R. Albert Mohler Jr.
If anyone at all reading this knows about R. Albert Mohler Jr. it is more than likely from this NPR story titled "Christians Divided Over Science of Human Origins".
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140710361/christians-divided-over-science-of-human-origins
In this story the author of the book Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists shows his support for a literal Adam and Eve event in human history: one man, one woman. (You know, just like REAL marriage!) Dan, an old friend of mine, mentioned a book his boss at the time had written. This was the book by R. Albert Mohler. At the time this was mentioned Dan and I were having a mild debate on creationism vs. evolution. Dan attended the same Christian Junior High School I had once attended in a small town in the Midwest. He eventually went on to attain his degree from a Bible college and become a professor, pastor, and currently dean of Boyce College in Kentucky. We took drastically different paths. I let go of Christianity after attending a different Bible college and have become a vocal atheist/anti-theist. We have clashed several times on facebook. Dan preferred to come to an em passe (as he would say) in our discussion. I always wanted to dig deeper and to come to some sort of change (one of us). Looking back at some of those heated discussions I see many flaws (as we usually do as we learn more) by my tactics of debate, but the general themes I was arguing were never really answered - which seems common with all Christian apologists. Let's just say, ... They like to dance.
When I was beginning my Bible college education I looked up to Dan as someone I wanted to be like. He was young, funny, and energetic, with a passion for the gospel. He made that gospel relevant to our generation. He seemed real and his beliefs and convictions came from a real place compared to many Christians I had grown up with, those that were simply brainwashed since birth. Dan was brought up in a Christian home, but he attended a public high school eventually. Growing up, I remember he was very intimidating to me. Dan was tough and intense as a teenager. I suppose when he was eventually "saved" and "called" into the ministry it made me respect him and admire the life-changing power of God.
The last time I really talked with Dan we discussed reading Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution . We were to complete a book then come up with a short little essay bullet pointing some of the key points. Then we would present it to each other and discuss what we agreed with and disagreed with. I still have not finished the book, and this assignment sort of fizzled out. I had an issue with pinning Dan down on a single subject. I never wanted to talk about atheism or abiogenesis. I just wanted to talk about common descent and evolution by natural selection vs. intelligent design. This is an argument that is airtight in favor of the theory of evolution. There is no other alternative theory to how life began and as good religious apologists do, Dan danced around the subject matter never specifically answering questions, instead just attacking the way I ask questions. For an expert in Christian theology (to a good degree, though he may say otherwise) he tries very hard not to discuss anything other than theism vs. atheism. Which is ultimately a discussion between deism vs. atheism in my opinion. Theism to Christianity is literally "a leap of faith" with not enough (if any) sufficient evidence. However, the scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution (that for me quite literally destroyed my belief in Yahweh) is too immense to argue. Learning the basics of evolution led me completely away from Christianity. Science killed the God of the Bible in my life.
Almost a year or so has passed since I talked with Dan about anything regarding these topics. During our lull I did, in haste, post a "KONI 2012" link on his facebook wall before doing much research on the hype (not my best skeptic moment). Sorry, if you were one of my facebook friends reading this right now that was victim of my "sheeple moment". The other day I was thinking of the next blog entry when I remember Dan's old boss's book Atheism Remix. I looked it up online and found it used for $6 with shipping and purchased it. In the next few weeks I cracked open the 108 pg. book to see what this was all about. As most atheists I've been a huge fan of the "four horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and the late Hitchens) and all of their books and debates. I've watched the 2 hour long "Four Horsemen" video Dawkin's released about 6 times (where they all sit around drinking and talk about religion). As you can imagine I was very skeptical after knowing a little of what R. Albert Mohler Jr. is all about. I've seen him talk about creationism and stories in the Bible being historically and scientifically accurate. I've seen him on Larry King showing his disapproval of gay marriage. So in a way I went into this book biased. I wanted a good laugh. So I cracked it open
First off,
The book is mostly resumes for each of the "New Atheists". Mohler begins telling us what Old Atheism is, how it started, and what new atheism is and how it arose from secularism. The one thing I expected out of this book (but knew in all seriousness I really wouldn't get) was a single specific refuting argument against a a single specific argument made by the New Atheists. When I pause to think for a second, I can conjure up about a dozen specific arguments made by either Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, or Dawkins against theism and not a single one of them was addressed in this book. In fact, the only time Mohler shares criticism at all is when he is quoting other theologians who have written books such as The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World by Alister McGrath, The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and The War on Religion by Tina Beattie, and John F. Taught's God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Mohler also mentions Alvin Plantinga who has written a few articles in several different publications criticizing the New Atheists.
Mostly all arguments cited from these books deal with Richard Dawkins and his book "The God Delusion". Sam Harris is mentioned as the "junior partner in the enterprise of the New Atheism." The New Atheist Mohler barely mentions is the late, great Christopher Hitchens. I wonder why?! Besides providing a small resume he barely mentions his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. The author does make a rather weak point. He states that the tepid Christian education that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins received as children more than likely produced their devout atheism. I suppose if they were to be brought up under someone like Jerry Falwell or James Dobson we may have a couple devout Christian evangelists on our hands instead. All arguments seem to converge on the simple assertion that Richard Dawkins wouldn't pass a sophomore college class in philosophy with arguments he presents in his book. He is out of his field of study and makes obvious points against vague, ignorant, stereotyped religious people. While there may be some point to these assertions there is no helpful alternative presented in this book.
Alister McGrath believes Dawkins book "The God Delusion" is made for his fellow atheists as a rally cry to start a revolution against religion. They fail to see that the book is also written for the laymen, the average church-going American who absolutely fits the stereotype presented in his book. A good portion of the people reading Dawkin's book are Americans, and as Mohler makes clear more than once: Most Americans believe in God and nearly 40% don't accept the theory of evolution. Dawkin's book wasn't meant for the theologian Bible scholars with upper level degrees in theology. Richard Dawkin's is writing a book to reach the religious masses.
That brings me to one of many logical fallacies Mohler so kindly graces us with - "Appeal to Popularity". Our author asserts several times in the book that the majority of Americans (95%) believe in God which shows us that secularization is not winning. To his credit however, Mohler does go on to tell the global story that in countries like Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Spain, etc. only 1-5 percent of the population attend church. He states that fewer than 10 percent of these populations claim to believe in God, but in America ("the most hyper-modern state in the world as measured by sociological analysis"- as he puts it) some 40% of Americans don't accept evolution as how we came to be. Thus, evolution is not a sure bet on how we came to be (Fallacy #2 - The Balance Fallacy: Thinking that there is equality between to things Evolution vs. Intelligent Design) Within this mini-book we see logical fallacies ranging from "Appeal to Authority", "Appeal to Tradition", and "Appeal to Consequences of Belief", to name just a few.
I also noticed this behavior and attitude in the New Christians (as I will now call them). There is this laughing off, this intellectual snobby attitude where when we as atheists question the absurdity, contradictions, or falsehood of specific passages of the Bible we are "out of our element". Scholars whose whole life it is to study the original texts in their original languages have answers to these concerns. (Clearly it takes a full time job and an entire academic field to come up with excuses for an irrelevant ancient book pieced together by less intelligent human beings than us). This goes to prove nothing. This is the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority". There is something to this intellectual dishonesty and academic hysteria that appears to me to be the one last defense before religious literalism crumbs apart completely. Before it all becomes so irrelevant and is studied as simply mythology along with the Greek or Egyptian gods and their stories. Ask a Biblical literalist that is educated like William Lane Craig what they think of the historicity of the talking donkey story in the book of Numbers and see how they respond. They usually don't or give some complicated verbal dance using big theological words that really mean, "yeah, we're full of shit. Obviously a donkey didn't actually talk, but I can't actually admit that the Bible is full of fantastical fictional tales.
For example,
I once asked Dan if he really thought Jonah lived inside a whale, a donkey talked to his owner, and two of every animal species fit on one boat to avoid a worldwide flood. I couldn't get a straight yes or no answer. (*Just as I never could when asking how old he thought planet Earth was). That seems like a simple enough question. Dan responded to the first question with something to the effect of
- Why would you think that I couldn't think these things are possible? I, as a Christian, believe that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing deity that transformed his own son into a human/god to die for the rest of the human race so they won't burn forever in hell? Why would I not believe in miracles such as Joshua stopping the sun or Jesus resurrecting the dead? To be a Christian you simply believe in the supernatural.
Well, um. OK then...
So his answer to my question was of course I believe it .. why? Because the Bible said so and how do I know the Bible is true? Because the Bible says it is? So it's just faith then? When you get to this part... Dan goes silent. See, to theists their faith has evidence to back it up but when asked for evidence it is either going to take an advanced degree in theology, ancient history, and ancient languages to decipher the holy books or it will take too much time to show me Christian history. However we, as atheists, have beliefs that if traced back, end with evidence (until the point where the is no more sufficient evidence). Theists have beliefs that if traced back end with faith. Period. The entire path of Christianity is not littered with evidence at all but faulty assumptions and circumstantial historical documents. Atheism leads us to be humble and say WE DON'T KNOW! where Christians and other theists say we not only know but if you don't accept what we know then you will be punished. Sorry - it's just the nature of God. (who we can't prove exists. Oh but he loves you too.).
The interesting thing is the "liberal" theologians that Mohler uses to "prove" that this New Atheism is flawed are people that he doesn't ultimately agree with. For example Haught and Beattie are, as Mohler writes, "appalled by the identification of Christian theology with biblical literalism." The "liberal" theologians Mohler cites are in complete opposition to what Mohler believes. He is a Biblical literalist and goes on to offer no reason to be a Biblical literalist except that the Bible says its true so it is. Mohler writes,
This means that Haught, with Beattie, is particularly appalled by those who defend the historicity of the Genesis accounts of creation and, more broadly, those who would argue that evolutionary theory and biblical theism are fundamentally incompatible.
So I found myself eight pages away from the end of this book eagerly awaiting an answer on how to address this problem from the author of our little book. Mohler needs to explain to me how the historicity of the Bible and Christian theism can make sense with everything we know about the cosmos (including Earth and our origins) through modern science. I need specifics and there is less than ten pages left. I would, as you would suspect be disappointed.
R. Albert Mohler Jr. sums things up in the last few pages,
The only God that matters is a supernatural God - a personal God - who will judge. In the end, the existence of the supernatural, self-existent, and self-revealing God is the only adequate starting point for Christian theology.
Mohler's point seems to be that the New Atheists and New Christians can meet on this common ground that liberal theologian scholars can't, that God is supernatural and the Bible is literal, and historically and scientifically accurate. This is where we are, sure I agree. The New Atheists fight isn't with the liberal Biblical scholars but with the common Christian (the New Christians) who think the Bible is to be followed as a perfect mandate from God. Mohler's end of the book sounds like the beginning of the book, or at least the early middle. We need to start from this part. I hope Mohler is planning on writing a second book because it goes on to end offering no answers, even within the last two chapters titled, "The Defense of Theism" and "The Future of Christianity"
As I approached the last 2 pages of the book I was laughing out loud and shaking my head in confirmation of what I already knew before I opened this small book- We have not only no specific arguments presented here against specific claims made by the New Atheists, but we have not a single argument supporting theism. Oh, and even better, readers of this book are also left with not a single argument for Christianity. The last page tries to sum up how the author feels Christians must fight in the public arena of ideas for the "truth" of Christianity (giving no instructions on how to specifically do this). As I'm reminded from Sam Harris, "We are seeing religion losing the argument on a hundred different fronts." And Mohler ends with "The New Atheists are certainly right about one very important thing - it's atheism not biblical theism. There is nothing in between." ... I actually wrote the words underneath "Wait! .. What? NO!" This last sentence is false. There are plenty of things in between. Ever heard of Islam? There are few other religions out there. And multiple denominations and sects in each. Mohler is the same all all the New Christian apologists who understand some philosophy but no science. Even though they commit constant logical fallacies such as the obvious "Argument from Authority" or "Appeal to Ignorance".
Now please take time to look at Dan blog. He doesn't allow comments so post comments here or email me if you want to discuss anything. He has obviously put much more time into the layout of his blog than say me or many other atheists blogs I've seen. He enjoys graphic design as well as preaching the gospel. But just because something is dressed up doesn't distract from the fact that at it's core there is nothing there. There is no argument for theism / specifically Christian theism. Read through some of Dan's posts or even sketches. You will see poking holes (that sometimes I may even mildly agree with) at Harris explaining morality strictly through scientific means. You will see his blog entries where he talks all about New Atheism and some of their arguments then in the end .. makes a giant unintelligible leap to the gospel with no string of evidence to support this leap. It's a leap of faith and that is all. It would just be nice if on this point he was honest.
-Meet Albert Mohler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhypIUOvp3s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=k_iCmRBFOPk
- Meet Dan:
(his blog page) http://www.theolatte.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quVQEKII4JY
Sunday, March 24, 2013
The Problem of C.S. Lewis's Trilemma (a blog short)
C.S. Lewis, the famous Christian writer and apologist once posed a trilemma he claimed proved the divinity of Jesus Christ. He postulated that someone making the claims Jesus made (as accounted in the New Testament) was either a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.
Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.
These three options are clearly plausible options, but where Lewis and I part ways is the last sentence of his quote. Lewis states that these are the only three possible options to someone making the claims Jesus made. But there are so many other options. Jesus could have been evil, he could have been a devil or Satan. Jesus could have had a mental disorder (something that would have gone completely unnoticed in his day, before Western medicine). I suppose that would be covered under self-deceived (maybe with an *). He could be a combination of two of the options presented by Lewis. He could have been a lunatic and a liar. What about a crazy Lord? Is that not possible? What if Jesus was a Lord but unfortunately he is just one of many Lords throughout human history. So does this trilemma apply to the other humans who claimed divinity throughout human history? Jesus could have been an extraterrestrial. What if the Jesus of the Bible wasn't real to begin with. There is evidence that supports this. It's by no means conclusive but it's a plausible option. You see the problem with this. It's narrow-minded to say it must be one of the three options.
Then we can apply this to almost anything. At Barnes & Noble the other day I picked up a copy of the newest non-fiction book on the afterlife called Heaven Is Real, But So Is Hell by Vassula Ryden. The author's credentials are "an author, renowned speaker, and mystic." She asserts that she has experienced the supernatural forces that shapes all of our lives. In one synopsis of the book it says, "The book answers many of the questions that people have been asking for thousands of years and at the same time offers a glimpse into God's love and justice, and of what is soon to come." This book is under the religion/prophecy section at your local bookstore (if you still have one). Ignoring the obvious problem of hallucinations, NDE, or other brain functions, this book is considered by the faithful as an air-tight case for the Christian view of the afterlife.
What is stopping us to applying the Lewis trilemma to this author? The author who wrote this and makes these extraordinary claims (without any extraordinary evidence) of "seeing" hell, demons, and angels, this author who can prophecy the future of all humanity and the intentions of supernatural beings, can be held to the same standard. She is either a lunatic for making these claims. She is either a liar for making these claims. Or she is Lord? Ok that one doesn't work. Jesus was saying that he was lord and this woman is not but she IS saying she is a prophet so we can replace "Lord" with "Prophet". Either Vassula Ryden is a lunatic, a liar, or a prophet. However, as I've pointed out, these are not the only options. The author could have a mental disorder (a claim that can be easily tested with modern medical practices). She could be a devil herself, or even Satan. What if the author was actually Lord. There is that remote possibility. What if she was reincarnated? What about a reptilian alien? As you see, the Lewis trilemma is faulty logic in both cases, when applied to anything and anyone making any claims. It's demonstrably over-simplified.
Friday, March 22, 2013
What Happens When You Love Science Too Much?
The following excerpt is from the book The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates by Frans de Waal (I will comment at the end in italics)
At the end of my weeklong transatlantic excursion, I found time on the plane back to read through the nearly seven hundred responses generated by my blog Morals without God? Most comments were constructive and supportive, expressing belief in shades of gray when it comes to the origins of morality. But atheists couldn't resist the occasion to make more digs at religion, thus bypassing my intentions. For me, understanding the need for religion is a far superior goal to bashing it. The central issue of atheism, which is the (non)existence of God, strikes me as monumentally uninteresting. What do we gain by getting in a tizzy about the existence of something no one can prove or disprove? In 2012, Alain de Botton raised hackles by opening his book Religion for Atheists with the line "The most boring and unproductive question one can ask of any religion is whether or not it is true - in terms of being handed down from heaven to the sound of trumpets." Yet, for some this remains the only issue they can talk about. How did we reach this small-mindedness, as if we've joined a debating club, where all one can do is win or lose?
Science isn't the answer to everything. As a student, I learned about the "naturalistic fallacy" and how it would be the zenith of arrogance for scientists to think that their work could illuminate the distinction between right and wrong. This was not long after World War II, mind you, which had brought us massive evil justified by a scientific theory of self-directed evolution. Scientists had been very much involved in the genocidal machine, conducting unimaginable experiments. Children had been sown together to create conjoined twins, live humans had been operated on without anesthesia, and limbs and eyes had been surgically relocated on people's bodies. I have never forgotten this dark postwar period, during which every scientist who spoke with a German accent was suspect. American and British scientists were not innocent, however, because they were the ones who earlier in the century had brought us eugenics. They advocated racist immigration laws and forced sterilization of the deaf, blind, mentally ill, and physically impaired, as well as criminals and members of minority races. Surgeries to this effect were secretly performed on victims visiting the hospital for other reasons. For those who do not wish to blame this sordid history on science, and prefer to speak of pseudoscience, it will be good to consider that eugenics was a serious academic discipline at many universities. By 1930, institutes devoted to it existed in England, Sweden, Switzerland, Russia, America, Germany, and Norway. Its theories were supported by prominent figures, including American presidents. Its founding father, the British anthropologist and polymath Sir Francis Galton, became a fellow of the Royal Society and was knighted well after having espoused ideas about improving the human race. Notably, Galton felt that the average citizen was "too base for the everyday work of modern civilization."
It took Adolf Hitler and his henchmen to expose the moral bankruptcy of these ideas. The inevitable result was a precipitous drop of faith in science, especially biology. In the 1970s, biologists were still commonly equated with fascists, such as during the heated protest against "sociobiology". As a biologist myself, I am glad those acrimonious days are over, but at the same time I wonder how anyone could forget this past and hail science as our moral savior. How did we move from deep distrust to naive optimism? While I do welcome science of morality - my own work is part of it - I can't fathom calls for science to determine human values (as per the subtitle of Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape). Is pseudoscience something of the past? Are modern scientists free from moral biases? Think of the Tuskegee syphilis study of just a few decades ago, or the ongoing involvement of medical doctors in prisoner torture at Guantanamo Bay. I am profoundly skeptical of the moral purity of science, and feel that its role should never exceed that of morality's handmaiden.
The confusion seems to stem from the illusion that all we need for a good society is more knowledge. Once we have figured out the central algorithm of morality, so the thinking goes, we can safely hand things over to science. Science will guarantee the best choices. This is a bit like thinking that a celebrated art critic must be a great painter or a food critic a great chef. After all, critics offer profound insights in regard to particular products. They possess the right knowledge, so why not let them handle the job? A critic's specialty, however, is post hoc evaluation, not creation. And creation takes intuition, skill, and vision. Even if science helps us appreciate how morality works, this doesn't mean it can guide it anymore than that someone who knows how eggs should taste can be expected to lay one.
The view of morality as a set of immutable principles, or laws, that are ours to discover ultimately comes from religion. It doesn't really matter whether it is God, human reason, or science that formulates these laws. All of these approaches share a top-down orientation, their chief premise being that humans don't know how to behave and that someone must tell them. But what if morality is created in day-to-day social interaction, not at some abstract mental level? What if it is grounded in the emotions, which most of the time escape the neat categorizations that science is fond of? Since the whole point of my book is to argue a bottom-up approach, I will obviously return to this issue. My views are in line with the way we know the human mind works, with visceral reactions arriving before rationalizations, and also with the way evolution produces behavior. A good place to start is with an acknowledgment of our background as social animals, and how this background predisposes us to treat each other. This approach deserves attention at a time in which even avowed atheists are unable to wean themselves from a semireligious morality, thinking that the world would be a better place if only a white-coated priesthood could take over from the frocked one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I am currently reading this engrossing book and I can't get enough of it. The author offers countless true tales of altruism in all kinds of animals species - providing proof that morality is not strictly a human construct and it is most definitely not top-down but bottom-up through our evolutionary past. However, the passage above smacked me square in the face. I read it over and over again. Stopping to think. Think about myself and what I'm all about. It made me reevaluate my entire perspective on science. I admit that at times I lean towards what is called scientism. It's an overreach that naturally happens, for me, when I stumble across new information. I take it to the extreme. My thirst for more scientific knowledge to help me understand this cosmos is a healthy thing but at times it can be taken too far. In some respects, it may have to do with me not ever reading a book by Daniel Dennett. I have heard him speak multiple times; he is an outspoken atheist, philosopher but is fascinated by religion and wants it studied as a natural phenomenon. This is essentially what it appears Frans de Waal thinks as well. The Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins style atheism sees no need for religion. Hitchens was devoutly anti-theist, making us laugh with tales of the horrific dictator in the sky. While I agree mostly with the Hitchens crowd (if there was a God - as described in the holy books, how awful that would be!) ... I must say that this part of Waal's book shook me a bit.
Perspective is something that is crucially important when trying to make a model of reality. And historical perspective is key. In a cosmic scale we have 13.8 billion years of perspective, for the Earth we have 4.5 billion years of perspective. So we can brush off claims with no evidence like Young Earth Creationism obviously, but what we also must keep in mind is the history of science as well, which rose from religions. alchemy was an early form of chemistry. Science, just as religion, has had a dark past as the author pointed out and we atheists do ourselves a disservice for not admitting that. I for one have been altered by reading this book (especially the above passage). I hope that the evolution of my thinking is reflected in my upcoming blog posts. In the past I put too much emphasis on science solving ALL of our problems. This is naive optimism (as the author puts it correctly). This is an overreach and something that I must reel in on in my own head. The issue with growing up deeply religious as I did is that I tend to push too hard the other direction once I found countless flaws in the "holy books". I may have reached too far with science. I am changing and correcting myself from now on, just like good science does.
Perspective. Addiction. And the Irony of How I Came to Be.
1. Let Jesus save you.
2. Come out of your blanket, cut your hair, and dress like a white man.
3. Have a Christian family with one wife for life only.
4. Live in a house like your white brother. Work hard and wash often.
5. Learn the value of a hard-earned dollar. Do not waste your money on giveaways. Be punctual.
6. Believe that property and wealth are signs of divine approval.
7. Keep away from salons and strong spirits.
8. Speak the language of your white brother. Send your children to school to do likewise.
9. Go to church often and regularly.
10. Do Not go to Indian dances or to the medicine man.
This list was found by Native American Mary Brave Bird from her grandfather. It was a poster that was given to the Native Americans by the Christian missionaries to be tacked up on their wall. These excerpts are from an essay entitled Civilize Them With a Stick by Mary Brave Bird (Crow Dog) with Richard Erdoes. In this article she describes what it was like growing up in an old Indian boarding school,
It is almost impossible to explain to a sympathetic white person what a typical old Indian boarding school was like; how it affected the Indian child suddenly dumped into it like a small creature from another world, helpless, defenseless, bewildered, trying desperately and instinctively to survive and sometimes not surviving at all. I think such children were like the victims of Nazi concentration camps trying to tell average, middle-class Americans what their experience had been like.
I was taken to the old-fashioned mission schools at St. Francis, run by the nuns and the Catholic fathers, built sometime around the turn of the century and not improved a bit when I arrived, not improved as far as the buildings, the food, the teachers, or their methods were concerned.
Oddly enough, we owed our unspeakable boarding schools to the do-gooders, the white Indian-lovers. The schools were intended as an alternative to the outright extermination seriously advocated by Generals Sherman and Sheridan, as well as by most settlers and prospectors overrunning our land. "You don't have to kill those poor benighted heathen," the do-gooders said, "in order to solve the Indian Problem. Just give us a chance to turn them into useful farmhands, laborers, and chambermaids who will break their backs for you at low wages." In that way the boarding schools were born. The kids were taken away from their villages and pueblos, in their blankets and moccasins, kept completely isolated from their families - sometimes for as long as ten years - suddenly coming back, their short hair slick with pomade, their necks raw from stiff, high collars, their thick jackets always short in the sleeves and pinching under the arms, their tight patent leather shoes giving them corns, the girls in starched white blouses and clumsy, high-buttoned boots - caricatures of white people. When they found out - and they found out quickly - that they were neither wanted by whites nor by Indians, they got good and drunk, many of them staying drunk for the rest of their lives.
Reading this essay makes my own life experience of religious indoctrination seem laughable in comparison. I think of times I didn't want to go to church and was required to, but I was never beat with a whip. I didn't really want to sing in the choir but felt the pressure to as I began middle school. These requirements were natural to me at the time because it was all I knew. The brutality the Native Americans experienced was horrific. Not just the out right genocide of a race of people by white European settlers but the destruction of their entire way of life. Their culture was decimated by the white man and its religion. A few years back I visited the Catholic mission at San Juan Capistrano in California. It's a mission founded in 1776 by Spanish Catholics of the Franciscan Order. While on the tour, I learned all about the clash between the Catholic missionaries and the Native American ways of life. This is what it looks like to conquer a race of people. You move in, kill off the ones that fight back. The ones that don't, you "convert" to your way of life, which is all filtered through the religion. Catholics did this well. So did Protestants. Christianity as a whole took over the New World, by force.
I recall Christopher Hitchens once posing a question to his debating opponent, "Is it not the case that the spread of Christianity, attributing it to the innate truth of the Bible story, was spread by that means, or because emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire?" It's a legit question. Christianity spread by force in its early years and then spread by force through the Americas later. Neil deGrasse Tyson recently asked Morgan Freeman on Startalk Radio why he didn't think that aliens would come take over our planet. Morgan Freeman bluntly responded, "why should we assume that aliens behave like white Europeans?"
After I had graduated high school and wasted two years of my life at Bible College, I came home to think things through. I was having a mild crisis of faith. I wasn't seeing eye to eye with anyone except some of my closest friends. The people at my church, my family all seemed so "out of touch" with the real world, even though I actually had no idea what the "real world" really was. I just had a small taste of it after I dropped out of Bible College. I moved in with a few friends that were from a different Bible College (an Assemblies of God one to be specific). These friends were all in a punk band together. Mind you, it was Christian punk music but nonetheless it was more progressive than the ultra-strict Baptist College I had attended. I began to have relationships and friendships with people that were not Christian at all. This was the biggest new experience to me. As I sit here typing this I honestly cannot recall a name of a person I knew growing up that was not a Christian. Our family absolutely surrounded itself in like-minded people in regards to our religion.
Eventually I moved back home and got an apartment with my brother and a life long friend of mine who went to the same Christian grade school - middle school - high school. We formed an alternative rock band and through this we met a lot of non-Christians. This is were my shell really began to crack. I still labeled myself a Christian but didn't think too much about it. Of course during this time, I began distancing myself from my families values. I was still a relatively good person, but I did not like the idea of not watching R-rated movies, or censoring my vocabulary (no cussing allowed); I despised not being able to have sex, drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes. I began the often-treaded path of being that Christian who smokes cigarettes and drinks beer on occasion. The "back-slidden" Christian. I thought I was so cool. I justified my actions with the Bible (as all Christians do - just find a verse and make it work for you. It's simple. Every Christian does it!). *by the way try this experiment with Harry Potter or 50 Shades of Grey or Life of Pi. Just pick a passage from any book and see how it can relate to your life. It's so simple! Everything is about you!
Fast forward 5-10 years in my life and I have become mild alcoholic. I refused to accept that I drank too much (a common symptom of any addiction). I was smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for about 7-8 years. I partied nearly every night. At this point in my life (less then 2 years ago) I was an agnostic/atheist so religion was gone in my life, but not the addiction to these substances. The thing you tend to do when you are young and dumb is reject EVERYTHING your parents teach you. You lump it all in to one chunk of "parental guidance" that you discard completely. I know this, having completely stopped drinking alcohol for almost 9 months now, and having stopped smoking for at least 3 years. We unite everything our parents taught us in together in our haste and reject it all. To this day I can't express how grateful I am that my parents taught me correctly about substance abuse. They were very anti-drinking and anti-smoking and I should have listened to them from the beginning.
There is a problem that we are all guilty of. We characterize, categorize, then reject or except based on these decisions. Look at the major news media on cable, for example. Fox News demonizes liberals. MSNBC demonizes conservatives. When in reality, most people have different opinions on different issues that make them hard to fit in the binary that is forced upon us for essentially maximizing profits. It's more lucrative for Fox News or MSNBC to hone in on their target markets. Diversity is not good in the corporate business model of cable news. There are multiple examples in race, gender, class, or sexuality of society forcing binary systems on human beings. I was wrong to lump in my hatred of my parents religious culture with their advice regarding the highly addictive, drugs of alcohol and tobacco. *I want to add here that I do not recall my parents warning me about marijuana. I would assume its because of the lack of their understanding of the drug, but marijuana is absolutely harmless compared to the legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco.
People drink to excess for many different reasons. Just as the Native Americans that were forced to be like white people and become "civilized" only to return to a cold rejection by whites and Native Americans. If any people could have had the right to drown their sorrows the Native Americans do. It's an understatement to say it's sad to see what alcohol did to the Native Americans. My ancestors (the part of me that isn't Cherokee) are responsible for systematically destroying an entire race of people. A beautiful natural race of human beings that valued the earth. A race that predates what we now call conservation, environmentally consciousness, and sustainability. Before Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" was ever written, these ideas weren't something to strive for in the Native American culture. They were their way of life. We almost deify the Native Americans now as we look back, thinking of the Indian with the single tear as trash thrown out of the car window hits his feet. They were wise beyond their years. We are just now catching up, scrambling trying to correct our mistakes that are destroying this planet.
Mary Brave Bird writes,
The mission school at St. Francis was a curse for our family for generations. My grandmother went there, then my mother, then my sisters and I. At one time or other every one of us tried to run away. Grandmother told me once about the bad times she had experienced at St. Francis. In those days ... anybody who disobeyed the nuns was severely punished. The building in which my grandmother stayed had three floors, for girls only. Way up in the attic were little cells, about five by five by ten feet. One time she was in church and instead of praying she was playing jacks. As punishment they took her to one of those little cubicles where she stayed in darkness because the windows had been boarded up. They left her there for a whole week with only bread and water for nourishment. After she came out she promptly ran away, together with three other girls. They were found and brought back. The nuns stripped them naked and whipped them. They used a horse buggy whip on my grandmother. Then she was put back into the attic - for two weeks.
My mother had much the same experiences but never wanted to talk about them, and then there I was, in the same place. The school is now run by the BIA - the Bureau of Indian Affairs - but only since about fifteen years ago. When I was there, during the 1960s, it was still run by the Church. The Jesuit fathers ran the boys' wing and the Sisters of the Sacred Heart ran us - with the help of the strap. Nothing had changed since my grandmother's days. I have been told recently that even in the 70s they were still beating children at that school. All I got out of school was being taught how to pray. I learned quickly that I would be beaten if I failed in my devotions or, God forbid, prayed the the wrong way, especially in Indian to Wakan Tanka, The Indian Creator.
Barbara (my sister) was still in school when I arrived and during my first year or two she could still protect me a little bit. When Barb was a seventh-grader she ran away together with five other girls, early in the morning before sunrise. They brought them back in the evening. The girls had to wait for two hours in front of the mother superior's office. They were hungry and cold, frozen through. It was wintertime and they had been running the whole day without food, trying to make good their escape. The mother superior asked each girl, "Would you do this again?" She told them that as punishment they would not be allowed to visit home for a month and that she'd keep them busy on work details until the skin on their knees and elbows had worn off. At the end of her speech she told each girl, "Get up from this chair and lean over it." She then lifted the girls' skirts and pulled down their underpants. Not little girls either, but teenagers. She had a leather strap about a foot long and four inches wide fastened to a stick, and beat the girls, one after another, until they cried. Barb did not give her that satisfaction but just clenched her teeth. There was one girl, Barb told me, the nun kept on beating and beating until her arm got tired.
These disturbing stories of Native American torture at Catholic boarding schools is a common theme among American history. These are the stories you do not read growing up in a Christian home, singing praises to Jesus among the white faces. We dressed up as Pilgrims and Indians on Thanksgiving in school and sat together in harmony not aware of the full truth of what took place in these days of colonization and indoctrination. My relatives brought their diseases over here, my relatives participated in the genocide of the Native Americans and now here I am - a semi-priveleged white American male in the 20th century typing on a laptop (made by Chinese slave labor). This is my heritage. Pillage and plunder. Divide and conquer. Indoctrinate and destroy. We (and my fellow white Americans) are guilty of this past. What are we to do with this information? The twisted reality begins to take shape - I am alive today because my ancestors came to America and conquered it. If it wasn't for my ancestors coming here by force and stealing survival techniques from Native Americans I would not be alive today to be able to type this blog entry.
It's the same mind-fuck as realizing that without the Industrial Revolution and the rise of fossil fuels as a cheap, abundant energy source I would not be alive today to passionately promote ending our collective addiction to fossil fuels. The dirty energy that is warming the planet and causing climate change over the past 100 years is the very thing that has quite literally given me life. It's a complicated life we live in this modern era. We are able to ponder on these strange puzzles of history and circumstance in our minds. We are approaching a point of return. We are catching up to ancient Native American wisdom that tells us how to live sustainably and treat the earth as our mother (which it absolutely is if you know geology and biology - it's our life source) We are catching up to where we (white people) once were - conquering and controlling. We still are. There are some of us white people still left that do not want anything to do with the conquer and conquest of our past/present. I am one. I am repulsed to be associated with the do-gooders or the past Indian-lovers, but I am not so naive to realize out of this came my own existence.
2. Come out of your blanket, cut your hair, and dress like a white man.
3. Have a Christian family with one wife for life only.
4. Live in a house like your white brother. Work hard and wash often.
5. Learn the value of a hard-earned dollar. Do not waste your money on giveaways. Be punctual.
6. Believe that property and wealth are signs of divine approval.
7. Keep away from salons and strong spirits.
8. Speak the language of your white brother. Send your children to school to do likewise.
9. Go to church often and regularly.
10. Do Not go to Indian dances or to the medicine man.
This list was found by Native American Mary Brave Bird from her grandfather. It was a poster that was given to the Native Americans by the Christian missionaries to be tacked up on their wall. These excerpts are from an essay entitled Civilize Them With a Stick by Mary Brave Bird (Crow Dog) with Richard Erdoes. In this article she describes what it was like growing up in an old Indian boarding school,
It is almost impossible to explain to a sympathetic white person what a typical old Indian boarding school was like; how it affected the Indian child suddenly dumped into it like a small creature from another world, helpless, defenseless, bewildered, trying desperately and instinctively to survive and sometimes not surviving at all. I think such children were like the victims of Nazi concentration camps trying to tell average, middle-class Americans what their experience had been like.
I was taken to the old-fashioned mission schools at St. Francis, run by the nuns and the Catholic fathers, built sometime around the turn of the century and not improved a bit when I arrived, not improved as far as the buildings, the food, the teachers, or their methods were concerned.
Oddly enough, we owed our unspeakable boarding schools to the do-gooders, the white Indian-lovers. The schools were intended as an alternative to the outright extermination seriously advocated by Generals Sherman and Sheridan, as well as by most settlers and prospectors overrunning our land. "You don't have to kill those poor benighted heathen," the do-gooders said, "in order to solve the Indian Problem. Just give us a chance to turn them into useful farmhands, laborers, and chambermaids who will break their backs for you at low wages." In that way the boarding schools were born. The kids were taken away from their villages and pueblos, in their blankets and moccasins, kept completely isolated from their families - sometimes for as long as ten years - suddenly coming back, their short hair slick with pomade, their necks raw from stiff, high collars, their thick jackets always short in the sleeves and pinching under the arms, their tight patent leather shoes giving them corns, the girls in starched white blouses and clumsy, high-buttoned boots - caricatures of white people. When they found out - and they found out quickly - that they were neither wanted by whites nor by Indians, they got good and drunk, many of them staying drunk for the rest of their lives.
Reading this essay makes my own life experience of religious indoctrination seem laughable in comparison. I think of times I didn't want to go to church and was required to, but I was never beat with a whip. I didn't really want to sing in the choir but felt the pressure to as I began middle school. These requirements were natural to me at the time because it was all I knew. The brutality the Native Americans experienced was horrific. Not just the out right genocide of a race of people by white European settlers but the destruction of their entire way of life. Their culture was decimated by the white man and its religion. A few years back I visited the Catholic mission at San Juan Capistrano in California. It's a mission founded in 1776 by Spanish Catholics of the Franciscan Order. While on the tour, I learned all about the clash between the Catholic missionaries and the Native American ways of life. This is what it looks like to conquer a race of people. You move in, kill off the ones that fight back. The ones that don't, you "convert" to your way of life, which is all filtered through the religion. Catholics did this well. So did Protestants. Christianity as a whole took over the New World, by force.
I recall Christopher Hitchens once posing a question to his debating opponent, "Is it not the case that the spread of Christianity, attributing it to the innate truth of the Bible story, was spread by that means, or because emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire?" It's a legit question. Christianity spread by force in its early years and then spread by force through the Americas later. Neil deGrasse Tyson recently asked Morgan Freeman on Startalk Radio why he didn't think that aliens would come take over our planet. Morgan Freeman bluntly responded, "why should we assume that aliens behave like white Europeans?"
After I had graduated high school and wasted two years of my life at Bible College, I came home to think things through. I was having a mild crisis of faith. I wasn't seeing eye to eye with anyone except some of my closest friends. The people at my church, my family all seemed so "out of touch" with the real world, even though I actually had no idea what the "real world" really was. I just had a small taste of it after I dropped out of Bible College. I moved in with a few friends that were from a different Bible College (an Assemblies of God one to be specific). These friends were all in a punk band together. Mind you, it was Christian punk music but nonetheless it was more progressive than the ultra-strict Baptist College I had attended. I began to have relationships and friendships with people that were not Christian at all. This was the biggest new experience to me. As I sit here typing this I honestly cannot recall a name of a person I knew growing up that was not a Christian. Our family absolutely surrounded itself in like-minded people in regards to our religion.
Eventually I moved back home and got an apartment with my brother and a life long friend of mine who went to the same Christian grade school - middle school - high school. We formed an alternative rock band and through this we met a lot of non-Christians. This is were my shell really began to crack. I still labeled myself a Christian but didn't think too much about it. Of course during this time, I began distancing myself from my families values. I was still a relatively good person, but I did not like the idea of not watching R-rated movies, or censoring my vocabulary (no cussing allowed); I despised not being able to have sex, drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes. I began the often-treaded path of being that Christian who smokes cigarettes and drinks beer on occasion. The "back-slidden" Christian. I thought I was so cool. I justified my actions with the Bible (as all Christians do - just find a verse and make it work for you. It's simple. Every Christian does it!). *by the way try this experiment with Harry Potter or 50 Shades of Grey or Life of Pi. Just pick a passage from any book and see how it can relate to your life. It's so simple! Everything is about you!
Fast forward 5-10 years in my life and I have become mild alcoholic. I refused to accept that I drank too much (a common symptom of any addiction). I was smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for about 7-8 years. I partied nearly every night. At this point in my life (less then 2 years ago) I was an agnostic/atheist so religion was gone in my life, but not the addiction to these substances. The thing you tend to do when you are young and dumb is reject EVERYTHING your parents teach you. You lump it all in to one chunk of "parental guidance" that you discard completely. I know this, having completely stopped drinking alcohol for almost 9 months now, and having stopped smoking for at least 3 years. We unite everything our parents taught us in together in our haste and reject it all. To this day I can't express how grateful I am that my parents taught me correctly about substance abuse. They were very anti-drinking and anti-smoking and I should have listened to them from the beginning.
There is a problem that we are all guilty of. We characterize, categorize, then reject or except based on these decisions. Look at the major news media on cable, for example. Fox News demonizes liberals. MSNBC demonizes conservatives. When in reality, most people have different opinions on different issues that make them hard to fit in the binary that is forced upon us for essentially maximizing profits. It's more lucrative for Fox News or MSNBC to hone in on their target markets. Diversity is not good in the corporate business model of cable news. There are multiple examples in race, gender, class, or sexuality of society forcing binary systems on human beings. I was wrong to lump in my hatred of my parents religious culture with their advice regarding the highly addictive, drugs of alcohol and tobacco. *I want to add here that I do not recall my parents warning me about marijuana. I would assume its because of the lack of their understanding of the drug, but marijuana is absolutely harmless compared to the legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco.
People drink to excess for many different reasons. Just as the Native Americans that were forced to be like white people and become "civilized" only to return to a cold rejection by whites and Native Americans. If any people could have had the right to drown their sorrows the Native Americans do. It's an understatement to say it's sad to see what alcohol did to the Native Americans. My ancestors (the part of me that isn't Cherokee) are responsible for systematically destroying an entire race of people. A beautiful natural race of human beings that valued the earth. A race that predates what we now call conservation, environmentally consciousness, and sustainability. Before Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" was ever written, these ideas weren't something to strive for in the Native American culture. They were their way of life. We almost deify the Native Americans now as we look back, thinking of the Indian with the single tear as trash thrown out of the car window hits his feet. They were wise beyond their years. We are just now catching up, scrambling trying to correct our mistakes that are destroying this planet.
Mary Brave Bird writes,
The mission school at St. Francis was a curse for our family for generations. My grandmother went there, then my mother, then my sisters and I. At one time or other every one of us tried to run away. Grandmother told me once about the bad times she had experienced at St. Francis. In those days ... anybody who disobeyed the nuns was severely punished. The building in which my grandmother stayed had three floors, for girls only. Way up in the attic were little cells, about five by five by ten feet. One time she was in church and instead of praying she was playing jacks. As punishment they took her to one of those little cubicles where she stayed in darkness because the windows had been boarded up. They left her there for a whole week with only bread and water for nourishment. After she came out she promptly ran away, together with three other girls. They were found and brought back. The nuns stripped them naked and whipped them. They used a horse buggy whip on my grandmother. Then she was put back into the attic - for two weeks.
My mother had much the same experiences but never wanted to talk about them, and then there I was, in the same place. The school is now run by the BIA - the Bureau of Indian Affairs - but only since about fifteen years ago. When I was there, during the 1960s, it was still run by the Church. The Jesuit fathers ran the boys' wing and the Sisters of the Sacred Heart ran us - with the help of the strap. Nothing had changed since my grandmother's days. I have been told recently that even in the 70s they were still beating children at that school. All I got out of school was being taught how to pray. I learned quickly that I would be beaten if I failed in my devotions or, God forbid, prayed the the wrong way, especially in Indian to Wakan Tanka, The Indian Creator.
Barbara (my sister) was still in school when I arrived and during my first year or two she could still protect me a little bit. When Barb was a seventh-grader she ran away together with five other girls, early in the morning before sunrise. They brought them back in the evening. The girls had to wait for two hours in front of the mother superior's office. They were hungry and cold, frozen through. It was wintertime and they had been running the whole day without food, trying to make good their escape. The mother superior asked each girl, "Would you do this again?" She told them that as punishment they would not be allowed to visit home for a month and that she'd keep them busy on work details until the skin on their knees and elbows had worn off. At the end of her speech she told each girl, "Get up from this chair and lean over it." She then lifted the girls' skirts and pulled down their underpants. Not little girls either, but teenagers. She had a leather strap about a foot long and four inches wide fastened to a stick, and beat the girls, one after another, until they cried. Barb did not give her that satisfaction but just clenched her teeth. There was one girl, Barb told me, the nun kept on beating and beating until her arm got tired.
These disturbing stories of Native American torture at Catholic boarding schools is a common theme among American history. These are the stories you do not read growing up in a Christian home, singing praises to Jesus among the white faces. We dressed up as Pilgrims and Indians on Thanksgiving in school and sat together in harmony not aware of the full truth of what took place in these days of colonization and indoctrination. My relatives brought their diseases over here, my relatives participated in the genocide of the Native Americans and now here I am - a semi-priveleged white American male in the 20th century typing on a laptop (made by Chinese slave labor). This is my heritage. Pillage and plunder. Divide and conquer. Indoctrinate and destroy. We (and my fellow white Americans) are guilty of this past. What are we to do with this information? The twisted reality begins to take shape - I am alive today because my ancestors came to America and conquered it. If it wasn't for my ancestors coming here by force and stealing survival techniques from Native Americans I would not be alive today to be able to type this blog entry.
It's the same mind-fuck as realizing that without the Industrial Revolution and the rise of fossil fuels as a cheap, abundant energy source I would not be alive today to passionately promote ending our collective addiction to fossil fuels. The dirty energy that is warming the planet and causing climate change over the past 100 years is the very thing that has quite literally given me life. It's a complicated life we live in this modern era. We are able to ponder on these strange puzzles of history and circumstance in our minds. We are approaching a point of return. We are catching up to ancient Native American wisdom that tells us how to live sustainably and treat the earth as our mother (which it absolutely is if you know geology and biology - it's our life source) We are catching up to where we (white people) once were - conquering and controlling. We still are. There are some of us white people still left that do not want anything to do with the conquer and conquest of our past/present. I am one. I am repulsed to be associated with the do-gooders or the past Indian-lovers, but I am not so naive to realize out of this came my own existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




