I was at a Christmas luncheon at work the other day talking about my students and how some of them might do better with a home schooling option. I related how I had home taught my two kids for part of their secondary school career. Another teacher explained how she was home schooling her children and that she was using a curriculum that was prepared by a Christian organization.
My heart immediately sank. This was a well-educated young woman who was a teacher in the public school system and she had chosen the route of religious indoctrination for her kids, and she was proud of it. It obviously has never occurred to her that she is deluding her young children into believing fallacies and, in the process, is doing them an educational disservice. Even if she is teaching them a curriculum that is scientifically appropriate, which is unlikely, she still is presenting her children with false notions that the bible is somehow a book of morality and something to base one's life on.
I wanted to confront her with the truth, but that never works anyway and it would only cause hurt feelings. Religious people don't want to hear the truth; they believe they already know it. They have been brainwashed into believing that faith is a great virtue and they feel sorry for those like me who have lost our faith.
But the veil of indoctrination has been removed from my view. I now know what my subconscious suspected since I was a kid: The god of the bible is a fake. I can't say for absolutely certain that a god does not exist, and I'm willing to listen to proof of God's existence if anyone has it to offer. I can be convinced, unlike Christians or Muslims who are absolutely certain of the existence of their gods and cannot be convinced otherwise regardless of the evidence.
But my question to them is, Why do you believe? What is the basis for that belief? What makes you so absolutely sure? If they are honest in their answers, they must admit that they believe because that's what they were taught. They grew up believing and never stopped, because faith is reinforced by a powerful religious organization, their church.
No one comes to faith naturally. Faith goes against nature. Faith benefits no one except the church and its coffers. Faith means believing without evidence. Where else in our lives do we choose to believe something wholeheartedly without so much as a smidgeon of evidence to support that belief? It's only because we are fearful of what happens to us when we die that we succumb to the fairy tales taught to us in church. We would rather live our lives in complete denial of reality than to even consider the notion that our gods do not exist.
But think about it; if you believe, you do so because your parents or your pastor taught you to. But what if they're wrong. They are only people and they've certainly been wrong before. Maybe they believe only because they, too, were taught to. It's a never-ending cycle.
Believers might ask what if I'm wrong. Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? But which religion would you have me believe in? Why is one any better than another? What if I choose the wrong one? Isn't that just as bad as not believing at all? Many religions believe that it's their way or the highway - to hell that is. People who believe have chosen their particular belief and to them, it's true. But everybody can't be right, can they? If there is a god and if he is a personal god who cares what you believe and how you worship, then there is only one correct way to do it, his way. The trouble is, nobody knows what his way is. The bible is no help because it can be interpreted in many different ways, thus the many Christian denominations. And maybe Christianity is totally wrong. What if Muslims are more nearly correct? And then you have to worry about which branch of that religion has it right, Shiite, Sunni, Kurd? If there is one god and one true religion, then God is not telling anyone what it is in a clear fashion.
Although I might be willing to listen to evidence supporting the existence of a creator god, I know for certain that the god of the bible is not real. How could he be? He is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. And yet he allows suffering in the world, not just human suffering, but indescribable suffering of animals in the wild. Who could create living beings and then allow them to suffer so much?
Christians have a pat answer to these questions, but they are all cop-outs. They are all just excuses for their god because they can't come up with a reasonable explanation.
Anyone who takes an honest look at his or her religious belief, anyone who deeply contemplates what the bible has to say and the claims that are made, must come to the conclusion that their religion is bogus and the bible is baloney. Nothing in it makes sense in today's world. There may be a few common sense prescriptions for living a good life, but it is also littered with atrocities. Just take a look at what is apparently the worst form of sin – sex. Sex outside of wedlock is condemned throughout the bible. Homosexual sex is condemned. Lust is condemned. Incest seems to be ok, but only if performed for procreation. Sex for the sake of pleasure is always frowned upon. And that view is reflected in American society, where bloody violence in video games is tolerated, but nudity on TV is completely taboo.
Society can't be free as long as most of its members belong to a religion. Religion does nothing but hamstring society's citizens. And, of course, those who subscribe to a religion will say that's a good thing. That's because they want to make sure the rest of society's citizens live by what they believe is moral. Without religion, there would be no one to draw the line for you. You would be free to draw a line wherever you feel comfortable, as long as your line does not infringe on someone else's rights.
Consider a society where parents stop indoctrinating their children into religion. Eventually, the society would become more open and free. There would be no one to tell you that you can't do something because they don't believe it's right. Science would be free to blossom unencumbered by dogmatic anachronisms. It would be an enlightened society that puts its faith in human potential, not ancient superstition. It's a society I continue to long for.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
More Excuses Made for God
It’s Christmastime and ‘tis the season for those holiday movies to reprise their appeals for kids who are on the cusp of becoming too old for Santa to “just believe” as the lyrics to Josh Groban’s song from Polar Express goes. To “just believe” in Santa is also a metaphor to implore a belief in God.
A belief in a god requires faith – a baseless, strong belief in something unseen. To have faith means that one must constantly make excuses for their god. Neglecting to make those excuses means accepting the fact that a god does not exist.
What excuses?
When a prayer goes unanswered the believer often makes the excuse that “God answers prayers in his own way and in his own time.” The alternative to that is to admit that prayers are seemingly answered randomly, much as they would be if God never answered prayers at all, or as if there was no god.
When evil people do things they should not, without reprisal, the believer is often comforted by a belief that the evildoer will get what’s coming to him in the end. That’s another excuse for God’s seeming procrastination in doling out justice. We don’t feel so bad that someone is getting away with murder if we believe that God will deal with them later. But we never really know for sure that’s what happens, do we? We just believe.
And why is it that so often those who do good works, who are kind and magnanimous, are sometimes stricken with serious illness or an untimely death? The believer makes an excuse for God, saying “The Lord works in mysterious ways.” Really? It’s so mysterious in fact, that it’s almost like God doesn’t exist at all. Bad things and good things seem to happen at random, but since there must be a god behind it all, it only stands to reason that he works in mysterious ways.
The believer is quick to extol the loving nature of God. “God loves us all so much that it breaks his heart when we do bad things,” is what I’ve heard parents tell their children. But what about the parents of children who are handicapped or have some kind of genetic disorder? Why does God allow those sweet, young children to suffer so much? The believers I know make up the excuse that, “God will not lay any more on us than we are able to bear.”
Is that right? Or is it just a way of comforting oneself and others for not being able to explain why suffering seems to be bestowed at random. It can’t be random if there is a god, so maybe he is a sadistic god who wants us to suffer, but he doesn’t torture us any more than we can stand. If so, what about those who are tortured into committing suicide? Was it too much for them to bear? Did God miscalculate? Or is it actually just nature behaving randomly, like one would expect if God didn’t exist?
The easy answer to all these questions is that nature really does operate at random. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people in the same proportion as the number of good and bad people. Is that God mimicking nature, or is it simply nature behaving randomly, as expected? Does God really need us to make excuses for him so that we can comfort ourselves in our faith, or is faith something we should perhaps not hold in such high esteem?
If an omniscient overlord does exist, then one should expect him to behave in a rational manner. But if God does not exist, then events will happen at random. Things actually do happen at random. We can accept that and go on with our lives, or we can continue to believe in an omniscient, all-loving god, and continue to make silly excuses for why he behaves in such a mercurial and capricious fashion.
A belief in a god requires faith – a baseless, strong belief in something unseen. To have faith means that one must constantly make excuses for their god. Neglecting to make those excuses means accepting the fact that a god does not exist.
What excuses?
When a prayer goes unanswered the believer often makes the excuse that “God answers prayers in his own way and in his own time.” The alternative to that is to admit that prayers are seemingly answered randomly, much as they would be if God never answered prayers at all, or as if there was no god.
When evil people do things they should not, without reprisal, the believer is often comforted by a belief that the evildoer will get what’s coming to him in the end. That’s another excuse for God’s seeming procrastination in doling out justice. We don’t feel so bad that someone is getting away with murder if we believe that God will deal with them later. But we never really know for sure that’s what happens, do we? We just believe.
And why is it that so often those who do good works, who are kind and magnanimous, are sometimes stricken with serious illness or an untimely death? The believer makes an excuse for God, saying “The Lord works in mysterious ways.” Really? It’s so mysterious in fact, that it’s almost like God doesn’t exist at all. Bad things and good things seem to happen at random, but since there must be a god behind it all, it only stands to reason that he works in mysterious ways.
The believer is quick to extol the loving nature of God. “God loves us all so much that it breaks his heart when we do bad things,” is what I’ve heard parents tell their children. But what about the parents of children who are handicapped or have some kind of genetic disorder? Why does God allow those sweet, young children to suffer so much? The believers I know make up the excuse that, “God will not lay any more on us than we are able to bear.”
Is that right? Or is it just a way of comforting oneself and others for not being able to explain why suffering seems to be bestowed at random. It can’t be random if there is a god, so maybe he is a sadistic god who wants us to suffer, but he doesn’t torture us any more than we can stand. If so, what about those who are tortured into committing suicide? Was it too much for them to bear? Did God miscalculate? Or is it actually just nature behaving randomly, like one would expect if God didn’t exist?
The easy answer to all these questions is that nature really does operate at random. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people in the same proportion as the number of good and bad people. Is that God mimicking nature, or is it simply nature behaving randomly, as expected? Does God really need us to make excuses for him so that we can comfort ourselves in our faith, or is faith something we should perhaps not hold in such high esteem?
If an omniscient overlord does exist, then one should expect him to behave in a rational manner. But if God does not exist, then events will happen at random. Things actually do happen at random. We can accept that and go on with our lives, or we can continue to believe in an omniscient, all-loving god, and continue to make silly excuses for why he behaves in such a mercurial and capricious fashion.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Blue Laws Making Me Blue
The Indiana General Assembly, during its upcoming session, will once again consider whether to lift the ban on Sunday sales of liquor. It tried last year and failed. Proponents of lifting the ban have higher hopes for this coming session.
Several states join with Indiana in banning the sale of certain items, such as alcoholic beverages or vehicles, on Sunday. These are called blue laws for reasons that are not entirely clear, but it is not because these laws were once written on blue paper or in books with blue bindings as some say. They date back to Puritan days when this ultra-religious sect banned certain activities on the Christian Sabbath.
In the U.S., blue laws are permissible as long as their purpose is allegedly secular, even though in almost every case the day on which the sale of certain items is banned is Sunday.
But there is no real purpose for blue laws and they should all be repealed. Decades ago, many states banned the sale of almost anything on Sunday. Why Sunday? It was obviously tied to the Christian day of rest and worship. But in 1961 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blue laws were constitutional as long they had a secular purpose. I can’t imagine a true secular purpose for banning sales on Sunday, but the ban on liquor and automobiles remains in effect in at least a dozen states, including Indiana.
Most states no longer have or enforce blue laws prohibiting shopping on Sunday. In 1990, Massachusetts became the last state to lift its law requiring shopping malls to be closed on Sundays.
Sunday has become a major shopping day. As part of a two-day weekend, it is the time when most workers can spend the day at the mall. But in many states, they can’t spend their day shopping for cars. In Indiana, they can stop by the bar for a couple of beers, then proceed to drive home, but if it’s Sunday they can’t stop by the grocery store or liquor store to buy a six-pack of beer to consume while at home.
If it is true that the purpose of these remaining blue laws is to protect commissioned sales people from the undue stress of a highly competitive industry, or to protect Mom and Pop liquor stores from increased competition from chains, then why choose a huge shopping day like Sunday for the ban? Why not, as some states already do, allow the store owners or auto dealerships to choose whatever day they wish to close?
The liquor store lobby doesn’t want the ban on Sunday sales lifted. They want their day off, free from competition. But laws are supposed to be for everybody, not just the big lobby groups. If a liquor store owner wants to close one day a week, let him pick a day that typically has sketchy sales and close that day. It might be a Monday or a Wednesday, but it probably won’t be a Sunday.
If an individual store owner wants to close on Sunday, then that is his or her choice. But to force a Sunday closure smacks of religious intrusion into public life.
The time has come for adult consumers in general to have the right to shop for anything on any day they wish. The time for blue laws has passed, if it ever actually existed in the first place.
Several states join with Indiana in banning the sale of certain items, such as alcoholic beverages or vehicles, on Sunday. These are called blue laws for reasons that are not entirely clear, but it is not because these laws were once written on blue paper or in books with blue bindings as some say. They date back to Puritan days when this ultra-religious sect banned certain activities on the Christian Sabbath.
In the U.S., blue laws are permissible as long as their purpose is allegedly secular, even though in almost every case the day on which the sale of certain items is banned is Sunday.
But there is no real purpose for blue laws and they should all be repealed. Decades ago, many states banned the sale of almost anything on Sunday. Why Sunday? It was obviously tied to the Christian day of rest and worship. But in 1961 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blue laws were constitutional as long they had a secular purpose. I can’t imagine a true secular purpose for banning sales on Sunday, but the ban on liquor and automobiles remains in effect in at least a dozen states, including Indiana.
Most states no longer have or enforce blue laws prohibiting shopping on Sunday. In 1990, Massachusetts became the last state to lift its law requiring shopping malls to be closed on Sundays.
Sunday has become a major shopping day. As part of a two-day weekend, it is the time when most workers can spend the day at the mall. But in many states, they can’t spend their day shopping for cars. In Indiana, they can stop by the bar for a couple of beers, then proceed to drive home, but if it’s Sunday they can’t stop by the grocery store or liquor store to buy a six-pack of beer to consume while at home.
If it is true that the purpose of these remaining blue laws is to protect commissioned sales people from the undue stress of a highly competitive industry, or to protect Mom and Pop liquor stores from increased competition from chains, then why choose a huge shopping day like Sunday for the ban? Why not, as some states already do, allow the store owners or auto dealerships to choose whatever day they wish to close?
The liquor store lobby doesn’t want the ban on Sunday sales lifted. They want their day off, free from competition. But laws are supposed to be for everybody, not just the big lobby groups. If a liquor store owner wants to close one day a week, let him pick a day that typically has sketchy sales and close that day. It might be a Monday or a Wednesday, but it probably won’t be a Sunday.
If an individual store owner wants to close on Sunday, then that is his or her choice. But to force a Sunday closure smacks of religious intrusion into public life.
The time has come for adult consumers in general to have the right to shop for anything on any day they wish. The time for blue laws has passed, if it ever actually existed in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)