Author Archive for caribatheist

The rules that rule the ruler: The bigger the Bible the smaller the god

Published

on May 14, 2012

It's all about the tough calls. This photo on the left always gives me chills. We see Obama, Biden, Clinton and the rest of the White House staff watching anxiously to see whether the raid to get Osama Bin Laden was successful. The anniversary of this event was two weeks ago and of course it was played out in the media, with Democrats making political capital by reminding the public of this more meaningful 'mission accomplished' moment and the Republicans playing their own politics by claiming that the Democrats should not be political.

Whatever your political leaning, you have to admit that this was a true leadership moment for Barack Obama. This is why countries have presidents, prime ministers or chancellors. It's to make difficult decisions like these. In the midst of uncertainty and ambiguity, you have to weigh up the options and make the call realising you have to live with whatever the outcome is. The advice may come to you from all directions conflicting and contradictory. History and precedent may be there as a guide, but at the end of it all the buck stops at you. Maybe due to shrewd judgement, maybe through some luck or perhaps a bit of both, Obama came out smiling at the end. You have to take risks sometimes as a leader and you deserve the accolades when it works as much as the brickbats when it goes wrong. To make the decisions when there is no clear answer. That is what a ruler does.

Fast forward to last week and the US president was back in the news again. This time the call he made was also impactful, but in an entirely different way. The president referred to his 'evolving' opinion that now is in favour of same sex marriage. This was indeed a significant departure from the form of his previously held transitional belief. I hope creationists will now recognise that macro evolution can occur given enough time and the right political environment. To me it was a welcome evolution, but others certainly viewed this mutation as a backward step.

Huge as this statement might have seemed to many, Barack was careful to say that it was a personal opinion. It wasn't a call to go to war to kill the opposing fundamental Christian views. It wasn't an order to surge into churches and capture clergy. Yet, the vocal response by many, suggests that some saw it just like that. It was a curious response. Surely it is what the ruler in heaven says that will ultimately matter on issues like these.Why should they even care what Barack thinks? Are the fundamentalists telling us that Barack Obama is like God? Not so far fetched. Seems at times they give almost as much weight to what he says as to the words of their precious saviour.

In looking at Barack Obama as a leader over the past couple of weeks, I couldn't help but think about their own ruler up in heaven and how he compares. In one sense we are told that God is like the Barack Obama who gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden. Strong and authoritative, one whose orders have to be carried out exactly as he says, one whose will cannot be resisted. Then, at other times we see their ruler like the Obama we saw giving his views on same sex marriage to the press. One who merely states an opinion and gives others free will to go along with him if they choose. He leaves others a bit lower in state to decide whether his will, will be done or not. It is the ultimate mystery surrounding their heavenly ruler, the fact that he is eternally all powerful, except of course for the times when he is not.

It turns out though that this kind of inconsistency is not the only one that the heavenly president faces. Unlike Obama, their commander-in-chief is infallible. His opinions don't evolve, and he has no need to wait nervously after giving a order to see if things turn out right. No, their God has no such worries, he always knows what to do and he can tell us what we should do. We just need to listen to him, follow him and all will be well. Sounds simple right? Well not quite, because it doesn't end there. This infallible God has also written a book which is of course, infallible. God is infallible, he writes a book, it has to be just as infallible as he. The logic does seem watertight but again its not that straightforward.

Let's go back to down to earth again for a moment to see how things work in our domain. We have the leader in the form of a president or prime minister who makes the important decisions. There are also laws, policies, regulations, historical precedence and a constitution that give guidance to leaders. In practice we need both the leader and the book, the ruler and the rules. The laws are good but they are not perfect, they fail sometimes because they can't foresee every situation that you might find yourself in. There are times when you just have to throw out the rule book altogether because it doesn't apply or give one rule a priority over another. That's why you need a human leader that can make that kind of judgement and steer the ship through uncertain waters, make the tough calls like going in for the Bin Laden kill.

Our rules aren't perfect but then neither are our rulers. Rules are there to keep the ruler in line. Without them leaders could do whatever they wanted with no transparency and no accountability. They would be no grounds for appealing or protesting, because they would be no yardstick by which to evaluate anything. Because of the limitations of both rulers and rules, it makes sense to have both in any system of government. If both the rules and rulers are strong, you have a recipe for good governance.

The situation is somewhat different in the heavenly realm where both ruler and rules are infallible. Here, it's not a situation of complementarity, its a situation of redundancy. Why would an infallible God have a need to write a book? He is real, people have a personal relationship with him, he can speak to hearts directly. What could possibly be expressed in the book that couldn't be said through his own voice? There is no need for accountability or transparency because by definition God is always on the right side. The infallible God makes the book redundant. Similarly, if we have an infallible bible, there is no need for a God. The bible would speak to every circumstance, there would be nothing that would need interpretation or reasoning over it. It would just be a case of read it and do what it says. If the rules are absolutely clear and flawless you don't need a ruler to interpret them for you.

Still, Christians have a strange way of explaining how God and the bible work together. A way which makes both the Lord and his word seem to have limitations. You read the bible first and through it God himself speaks to you. He writes the words and then gives you verbal instructions while you read. This seems unnecessarily complicated. It's like a parent instructing a child by going through the process of writing a book called 'What I maybe want you to do' and explaining what they want done by letting the child read the book and then explaining what they actually meant to say in the book. Come on, couldn't you just explain to the kid what you want done and skip the extra literature?

Well maybe, but that's not the way God does it. The bible we are told is God's living word. I still can't wrap my head around this. The words on the pages are dead. Dead from the perspective, that once they are written they are written. They can't undergo natural selection and evolve into new species. I am sorry, I can't see how you can have a living relationship with someone, through the printed words in a book written hundreds of years ago in ancient languages. The bible can't speak to you about your life any more than the 'Nutritional Facts' on a box of cereal can speak to you about your diet. Words can't listen to you and give you advice. They can't evaluate options when you have conflicting goals to reconcile within you. Only a mind is capable of doing such things.

Not a book talk

I have been fortunate enough in the time I have been a part of the CFI community here in Calgary to hear some prominent authors speak and give lectures on their writings. These include people like Dan Dennett, James Randi, Lawrence Krauss and Dan Barker. All of these authors have books which represent their views and have been widely read. When they come to speak their focus is not on their publications it is squarely on what they are there to talk to the audience about. Books are always there on show, but their primary purpose is to be scribbled in at the end of the night. The event doesn't start by the speaker asking everybody to open they copy of ' A Universe from Nothing' to Chapter Three on Page 35 and start reading together from paragraph five. It just doesn't work like that. Lecturers will speak about what their books contain but they will go further, give more context and give their current thinking and opinions on the issue. They take you beyond the book.Yes, what they will say will tend to be in line with the book, but that's because the book, just like the speech they are giving represents their thoughts. The book can be a useful aid to understanding, but you don't need to have read their work in order to understand the message of their lectures.

It's a similar thing when it comes to me on this blog. Writing articles here has helped me to organise my thoughts on many issues related to faith and atheism. Sometimes I use ideas I have expounded on here, to explain my position to someone I am engaging with in a discussion. But it is me that is speaking to them when I am debating, not the 'caribatheist blog.'

God on the other hand, should have no need to use references as aids to himself. He doesn't need a book to remind him what it was he was thinking when he was speaking to his chosen people two millennia ago. He doesn't need it to help himself. It isn't a requirement for communication with us. So, why is it there? But even more important than being there, why is it viewed with almost the same reverence as God? We know that almost every argument that a theist brings to argue a point about Him begins or ends with a scripture quote.

They say that in the journey of life, the bible should be kept next to you as the manual for driving. But why do you need to consult a manual when the manufacturer of the automobile is your copilot ready to take over if there's any trouble?

Bibles should be just for atheists

If there is any need for the manual, it's for the person without the relationship with God. The one who can't access the master directly. To me that means the atheist, the one who has not yet found the way to tune in to God. So, my advice to Christians is to hand the manuals over. Yes, bring the bibles over to us so that we may learn something about the author of your favourite text, because he is obviously not coming over to our university to give a lecture. Yes, you go with God and leave the bibles with us. But we know you'll never do that, you and your saviour's publication must never be separated. I have to ask you again. Why?

One possible answer is that the author of the book is not around. The importance placed on the book might well mean that the one who wrote it is no longer here to talk to the masses and answer questions. Any insight into the words on the page would then have to come from your own reasoning and reflection, not from your personal friend outside space and time. Secondary sources like the bible are only really valuable when the primary ones are absent. Contradictory as it may sound, the existence of the bible is probably the greatest piece of evidence against the existence of God. The more that Christians lean on the bible the less they are leaning on God himself. That's why I say the bigger the bible the smaller the god.

The Bible rules

Speaking of big bibles, the book got as large as the supermoon this week, when fundamentalists bashed Obama over the head with it for forgetting that it says that for a man to lie with a man or woman to lie with a woman is an abomination. That's what happens when the bible goes ahead and God stays invisible in the background. It means we have to follow the words written down years ago by his hand, without any way of knowing if it is appropriate for what we are facing now. Once the books of the bible were made into a canon it effectively blasted God out of the picture. He became forever a slave of his text, because not even an omnipotent God can alter the words of an unchangeable book.

If I ever see God I will ask him why on earth he chose the option of ruling by the book. A leader that needs to govern through only previously existing documents is one that is not sure of himself. It is only forgivable if you are new to the job and don't have enough experience yet to make decisions through your own reasoning.

Wait, perhaps that's the problem! God is feeling his way into his role, still needing to stick strictly to what the textbook says. I bet he is having difficulty understanding it just like we do. Maybe he does need the book to guide him in guiding us through on this complex planet. Maybe, he himself is on a trial, only passing down to us what has been passed down to him by someone higher up the ladder that did the hiring.

Well if that's the case, God has been on probation a long time now. I sincerely hope he gets his appointment letter soon, so that he can get on with the job he is being paid to do and put aside the training manual once and for all. I tell you, the world would definitely be the better for it.

Maybe one day they’ll come around

Published

caribatheist

on April 26, 2012

Wow! I scarce can take it in. This week in Barbados, atheism was actually featured TWICE in the Nation newspaper. All this coming on the heels of a public forum on the relationship between society and the church last week on the island. Yes, the writings contained the usual mischaracterisations of atheists and fallacious reasoning, but at least they recognise now that we exist. In fact they now say we are many. How many? A whopping 30,000!! You can read about it here.

That's more than the number of people that turned up at the National Mall in Washington for the Reason Rally a few weeks ago. The notion that the number of non believers on our tiny God fearing island of population less than 300,000 rivals those that came from all corners of US and the globe for that momentous event is just a tad too much for me to accept. I suppose it's Christian hyperbole. When you see figures like that you can well understand how you could come up with the story that Jesus fed '5000' with five loaves of bread and a couple of fish.

It seems to me, that publishing this kind of figure is a scare tactic designed to shock the Christian reader. Making the faithful feel they need to get up and do something to stop the surge that could wipe their churches off the map if given half the chance. It plays into the old, " We are being persecuted!" mindset. We all know that if we go asking to have our voices heard in issues relating to public policy and social development, we will be told that our numbers are far too small and insignificant for us to expect to have a say in a country where the overwhelming majority is Christian. It's amazing how Christians can play both sides of the numbers game.

The second article of the week, a letter to the editor, was entitled "The atheists will come around' The letter reads like the author is just talking to the nation's Christians about us, referring to us purely in third person. When I read it, I felt like a guilty eavesdropper listening in on a church council meeting. So, I guess we are still not exactly sitting with them at their table. We are not even in their inner sanctum, but at least we have entered their building.

Predictably, the author of the Letter to the Editor used the bible to show that our rejection of their doctrine is just as Christ prophesied and assured Christians that we would eventually receive the Lord's revelation and come around to Christianity. Well, as far as they, the Christians are concerned, I also hope that one day, maybe they'll come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around

Maybe one day they'll come around and recognise that the same arguments they use to justify belief in their god can be used to argue for the existence of Thor, Zeus, Poseidon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Maybe one day they'll come around to embracing the fact that praying for us is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around and recognise that we are not atheists because we are angry at God but because we have not seen evidence that he is there.

Maybe one day they'll come around to comprehending that being atheists doesn't mean we believe in nothing.

Maybe one day they'll come around and recognise that reduction in religiosity in Barbados represents progressiveness and not the destruction of society.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that you don't need to believe in a supernatural being in order to be a moral person.

Maybe one day they'll come around and recognise that religiously reasoning is an oxymoron.

Maybe one day they'll come around and accept that atheism is not just a passing fad.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that a child that has enough confidence and independence to seek truth out for themselves rather than accept blindly what parents, priests or teachers tell them is one that should be admired not despised.

Maybe one day they'll come around and realise that quoting bible verses to us atheists is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that writing articles in the newspaper saying that one day we'll come around is not gong to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around to see that threatening us with hell is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that blocking or removing our comments from online forums or discussions is not going to make us go away.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that asking us "What if you're wrong?" is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around and start to see that just because we've lost our faith doesn't mean we're lost.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the revelation that living a life based on logic and evidence beats one based on faith and dogma.

Maybe one day they'll come around and realise that coming around our house on Saturday morning to tell us we need saving is not going to make us come around.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that atheists can be happy too.

Maybe one day they'll come around and realise that many of us atheists were once christians and we are atheists because we read the same bible that they are now trying to save us with.

Maybe one day they'll come around and realise that we atheists are not going to keep quiet anymore when they try to push their beliefs on us.

Maybe one day they'll come around to understanding how difficult it is not to mock a belief that includes talking snakes, magic fruit trees and floating zoos.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that we are not rejecting God just because we want an excuse to sin and not be accountable.

Maybe one day they'll come around to accept that we really don't believe in God and are not denying his existence against our will.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the revelation that the opposing team is praying for a win too.

Maybe one day they'll come around to accepting the fact that they ARE such things as coincidences

Maybe one day they'll come around to understanding that something CAN come from nothing.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that the universe is only evidence for the universe not for a creator.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the realisation that sin could only have entered the world if God allowed it in.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that the burden of proof lies with them.

Maybe one day they'll come around to seeing the irony in calling us closed minded while declaring that nothing we say could possibly change their belief that God is real.

Maybe one day they'll come around to seeing that it's contradictory to say that it is blindingly obvious that god exists and then say that belief in him is a choice. I don't choose to believe that the earth is not flat or that the sky is blue.

Maybe one day they'll come around to seeing that atheism is the end result of applying critical thinking to religious beliefs and not a dogmatic position that we take before we start investigating.

Maybe one day they'll come around to recognising that telling us that we can't see air is not proof for God.

Maybe one day they'll come around and understand that you can't use the bible to prove the bible.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that there is a difference between faith that the chair you are sitting in will not break apart and the faith that there is an invisible being in the sky who answers your prayers, protects you from danger and cares who you have sex with and how.

Maybe one day they'll come around and see that there is something wrong with the priorities of a god that ignores the cries of millions of starving children but goes out of his way to make sure that when you go into the department store you find a pair of shoes that exactly matches the colour of your handbag.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising they too are atheists to every god except for the one they believe in.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the realisation that praying to a God for something is pointless if he is going to always do things according to HIS will.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that one million Frenchmen CAN be wrong.

Maybe one day they'll come around to the realisation that typing their statements in ALL CAPS does nothing to strengthen their arguments.

Maybe one day they'll come around to seeing that to start a discussion by arguing through reason that God must exist and then finishing by saying that God's ways are beyond reason is to saw off the branch of the tree they are sitting on.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that there is a difference between believing and knowing.

Maybe one day they'll come around to understanding that atheism is not a religion

Maybe one day they'll come around to viewing us as equals in spite of the fact that we don't believe in what they believe in.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that to work hard to provide our young people with a good education and then expect them to ignore the knowledge gained through that education is defeating the purpose.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that being an atheist doesn't mean you want to shut down every church in the country.

Maybe one day they'll come around to realising that we hope that they come around just as much as they hope that we come around.

As you know by now, I have no problem with christians coming around me to chat so long as they are not coming to try to convert. If they still want to hold on to hope, I will confess that I could definitely come around one day if Jesus himself would come around.

When the cross came crashing down: The impact of bringing logic to Easter

Published

caribatheist

on April 16, 2012

I am not sure whether it counts as a miracle, but the passage of Easter last week managed to resurrect some memories within me which had been dead from my consciousness for many a year. What shocked me as I reflected during the week, formerly known to me as "Holy Week," was how Easter had fallen from being one of those pinnacle days to a point where I scarcely remembered that it was coming. There was a time when Easter had a meaning to me that was about as large as life itself. I was never a fundamentalist, nor was I ever one who felt that I had to be sitting in a pew every Sunday morning but Easter was a day that I always made a point of finding myself inside a place of worship.

I think it all went back to one experience I had on the evening of Maundy Thursday, (the day before Good Friday) about 20 years ago in Barbados . That evening I came down with a severe case of gastro-enteritis and ended up having to spend the night in the hospital. While I lay in the bed writhing in pain on Friday morning I remembered Jesus. I was able to reassure myself by thinking that my present anguish was nothing compared to what my saviour had to bear more than 2000 years before. I think that helped me to get through it. I even managed to convince myself that Jesus was bringing me through this agony on the anniversary of his death, in order that I may understand his own pain. After a while, I almost felt honoured to be chosen to carry Christ's cross with him that morning. It's crazy to recollect this way of thinking now, but it is amazing what mental gymnastics your mind can do in situations of immense pain, especially when you have the love of Jesus in your heart.

However, I think I was being quite rational when I smiled with relief realising I was missing Good Friday morning service. As many people in the Anglican church will tell you, Good Friday is by far the most boring service in the liturgical year. It's long, very long, the prayers themselves are everlasting. The music is deliberately set to be dead and dreary. There's no communion to give you a little nourishment to help you endure to the end. No procession to break the monotony and give your legs a stretch. To add to the dirge, everyone comes dressed in their most drab black outfits. There was just no take away from Good Friday that could help you get through what was an equally dour rest of the day. They call it Good Friday, but the only thing good about it, is knowing that when you walk out at the end, it will be another full year before it comes back. Recognising that the Lord had delivered me from Good Friday mass was enough evidence to convince me then that he was worthy of my praise.

Thankfully, by early afternoon I was fine to go home and on Sunday I was fighting fit again and ready for Easter morning church. I was in no way prepared for what greeted me. Apparently, it had been announced during service on Good Friday that I was sick and had to go to hospital. I arrived to people treating me as though I myself was the one who emerged from the empty tomb. All sorts of people in the congregation, some I barely knew, came up giving me huge hugs telling me how much they were praying for me and how amazing it was that God had delivered me that Easter morn. I was a bit taken aback. Yes, I had to spent a night in a hospital but it wasn't as though I had a life threatening condition. Still, it was an uplifting feeling to know that if I ever did have a real emergency that there was a community there to support me. I also had to remember that compared to two days earlier, I was in remarkably good shape. I had bounced back from a challenging experience and there was a lot I had to be thankful for.

After that year, Easter grew in significance to me. I even found a greater appreciation for Good Friday. I came to love Palm Sunday too. Palm Sunday was the day of the big procession on the Sunday before Easter. We would walk from the surrounding villages carrying palms in hand to symbolise Jesus's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. It was great from a personal perspective becomes many years I led the procession playing clarinet or saxophone and that provided me with a sense of worth. I began to see Holy Week as telling a story not so much about Jesus himself, but about the human experience. You have the Palm Sundays where everything seems to be going well, experience a setback on a Good Friday, but you overcome and celebrate your Easters at the end. That's the story of life. When you are up you have to remember that obstacles can come and you can trip or fall, but you can also take hope from the fact that however low you go you always have the hope of finding a way back up. So that's what the Easter story meant to me, the power of the 'comeback.'

So, it didn't matter to me whether Jesus actually rose from the dead bodily or not. It wasn't important. To argue over these things was to miss the point. " No Cross, No Crown" was the common phrase we would say and I firmly bought in to that. You had to experience the weight of the cross if you ever wanted to wear the crown of glory. Little did I know then, that the cross was soon going to buckle under its own weight and that the entire structure would come crashing down.

What if Jesus didn't bother?

The first sign that the cross's centre of gravity was shifting came one Christmas. It was one of those plays that we used to put on every year. As usual, I had my designated role of music leader, which inevitably meant standing at the ready to fill in with instrumental interludes as scripted, or in emergency if somebody forgot a line or didn't arrive on stage on time. In this year in question, the drama playing out on stage featured a typical family scene; children running around playing while putting up decorations on a tree, Daddy stumbling home slightly intoxicated after being out with 'the boys' somewhere and Mummy frantically trying to get the house prepared for the big day, sweeping vigorously and shooing everybody out of her way. At one point Mum says, " Man, I am so tired of all this Christmas work, I want to sleep, I don't think I'll bother to go to church for midnight mass." There was a dramatic pause of shock and horror and then the narrator's voice broke through, " Can't be bothered? You can't be bothered? Just imagine if Jesus couldn't be bothered to die on the cross!"

That line hit me with a jolt. "Yes, what would have happened if Jesus didn't bother to die on the cross?" It occurred to me at that moment that it would pretty much be nothing. Not a single thing in the world that we can observe would be different without a Jesus crucifixion. That's one of the main reasons why we can't determine whether the event even happened. I mean, what changed when Jesus died or came back in his new body? The laws of physics were not altered to make natural disasters less likely. The human body continued to be susceptible to the same diseases as it was before the divine bleeding. Men and women continued to be just as prone to do evil as they ever were. No technological breakthroughs or game changing inventions came after the veil was torn in two. No social norms shifted after Jesus was caught in the cross nails. Slaves were still slaves, women were still second class citizens. So what if Jesus didn't bother?

I had no more time to reflect on this because it was time to get back to playing, but I kept that thought in my mind for future reference. Something seemed a bit wrong with the cross now. It looked like it was leaning, the lines didn't seem straight but perhaps it was because I wasn't looking at things from the right angle.I would have to scrutinise it more closely later to see if anything was really askew with the doctrine.

Physical pain for spiritual gain

I pondered on this some more in coming weeks. If there was no physical impact that death on the cross made, what really had this all been for? I recognised that if I put my thoughts beyond the physical dimension, the cross could be seen to have achieved many things. Salvation from hell, eternal life in heaven, forgiveness of sin. These things were all well and good but we have no way of testing whether we actually have any of these. Furthermore, if we do have them, we have no way of knowing whether we wouldn't have had them if Jesus didn't do his death and resurrection thing. Everything that the cross is said to have done for us is conveniently outside the realm of testability. Things were not looking good for the Jesus character now and his cross was beginning to look more and more shaky.

Apart from the unfalsifiability problem, it didn't seem logical that an action in the physical realm would be needed in order to achieve something in the spiritual world. It would stand to reason that a physical sacrifice would lead to physical redemption, a spiritual sacrifice would lead to spiritual redemption. That would be logical wouldn't it? If I want to get an apple tree, why would I plant cherry seeds? The cross was definitely in trouble now that I was analysing the material it consisted of in such great detail. It didn't take me long to realise that the cross was not only old and rugged as the song says, but brittle and breaking up along the edges. It seemed it would have little chance of standing up in the face of unrelenting logic.

I became by this time concerned about why a human sacrifice of any kind was necessary. As I said before, I knew that the resurrection itself may not have taken place as explained in the bible, but by now my issue was with whether the storyline itself made sense. It's like going to watch a movie at the cinema. You know it's fiction, but that doesn't stop you from going over the plot in your head as you leave the theatre to see if all the threads of the story hang together. If they don't, you have to conclude it was a second rate film and you certainly won't be going out of your way to recommend it to your friends.

Looking at it, the only context in which this sacrifice of Jesus could make any sense was in the Old Testament way of looking at things. In that world, shedding of innocent blood atoned for the sins of the community. In order for the story to hold together we would have to mentally transport ourselves back into the days we read of in the Torah, where humans walked side by side with a temperamental Yahweh who had a serious burnt offering addiction. Ok, maybe that could work, I thought. No, even if I made that concession, the tale of the cross wasn't hanging together.

The problem with going on Old Testament thinking is that it went counter to the idea of the new covenant that Jesus himself is supposed to have brought. How often have we heard Christians tell us that we should ignore all of the strange rituals and practices recorded in the Old Testament because Jesus brought a new covenant? But this new covenant only makes sense if viewed from the perspective of the outdated old covenant. Now the two lines of the cross were clearly tugging against each other, this could only lead to more disequilibrium, I thought. I was right.

If Jesus didn't die on the cross we would have to become vegetarians.

Once I put myself into Old Testament mindset, I realised the true horror of what we would need to do if we were to ever find out that Jesus Christ didn't die on the cross. We would have to get the knives out quick and start slaughtering like crazy. Without Christ's blood that has a 'sin compensation equivalent' of infinity we would have to kill animals from here to eternity in order to make up for what would be now more than two millennia of deficit Whether there would be a single animal left for us to eat would be doubtful. So, maybe that's the answer to the question in the Christmas play. If Jesus didn't die on the cross, we would have to become vegetarians. How I would love to wear that on a T- shirt and explain it to bewildered passers by.

I know this sounds like absurdity but it is what happens when you carry a ridiculous doctrine to it's logical conclusion. It is one of the most bizarre things that human beings have come up with, the idea that gods need to smell blood to be happy. I have too much respect for gods, even imaginary ones, to think that they would come up with a system like that. If you are going to insist that a physical sacrifice is needed why go to the extent of a gory death. Jesus could have just stumped his toe on a rock, and declared that through this all mankind is saved. This would be no less logical a connection to salvation than what we have from the stories in the gospels. If Jesus's blood has infinite saving power, a watch glass sample from the graze of a foot, should do the job just as well. No need for the several pints oozing out on the cross from every conceivable orifice. The more I thought about this thing the less sense it made. The cross looked like it was really ready to topple now. How much longer could it hold up?

Sacrificing himself to himself in order to save mankind from himself

Around this time I had taken to the internet to see whether others out there found what I was beginning to see in Christianity equally illogical. This turned out to be another big blow to the cross. I came across the description of Christianity that I have now heard or seen written countless times."God sacrificed himself on to himself in order to save mankind from himself."

When I first read this I laughed. Surely this was a caricature. You can't sum up the Christian doctrine like that. But, when I deconstructed it, I found the description to be bang on. Jesus, we are taught, is God. God made the rules for salvation and created the very hell he is supposedly saving us from. The cracks in the cross were very visible now, I could see a break coming, the final crash was not far off.

By now it was becoming very hard for me to feel any pride about the cross as I saw it in its weakened state, deteriorating before my eyes. It was obvious to me now that the entire Easter story was about God contriving a situation where he could appear to be the hero. This was not a 'comeback story.' This was the story of a man deliberately mutilating himself, then healing the wounds and making himself well again. Where is the power in that story? Where is the sacrifice? What had we been saved from? I was just left with a hollow feeling. I had long dismissed the story as not being literal, but where was the value in it? What was the metaphor? What was the moral within the pages of this allegory that I could take away?

Moral foundation giving way

Morals, morals, morals. That was the last thing that could perhaps save my cross. The logical threads had come apart in many places but surely there was a good message in the story overall, wasn't there? But I knew even as I asked this question out loud that there was no real message of love here. The God in this Christianity story was looking more and more like a snake-oil salesman. I was definitely seeing a crooked cross. The more I thought about this story the more I realised that this doctrine is not about us at all, it was all about Him. Everything is set up to make Jesus look like 'the man'. It starts with the horror of the crucifixion. We have already established it was not necessary to the plot, but it's the major part of the story. Why is it there? It's all about reeling us in emotionally. It's about gaining our sympathy not our salvation. It's a sentiment that's played on unashamedly by movie makers like Mel Gibson who make sure they let us witness every strike of the whip on his back, every drop of blood from his sweaty brow as he struggles to carry his cross. That's right, we are supposed to feel sorry for Jesus. But it doesn't end there, we are supposed to feel guilty too. It's our fault. We are the ones that should be going through this brutalisation. Look at what we made Jesus go through all because we are wicked, worthless people, an abomination in the eyes of God just for being human.

Then Jesus returns two days later, raises himself, and conquers death, and we are supposed to say thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you to the end of our days and then for eternity after that. Jesus conquering death? He is God, all he was doing on that resurrection day was turning back on his super powers. Returning to God 'business as usual.' He could easily have stopped the slaughter. What does he want after all this? He wants our worship. That just didn't make sense to me, that's not what a real hero does. The moral thing to do is not to demand gratitude, just accept it if it is offered, graciously. The satisfaction of knowing that the people you helped have benefited personally or collectively should be reward in itself. Who can forget Captain Sully the pilot on the Hudson river saving those passengers. Some came back to thank him, but he was almost embarrassed about it. After that thanking, people moved on to make the most of their second chance in life without harping back too much on that day. Sully saved them from a danger we could all recognise. Still, there are no Sully churches by the river, no Sully pilgrimages being embarked on, no Sully prayers being offered up.

Jesus, on the other hand, isn't that forgiving about being left out of the "Vote of Thanks." Recognising him is more important than anything that we can do for ourselves or our fellow human beings. He will not let us move on from focusing on this cross and what HE did.

The inevitable crash

Bang!! That was it, with the moral foundation now giving way under the cross, there was nothing left to keep it standing. It came crashing down and their was simply nothing I could do. I would be lying if I said I wasn't sad to see it go. I had hung on to that Old Rugged Cross for a long time.

I have to say that losing the cross in no way means that I think everything to do with Christianity, Christians or the church is evil or immoral. I recognise that for many Christians the doctrinal things don't matter much. It has often been said that many believers treat religious doctrine and creeds as they treat computer software licenses. They just scroll down to the bottom of the page and click, " I Agree."

Most Christians are in church to have fellowship, find ways to help others in their communities and try to follow the teachings of Jesus. I have recognised on numerous occasions the contributions of churches in the arts, music, poetry and architecture. At Christmas I wrote here about how much I enjoyed embracing the myth of Christ's birth. It really and truly is just the cross that I can no longer support.

So, this year at Easter as I reflected on the once lofty cross now shattered on the ground it was hard to feel the joy that used to come with that day. Easter is no longer that great 'comeback story.' It's not to say that I am miserable now as a result. I just go to other places for inspirational 'comeback stories.' Preferably drawing on accounts in the non fictional section.

Since my cross has fallen, I have had lots of offers from Christians to help me put it back up again. Shattered it may be, but they assure me I can still put it back together from memory. With the right people supporting me, my cross can stand up proudly once more. They might be right. I could probably reconstruct my cross if I wanted to. However, I am afraid it will topple again once the winds of logic hit it and I just don't want to waste my time or theirs.

Mixing up the steps: Why theists continue to trip themselves up

Published

caribatheist

on April 3, 2012

'Dancing with the Stars' www.eonline.com

It rained on the parade, but from all reports the Reason Rally in Washington DC last Saturday was a roaring success. It must have been a unique experience to be among so much rationality in one place. I have managed to catch a few clips of the presentations on youtube and it has been amazing to hear speaker after speaker stating emphatically that "the world is 14 billion years old not 6000." It was refreshing to hear such statements greeted with rousing applause from the secular masses. At the same time it was amusing to hear the statement of a simple scientific fact stirring such emotion. It's like hearing screams of delight when a physicist says that the acceleration due to gravity here on earth is 9.8 metres per second squared.

Immediately, it occurred to me what is the big difference between the many Christian mass worship events I have seen and a rally like the one last week. A religious speaker would never start off a sermon with a scientific fact. A leader in faith would start by appealing to the human desire for meaning, purpose and moral guidance and then include in some way these considerations in determining what the facts are. There is quite a contrast there.

The secular thinker approaches life by taking two distinctly separate steps.

Step One: Investigate the world to try to determine what the facts of the reality you live in are.

Step Two: Seek to find meaning within the reality you discovered in step one.

So for the atheist, facts come first. It's a simple two step rhythm. Fact then meaning, that's the way we groove it. This is important to remember because things are not as clear when it comes to theists.They consistently mix up these two steps. Trying to find meaning without having a clue about facts then attempting to get facts to fit the motif set up by the meaning.

If you are ever on the dance floor trying to put down some moves with a theist, you'll see what I mean. You try to set up the basis for the dance by telling them that they need to start with the right fact first. But, they will shake their head at you. They will tell you that you're too boring, too mechanical, dancing is an art not a science, it's just about feeling it. So, when you start with a fact like, the earth is 14 billion years old, or that we have reached our present state as a species through gradual evolution, they will stare at you blankly. So what? What does that mean? Why is that important? How does that make me a better person? How does that give life value?

This is a huge misstep on their part but they don't recognise it. They are surprised when we stare back at them just as quizzically. Meaning? Value? Purpose? We are talking about scientific facts, the first obligatory step in learning about the world around us. To try to find purpose within these brute facts is to pull us entirely in a different direction and that is where they start to stumble in their arguments even more. It may surprise you, but if we as atheists don't keep the balance in our arguments when something like this happens, we can end up flat on our faces alongside them.

Yes, before you can say 'Baila!' they are doing the slide into an argument from meaning, making you feel embarrassed for trying to fact things up. They talk about how believing in evolution and big bang, means that everything is just an accident and there is no reason to value anything in life. You are just a biological machine, molecules in motion, a chemical reaction just fizzing away into oblivion. There is just no point to anything if you just follow science. In fact they tell you it is a mystery to them why you even bother doing anything. Why bother even learning to dance? In fact, why not just go and kill yourself?

It's at this point in the dance that there is that awkward pause in the routine. You realise that things are already going awry with the simple 'two-step' that you had set out to do, but the music is playing and other people around are watching you. So, you have no choice but to think on your feet. You can do one of two things. You can pull your partner firmly by the hand and lead them back in to 'step one.' Tell them to stop tap dancing around the issue and stick to 'fact'.in step one whether they like it or not. This can be a risky move though. If you are dancing with a stubborn partner and they don't trust your ability to lead, this could spell trouble. They will just resist and make you look like the one who doesn't know the moves. They will insist that you need to follow them and that your resistance just confirms that you really have no idea of 'meaning.' Atheists in such situations can become frustrated and accuse their theist partner of not giving a 'fact.' Major tension can ensue and in a worse case scenario, the tug of war can send you both crashing down to the floor in a millisecond. Once that happens, it will be very difficult to get back on your feet and neither of you will have any credibility in the eyes of the guests for the rest of the night, no matter how much each of you tries to throw the blame on the other partner.

Another option is to go with the flow, smile and pretend that the stumbling and sliding is all part of the choreography. If your partner wants 'meaning' do 'meaning.' So instead of doing what you would prefer to be doing, which is giving the evidence to establish the 'fact' in step one you do a bit of a shuffle and spin around seamlessly into 'meaning.'

You take this opening to reveal that there is indeed meaning in the atheist position. A finite life means that every day is worth more. No ultimate judgement means we have to ensure we have as much fairness and equity as we can in this world. The freedom from religion gives us the ability to live fulfilled lives which we can enjoy according to the things which we individually find fulfilling, rather than dancing to the beat of somebody else's drum.We can live our lives in a way that clearly benefits ourselves and others, rather than waiting for a cue from some unknowable capricious cosmic being who works in mysterious ways. How much meaning is there in a life where followers are required to bow down and worship a God every day in order to escape punishment? How much meaning is there in a life after death where you sit around singing praises to God everyday and playing the occasional harp solo?

You smile smugly after you make these comments. There you have it. You're back in the groove, your atheistic meaning in life can match every theistic move they make. That's great, until your partner starts without warning to bring in this twist. The theist will look at you and say, " Oh, you don't want to believe in God, because you don't like the impositions he puts on you. He can't be real just because you can't understand him or don't find meaning in what he wants you to do. But who are you? You can't make God who you want him to be! God is real! Facts are facts! The truth is the truth whether you like it or not!" Wow, you suddenly realise what has happened here. Once again, it's trouble in the dance hall. Your partner has somehow stumbled from meaning back into facts again. This is what you were begging for earlier but now the timing is off, you're both way behind the beat.

Now things are really confused, you have no idea when and where things will move after this. It's 'fact' and 'meaning' meshed into an incomprehensible concoction of hand waving, head bobbing and foot stomping in all directions. It's obvious to all and sundry now that neither of you knows what is going on and you are both tripping. So, what do you do now? You have realised that you are not likely to look very good if you follow the theist lead in this dance. If you go back to speaking about the scientific factual bass of your position, they will pull you back into talking about the lack of 'meaning' in that step. You go into 'meaning' and they will tell you that you are really an atheist out of emotion, wanting to believe something even though it has meaning only for you. They will imply that you don't really care about objective facts, which of course can only be discovered when revealed by their God. You will get very dizzy from the constant spinning and it's not likely to end well. In many cases like this, I have known atheists to just walk away. Hold up their hands, say they have had enough, gracefully walk off the dance floor and let someone else cut in. This may appear to be the honourable thing to do, but it often backfires. Your partner as well as others on the floor, will heckle you, do the 'chicken dance' in front of your face. They will tell you that you have the fancy talk but you can't handle it when the heat is on. They will take your withdrawal as an admission that theists are simply better on the dance floor than you.

Take control of your partner

You can take a more aggressive route and stick to the dance routine as you know it should be done and do some advanced 'fact' steps that you know your partner will never be able to follow. You can deliberately then show others around how poor the theist's dancing skills are and how out of step with reality they are. In all likelihood the theist will be the one to leave you this time, letting you do your own thing in front of your friends. You may think that this is a good way out and that it is better to have your partner being the 'chicken' than you. If you think that way, you'll be wrong. Onlookers on the dance floor don't treat atheists and theists equally. You are likely to find a cool glass of beer splashing down on your perspiring face within seconds. Abuse being hurled at you from all directions. Your friends will call you out for embarrassing your partner who clearly was not at your skill level. They will say that you never really wanted to have a fair dance in the first place. It was all about you, just trying to show off with your arrogant self. Just because you went to some prestigious dance academy you wanted to make a young amateur look stupid. You are a coward, who would never be up to dancing with an equal.

I won't tell you a lie. It's not easy being an atheist dancer. But if you keep a smile on your face and generally respect others around you, some of your dance moves will be copied by the crowd around you. They may not catch on right away, but you might encourage them to practice on their own at home. Before you know it, they could be dancing like you too, doing the 'fact' step first. You have to reassure them that 'fact' first doesn't mean that facts are all that matters. It's just that you have to let the meaning fit around the facts rather than the other way around. Indeed,'meaning' in step two may be more important than the 'facts' in step one. There is certainly more style and flair associated with step two. It's meaning that gives us much of our desire to do something. For many scientists it is the drive to find out what the facts are that actually gives life the meaning. But that is not the case for everybody and we need to recognise that. For some, the meaning that comes from believing in a God will not be matched if they go the atheist route. Nonetheless, there are times when meaning comes along to surprise us. I don't think I have met any atheist who has told me that their move to atheism came as a result of looking for meaning. Most were quite happy with the meanings that they already had in theism, but they just wanted to investigate more and find truth, atheism just happened to be the result. They found eventually much joy and meaning in being godless but that all came later, well after the fact. I don't think any of us would have been able to see that joy from the other side of the theistic fence.

It is true that we are "Good Without God" and we should keep letting people know that, but let's not lead the theists into confusing the steps. We don't believe in God because of what the facts tell us, the evidence that is glaringly absent, not because we can live better lives without him. If living a life without God was miserable and depressing, we would still be atheists because for us, facts come first.

Let's hear it for the facts!

So, let's keep cheering for the facts as we did last Saturday and encourage our theist friends to do likewise, because it takes two to tango. We want them to follow or lead not because they will feel better for it, but because we all have a basic obligation to understand as much as we can about our world in order to make the best decisions. Both on our own behalf and on behalf of others in it. It's similar to how a driver must seek to understand all the traffic laws in a country if he nor she is to avoid putting other road users at risk. Learning how to interpret traffic signs and signals is not the most exciting activity in the world but lives could very well depend on us getting these basic facts right.

So, let's keep the rallies going and inviting the theists to come dance with us on our stage, but let us never allow them to sidestep the critical issues. We must constantly remind them that when they are dancing with us they must pay close attention to our footwork, which requires that they always, yes always, lead with the facts.

The atheist’s fight for survival: Can’t let them define us out of existence

Published

caribatheist

on March 22, 2012

I can't believe that 'A' week has come back around so quickly. It seems like just the other day that I was tentatively putting my little 'A' on my facebook profile to tell the world that I no longer believe. There were many other events that went along with that which you can read about here. One year later and things have changed quite a bit. Definitely, I am more settled in my own skin but there are still times where there are remnants of guilt that I feel for speaking up against a worldview I once readily embraced. However, with every passing day things get easier.

I have to say that as much as I had anxiety when I made the decision to 'out' myself last year, I have never for one moment regretted it. I had put myself out in the open having heard many different stories of difficulties, particularly with close friends and family members. I braced myself for what I imagined would have been an onslaught of emails, messages and phone calls from friends, families and acquaintances of people expressing shock, horror, disappointment or dismay. I had practiced in front of the mirror, how I would react to the different types of responses, what I would say and how I would say it. Incredibly, no such responses ever came. No one telling me the friendship is over, no one even telling me I am going to hell. The most widespread response has been 'no response.'

It's strange, I wasn't really prepared for the silence. It's eerie, rather unsettling, because you are not quite sure what it means. Maybe, they don't care. Perhaps they are too shocked to talk. They might even agree but are too afraid to be seen doing that. Who knows? I sometimes wish they would just come right out and say something. It is interesting to me that those theists who have been engaging with me are in the main, people who I have met recently. Those for whom, I have always been an atheist. They disagree of course but are happy to challenge and that is what I want. That is one of the big differences between living based on faith and living based on evidence. When you post something for God, you don't do it with any intention of starting a debate or discussion. You are quite happy if people just read and move on without comment. A 'click' of the 'like' button or an 'Amen' along the way and you are happy. As an evidence based person you put things up hoping that it will spark interest and you want comments, particularly dissenting comments. You want people to disagree with you. That is how you know whether your views and arguments are sound and you help others who are on the opposite side see flaws in their argument (at least that's what's supposed to happen). However, I think our culture in the Caribbean takes over and people feel they don't want to 'rock the boat.' It's a pity.

When I look back at it, I feel as if I should have known this would happen. I blame my lack of foresight on spending too much time listening to religious discussions. When you immerse yourself in these, it's easy to think that everybody out there is keen to represent their beliefs and show why they think as they do. However, in reality the type of theist who will call in to 'Atheist Experience' or go out and study William Lane Craig style apologetics is rare. It's a bit of a shame. I had done all my background research, listened to online debates with all types of theists; from the raging fundamentalists, to the mildest of agnostics. I was ready for the cosmological, ontological, teleological and other 'logical' arguments that I was sure I would have to be handling. It was like I completely over prepared for my exam. Staying up all night to study for something and then getting a super basic 15 minute multiple choice quiz in the morning. If I could understand not having a 'big deal' response here in Canada, the Caribbean was supposed to be so different, but not really. Perhaps I wasn't in Barbados long enough but the people I talked to about it, apart from this big exception here, haven't had much to say. When you think about it, it is somewhat strange. You have people strong in their convictions about their Lord and saviour, adamant that following him is crucial to the salvation of every individual on the planet. You tell them that you think they are fundamentally mistaken in this belief and that none of this stuff is true and their reply is the equivalent of, "Whatever."

When considering my family, I have to pay special tribute to my parents. My mother in particular has come around remarkably since I first told her I was an atheist and I wrote this. While I was in Barbados I got a lot of time to explain to her how my beliefs had changed and why I made the switch. She was happy to engage in discussions and has actually now become one of my biggest fans on this blog. Dad has also enjoyed the writing and thinks my approach to religion is healthy and is happy that I don't come across as too angry. I am glad to hear that, I want that theists can read what I write here without fear. Dad and I share a lot in terms of our skepticism of religion, even though he remains very involved in the church. We had some very long into the night debates while I was in Barbados which I wish I had taped and could share to a wider audience. Dad tries to keep me to high standards, never afraid to point out the occasional grammatical error that may crop up in my writing here and their. I suppose dads will always be dads. I always promise him I will aim to do better with every effort and as he always tells me, when I write he is more in my corner than against me.

An atheist to us is not an atheist to them

Perhaps more than anything during the last year, I have learnt that there is quite a difference between how people define the word 'atheist.' Those who identify as agnostics I find especially interesting. Often when I get down to the nitty gritty of what they and I believe or disbelieve there is little difference if any at all. It has become quite clear to me that there is a major difference between what an atheist thinks an atheist is and what people who are not atheists think an atheist is. Essentially, it seems we atheists are defining our word in a way that nobody else in the world does.

"How can you be so sure?"
" I don't see how you can know that there isn't a God, so I call myself an agnostic."
" I can't become an atheist like you, the universe is too vast for me not to hold on to the slight possibility that there might be a God."

The first few times I got these types of responses, I just treated them as one of those textbook atheist 'strawman' fallacies. I simply explained the usual; atheism is not a position of certainty it is just a lack of belief due to insufficient evidence, I am an agnostic as well, bla-bla-bla. I never thought it was anything major pointing this out. After all, any definition in a dictionary would tell you this. Not only that, but it is trivial to point out that everyday in life we say that we 'know' something when in fact we don't have absolute certainty. I say that my car is parked in my garage now, because I left it there. But I really don't know that, it could have been towed, stolen or moved without my knowledge. Still, in spite of all this I don't think that people draw the parallel from this analogy to how we define 'atheist.' They will nod and give us an " Oh I see what you mean," then go on their merry way.

You see, I don't think it matters what we say and how we explain it and how many dictionaries we show them. Theists have determined their own definition of what an atheist is and they will go with that. I have found people who have told me they are not atheists because they have no problem with religion and think that we all should be able to believe what we like and no one should be forcing belief on others. Again this is a curious response, atheism has nothing to do with attitude to religion. I have said on numerous occasions, I still have a great fondness for many of the cultural artefacts relating to religion. The music, the art, the poetry and architecture, I still have an appreciation for those things. I find people still sometimes don't get this. They will go to great lengths to point out churches to me, hoping to rile me up. It's as if they expect steam will start coming out of my ears from the sight of a spire on a tower or a cross on top off a roof. They are so disappointed when I say, " Yes, I see it and it's very beautiful."

It is clear that we have a long way to go to make atheism palatable and there are many things that need to be addressed. The first one is this definition issue. I have heard lots of people in the secular/atheist movement claim that too much time is spent quibbling over names and what people choose to call themselves. Why do we have to make such a big deal about calling ourselves atheists? I think it is very important that we do, we have to claim the term and more than that, define it on our own terms. It strikes me that we as atheists can become complacent in this definition game. Once the official dictionary term is in agreement with how we look at it, we feel that the battle is won, the evidence is on our side and we are on intellectually solid ground. No! Usage is what ultimately determines what words mean. Psychiatrists cringe, when people talk about schizophrenics in terms of people with a split personality. The medical books will say something quite different. It doesn't matter, meanings of words depend on how people use them. That's why the ' just a theory' argument works so well against evolution when creationists are speaking to lay audiences. Doesn't matter what textbooks might say, it's the definition in the mind that matters. Definitions of the word 'atheist' are no different. In the minds of much of the general public, an atheist is someone who is certain that no Gods exist.

Sometimes it is fine to let words, meanings and usages evolve naturally, but we have to be careful. In the case of atheism, I see a clear strategy at play in defining atheists as persons who are certain about the non existence of God. That categorisation virtually makes every atheist not REALLY an atheist. And that's the whole point, to wipe atheists off the map, not by some kind of coup or military operation but on a technicality, simply by defining us out of existence. It is a subtle ploy but very effective. So successful, that even many in the secular world play into it. Non believers will regularly reject the atheist title because they are accepting the theist's definition of the word. This confusion of definitions even within our ranks creates a wedge between us, and theists often pick up our fragments that break off. It's the old adage of divide and conquer.We need to push against this, explain not only what the word means to us and what the dictionary meaning us but why the definition that they commonly use marginalises us and therefore why our definition is better. Their belief is that if they find a way to make the group called 'Atheists' an empty set, they can create the illusion that there really is no one that believes there is no God. It creates the impression that we are all just different shades of theists with some more agnostic than others. We have to show them that to ask for certainty in order to justify the statement ' I don't believe' in a God context is an unfair double standard. The bar is miles lower than that for all other non beliefs in the universe. There is a song popular in Caribbean churches called " Cast your burden onto Jesus, for he cares for you." Jesus apparently cares so much that he performed a miracle on the rules of logic on behalf of his followers. He has made it permissible for believers to cast their burdens of proof unto atheists. We can't let them do it.

Not surprisingly, the faithful smile when we talk about putting away the demonic 'atheist' label and identify ourselves as humanists, freethinkers, secularists, brights, rationalists, skeptics or some other nebulous title. This is great, they would always support that.Their message is that you are free to not believe in God just as long as you don't tell us that. This allows the people in the faith world to continue living in their bubbles, convincing themselves that there is no opposing worldview. Once they can keep atheism as a fringe movement, with the perception that we are a few angry voices yelling on the church step spitting on little old ladies as they walk in the door, their job is done.

Of course, what we hear also is that it is the word 'atheist' that is the problem. It's a harsh word that grates on the ear. It brings thoughts of communism, socialism and massacres by Hitler and Stalin. Even if we have the best intentions in our use of the word, better for the sake of strategy to avoid it. This is an argument that I take seriously. From a personal perspective I like the word and find it empowering, however I recognise the importance of employing strategies that work and if atheist is a boulder in the road towards a secular world, I am all for tossing the 'A' word aside. This week in the US a bus ad was rejected as 'too controversial' for simply having the word " Atheists"on it. Still, I am not convinced that it is the word itself that is the problem.

The problem I believe is the " I don't believe in God." Any word that means that is going to be rejected by the religious. So, it doesn't matter if we drop 'atheist' tomorrow and start calling ourselves 'pineapples' to show we don't believe in God. In a few years time, it would be almost impossible to get a picture of the tropical fruit on to the side of a bus without the vehicle being vandalised. The truth is that when people want us to change the word they mean they want a new word with a different definition. They want that there be no word in the english language that means ' a person who doesn't believe in gods.' If that happens, the God opposition movement will disappear from the public square, there will be nothing left to hold the Almighty at bay. With no weapon of resistance against faith, we will be rendered impotent in the theistic battle and the Holy train will continue to steam-roll us.

If we want to have any chance of achieving the utopia of a world where people need to justify their beliefs, attitudes and decisions with evidence, logic and reasoning we have to keep fighting. Fighting for the survival of our group and OUR word. People have told me that this is not necessary. God and evidence based living can coexist and reason can flow from faith. Some even argue that reason could not exist unless a God made it. Sorry, I can't see it. How can a foundational unchangeable belief in an entity which has no evidence to justify it give rise to a society where the need for evidence to justify ones position is at the core of all decision making? The house that results is bound to collapse on itself sooner or later.

So, that's why I will continue to support efforts like 'A' Week. For me this year it's not an individual desire to 'come out' to society, it's a desire to get a specific societal outcome. One where religion gets to be challenged rationally like everything else. It seems fitting this year that 'A' Week will morph right into the Reason Rally in Washington DC on March 24th. It's almost like belonging to a church, going through Advent waiting for the big Christmas morning or reflecting during Lent in anticipation of that glorious Easter morn.

It makes me chuckle, I am right in the thick of it again. It's so great to know that this time reason is the reason for the season.

No Religion Know Jesus?: You can’t get to heaven without a ladder

Published

caribatheist

on March 13, 2012

Last week I got involved in one of those facebook debates. It started with a comment I got from one of my Christian friends, who remarked that that my promotion of 'No Religion' in my blog's title was a good one. She told me that she doesn't believe in religion either, that religion is something that separates us from God and the emphasis that churches put on ceremony and doctrine distracts people from what really matters which is knowing and accepting Jesus as their saviour. So, her clever retort to me was,"No Religion, Know Jesus!"

This type of thinking is one that I have heard often from Christians, especially those with an evangelical bent. It is most frequently framed as ' Christianity is not about a religion it is about a relationship.' I just can't believe that the persons who utter these statements think about what they are saying. Religion is defined in the Oxford dictionary as

' the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.'

So, the belief that you have a personal relationship with an invisible supernatural being is exactly what religion is! Every religion I know of, encompasses some relationship between human beings and someone or something in the supernatural. In the past I have viewed 'I don't believe in religion' as a tactic, it makes it easy for believers to separate themselves from aspects of their faith that they find repulsive, absurd or simply meaningless. They could take the good things and call them ' things that God REALLY wants' and not be called to account for leaving out the 'religious' things they don't like.

Really! How can we come to know Jesus without religion? The story that we hear about Jesus comes from our bible, the central text of Christianity. If there was no Christianity how would anybody know Jesus? That would be like expecting someone to come to know Luke Skywalker without ever watching anything about 'Star Wars'.

For a long time I did think that this argument that people of faith bring was not worth responding to. It seemed that there was no way that you could realistically separate your God from the mythical story that brought him forth. However, these days I am realising just how widespread this view of religion without religion is. So, I thought I needed to address it. Having looked closely at the arguments that I have heard from many regarding this 'not about religion' argument, this is how I see it.

The Ladder of Religion

Religion is like a ladder. A ladder perhaps not dissimilar to the one Jacob dreamt about. Impactful on the mind, stirring to the emotions but just as close to reality as the images that fill your brain when you nod off at night. We who grow up in religious cultures, get taught how to climb this ladder from the time we are in kindergarten.. Once we are old enough to walk, we are mature enough to start having climbing lessons. Each rung we reach out to teaches us a little bit more about the God of our culture. First it is how he created everything in the world including us. The next step is how he rewards and punishes us. Then we reach up to learn the stories that surround great men and women who have shown us what God is like. It is a lovely ascent for many people. We learn his songs along the way, then come to understand complicated rituals that pay homage to him, we learn how to worship him, we read the books he wrote and act out some of the things he experienced. All the while, we literally feel we are reaching up to God, getting ever closer to the prize in heaven. Then, along the way, something happens. Something that you just can't explain or put into words. It happens differently for every individual and it is commonly referred to as an 'experience.'

I have heard of many different 'experiences', and even had some of my own. An 'experience' is something that you think cannot be explained in terms of what you understand from physical and material reality. Something that resonates with the non natural world you have been discovering on your religious climb.At that moment it feels like God himself has reached down to you from heaven and raised you up off the ladder, pulling you to himself. That 'experience' tells you that you have found God and that is the point in the process where the ladder of religion becomes irrelevant. No need for ladders anymore when God is giving you the elevation. Or as one of my friends put it, 'no need to keep the scaffolding once the house is complete.' I think this is exactly what Christians mean when they say that 'Religion is man reaching out to God while Christianity is God reaching out to man.

Yes, 'experiences' of God reaching out can be very emotionally powerful. The sort of thing you never forget for the rest of your life. It could be a feeling of peace in the middle of a stressful situation. The relief of a long lost friend coming through to help you with finances when you thought all hope was lost. The diagnosis of an 'all is normal' when the doctor told you a week earlier that your child was going to be born with a deformity. A voice that seems to come from inside you telling you to 'give it up' when you find yourself in the midst of gang life dealing with drugs, alcohol and prostitution.

These are just a few examples of 'experiences' I have heard about. There are millions more of these ranging from the trivial to the life transforming. As varied as they are, they all have one thing in common. When they come along they render the religious ladder redundant. In these moments we come to 'know' God, the God that confirms all we were learning about as we were climbing the ladder. We believe at these points that God has taken us into his hands, he can take care of the heavy lifting now and there is no need to rely on our puny footsteps on a wobbly little ladder to get us to the top. When God takes us in his arm he pushes the ladder away, just like how Benny Hinn pushes away the crutches of the 'healed' crippled people in those revival services.

So, as God pushes away the ladder, he pushes away religion. Now, the doctrines, the hymns, the recited passages, the creeds, the communion, the sacraments, even the bible don't really matter in the overall scheme of things. You have now got a taste of the 'true' God. Understanding this process, is something that I think is vital for atheists, for me it explains a lot of the mystery. You see, in trying to convince believers in all faiths that their belief in their scriptures is misplaced, we point to things like absurdities in bible passages, contradictions within the texts, religious explanations about the world that flatly fly in the face of what the natural sciences teach us. We write blogs, produce you tube videos and recommend books that speak to these things, but none of this makes a difference to the believer that has had an 'experience.' Pointing out the rotting wood or showing them all the loose rungs that are about to fall to the ground mean nothing after they have left the ladder behind.

They will humour us by indulging in debates and discussions on aspects of philosophy, logical fallacies, hermeneutics and the scientific method but it's just a 'what if' game for them. They 'know' God already, so what if you can use logic to prove he isn't there? It's all a bit of a joke. It's like someone bringing a watertight argument to me, that proves that I don't exist. That's what I think they mean when they say it's not about religion, they mean it's not about that ladder, those initial steps they took to try to find God, it is about the God that found them, the one they have experienced first hand. The one they truly have a relationship with.

The interesting thing is that even though the religion ladder is pushed aside, it's not as if it's thrown away. It is maintained as a relic, a heirloom that represents that relationship they now have. The ladder becomes sacred more for what it stood for than for the level of support it gave. That is why so many Christians display their bibles proudly on book cases without ever cracking them open to read a verse. It's the book that's holy, not necessarily the stuff inside it. It's no longer a simple story collection with talking animals, global floods and ritual killings. With your revealed saviour, you can leave the old stories in the Garden of Eden and start out on your 'cherry picking' walk with Jesus. You have met a God that's loving so you can discard anything people tell you about a vengeful, wrathful tyrant described in the bible. Direct experience must always win over second hand accounts. You are left in a bit of a conundrum because you still think what that book says is true and was written by God, because the God you ultimately found was recognisable because his characteristics squared with the descriptions you found within the book he wrote. But, the thing to remember is that you have a direct relationship with the one who understands all. Surely he can explain it and will one day if he feels its necessary. If he never does, it's not a big problem, these little annoying things that detractors bring up are mere religious quibbles, like workmen arguing over who has the strongest ladder.

Still, I would advise my christian friends that try to down play the importance of the religious ladder to think again. They would never have been able to identify their saviour unless their religion had told them who to look for, the ladder had to be there, leaning them in the right direction. There is just no way to know Jesus unless you know about his religion first. Strangely enough, nobody finds Jesus who has never heard of him. It's true, no God can find you unless you are some point on the ladder that reaches up to him. While climbing, you may have stopped due to fatigue or even have turned to scurry back down thinking its not worth it, but once you have stepped out on to a rung of a religion, its God is liable to swoop down at some point and pick you up. Of course, for every God in history, there is a ladder made by humans to reach him. It appears most of these man made ladders lead to man made Gods. Some say, all except one. I see no reason not to kick down the last one standing, but that is a topic for a different day.

So, I am sticking to my guns. " No Religion, Know Reason!" and "No Religion, No Jesus.!"

Also, now I have given it more thought, I have to apologise to Jacob. He may have been a dreamer but he was absolutely right. You do need a ladder to get to heaven.

Celebrating the legacy of Whitney Houston: One Moment in Time that meant so much

Published

caribatheist

on February 25, 2012

It happens so frequently these days it seems. We lose an icon and the chorus of responses says ' gone too soon.' The latest balladeer to have left us is Whitney Houston. A lady whose legacy is as great as they come. For anyone who grew up in the 80s or 90s, Whitney was the lady that every girl that could 'carry a tune' wanted to be. In Barbados back in those days, it was an eye opener when the female pop singer you were hearing on the radio was not Whitney. Over the last few weeks when the press has been recapping the many hits she had in that period, I found myself saying many times, " Oh yeah, she sang that one too!"

In those years I am sure many people can tell you of first dates, school dances, modelling shows, and Miss 'Whatever' pageants where Whitney held centre stage. I am sure all over the world that the experiences were the same.That is why it makes me sad when people concentrate on highlighting the personal problems that Whitney Houston had, and the way in which her own behaviour led ultimately to her self destruction. For many this is a serious blot on what was a stellar copy book.

I have to add that there is a tinge of irony when such comments come from people who are Christians or describe themselves as spiritual in some way. These are the same people who claim that we who are atheists are just materialists who don't understand the value of the transcendent. They say that it is the soul not the body that really matters. They emphasise that the eternal is more critical than the temporal and things that speak to heart far more powerful than those which speak purely to mind. Well, if they really believe what they say, then the triumph outruns the tragedy in Whitney's life by miles.

Whitney Houston's physical body is no longer here but her'spirit' lives on in the hearts of millions and will do for years, decades, maybe even centuries to come. In the course of her struggles, she suffered personally and that was a shame, but she did not for the most part bring harm to anyone but herself. Her immediate family and friends will feel the pain, but for the wider world it is the gain of the music that will have the greater impact. In spite of her celebrity, we have come to learn how lonely and depressed she was prone to feel after the lights faded at the end of a show of glitz and glamour. We've heard of how the pressure of maintaining her place at the top often told on her mentally, emotionally and physically. Yet, she battled through to give the world some of the most memorable performances of all time. In many ways Whitney Houston sacrificed her own life for the benefit of us all.

Of course, at this time of the year, we are often told of another sacrifice made in a different context which the faithful call the greatest love of all. That saviour being referenced is one who gave up his life after 33 years, 15 less than the number that Whitney shared with us. I know that it wasn't that our saviour wilfully went out there and destroyed his own body to cause his own death. Nonetheless, he certainly had the power to prevent his own demise. We can recognise that Whitney was a flawed human being, who was eventually unable to defeat her own inner demons. But our saviour, we are told, was God in flesh. Surely there was no demon that could prevail against him. Yet, he chose to grace us for such a fleeting moment. One would think that after going through the trouble of travelling all the way down here, he would have hung around at least long enough to make the trip worth it.

Jesus if he wanted to, could have lived much longer. I understand that for the Christian his death and resurrection are important, but I fail to see why a more mature man hanging on the crucifix would have made the story less meaningful. James Sisnett in Barbados just reached 112, couldn't Jesus have at least managed half that? We may not want to be greedy enough to ask for a 969 score like Methuselah in the Old Testament, but if you think about it, there is no reason why he should not have granted us that. Indeed, Jesus could still be living among us in the flesh. All he had to do was raise himself from the dead but delay the ascension. Just think of the things we could have learnt from the master if millions more had walked beside him.We could have had millennia of miracles.Well, that was not the plan. In fact we are told that we should actually love him more because he gave up his life for us, we are to adore him for what was effectively a suicide mission.While Whitney tended to sing about miracles rather than perform them, there is no doubt that her music had its own special brand of magic that could empower the listener. If we blame Whitney for leaving us in body too early, we should have some words of admonition for our Lord and saviour too. Fair is fair!

One Moment in Time: My personal experience

I know that some people would think saying that Whitney Houston's music could empower in a way similar to how their saviour does is nothing short of sacrilegious. Well, I will take a leaf out of their book and do exactly what they do. I will speak from my personal experience. In the wake of Whitney's death there have been people reminiscing on songs like 'I'll Always Love You' ' The Greatest Love of All,' and 'Where do Broken Hearts Go?' Many have recalled the performance of the US anthem back in 1991. All of these were noteworthy, but my favourite Whitney Houston song, by some distance is 'One Moment in Time.'

In 1988,when I was active in my church in Barbados, I got together with a few friends and we formed an instrumental ensemble with the aim of performing during services and other social activities. As teenagers we were all relatively 'green' on our instruments but we just felt we could combine our talents and do something positive for our church. I took on the role of leader, having no experience whatsoever in managing anything. I had no idea how far we could take the group, but the team gelled, we were having fun and that was all that mattered. 1988 was the year of the Olympics in Seoul and there was a lot of excitement in the air particularly surrounding the huge 100m clash between Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis and the sudden emergence of Florence Griffith Joyner (Flo Jo). It seemed everyone was catching the fever. In the midst of it all was the release of this stunning piece of music by Whitney Houston which just seemed to capture everything about the Olympic spirit. " Give me one moment in time when I am more than I thought I could be."

I just felt that this was a song we could adapt and make our own. Looking back, I think we ourselves were hoping that one day we too would find our 'moment.' I remember distinctly sitting down and arranging that song for the instruments that we had. It was far from the full orchestra that Ms. Houston had at her disposal. We had two violins, two flutes, a clarinet, a saxophone and a guitar, but we had to make it work. I smile today when I remember putting together the music for the climax with the Pam-pam a namp, pam-a namp, pamanamanama, pam-pam a namp, pam-a namp, pamanamanama.and then the notes to, " I will be, I will be free!"

Well, the piece went down splendidly with the congregation the first time we came out with it and whenever we did it after that it just 'hit.' It quickly became the signature piece in our repertoire. So successful was the group in our church setting that we quickly started getting invitations to play at churches all over the country. By the next year we truly got our moment in time when we were invited to play at a national service at the historic Kensington Oval in front of about three thousand people and live on television for thousands more at home to see. We didn't perform " One Moment in Time" on that day but I felt that tune had brought us there. It was a thrilling day and a moment that none of us could have imagined one year earlier.

Over the years, I just took 'One Moment in Time' with me. I often had the notes of the song playing in my head, as I took off my track suit at the starting line when competing at inter house or inter school sports. I hoped that one day my own personal 'moment' would come. One day it did, in 10.77 seconds on March 1st, 1990. I had set the Under 20 Boys record for the 100 metres at my school. I was ecstatic. For that moment I was definitely 'more than I thought I could be.' Many highlights in life have come since but that moment still remains right up there with my greatest.

Praying tribute to Whitney Houston

With such good memories associated with Whitney Houston I was looking forward to paying tribute in my little way. Of course my theological perspective is far different now than it was in the days when her songs were popular. That change proved to be significant. My Christian friends were thrown into ecstacy with the nature of the funeral on Saturday; thrilled at the reach their gospel got in just a few hours. For me, the few genuine touches of emotion, were interspersed with far too many 'facepalm' moments.

From start to finish it was all about Jesus. Every person who took to the stage to perform or speak paid homage to the divine. From Kevin Costner to Stevie Wonder to Clyde Davis to Alicia Keys it was all the same refrain. So much so, that when Marvin Winans got up to give the sermon and said he was NOW ready to start the preaching, I wondered what church he had been sitting in for the preceding three hours.Everyone wanted to jump on to the Baptist bandwagon, many saying with a great degree of assurance that Whitney was in heaven warming up her voice to lead the 'Angel Chorus' before the Lord. I can't see a person's heart, but I have to think that some of the speakers were at least agnostic; simply feeling it necessary to play to the church gallery in order to score points with the faithful sitting directly in front of them.

It made me recognise one more reason why so many people who agree with our 'no God' position intellectually, don't want to go all the way and declare themselves as atheists. We atheists would be hypocrites if we said we don't believe in God and then went to a funeral to talk about grandma upstairs playing a harp. Indeed, we would not want to do that anyway, because we would not be being true to ourselves. That's why in general I like people who self identify as atheists. We in most cases stick to our stated principles. We don't waver into belief when it suits us. It is unfortunate that people feel they need to be dishonest in order to comfort. However, I am convinced that's what much of the world thinks.

So, those who stay in the agnostic or 'spiritual but not religious' camp may not be that open to the possibility of God. It might be more that that they want to be able to play the part of 'Christian' when circumstances demand it. They want to be able to live in both worlds. Sit with the atheists and make fun of irrational beliefs like talking snakes, virgin births and bodies ascending into clouds. Later, when tragedy strikes, they want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the faithful and declare that they KNOW the departed has floated up on a cloud to heaven and is singing in a heavenly choir before Jesus. This type of nimble theological footwork often leaves us atheists shaking our heads in disbelief. We who have declared our hand publicly as atheists know we have given up our chance to do this dance and therefore regularly get the doors slammed in our face when we want to come to their party or share in their wake. I know it may sound like an exaggeration but it's true. This feeling of not being able to take part on occasions that we desperately would love to is something that I am not sure that many people who are are not atheists understand.

Message to my Christian Friends

Christians, with every invocation to the supernatural, you believe you are getting closer to God and doing his will to let us know about him. For you He is the one who provides all the inspiration, the joy, the comfort and the blessings. For us it is rather different. Every time you say 'Lord', 'Jesus' or 'Heavenly Father' you push us further away. Sure we can listen through and politely smile when you start your testimonies. Of course we are not insecure egomaniacs that will throw a tantrum just because you use a prayer word. But we do feel a little bit hollow inside when you go all 'God ' on us. When you tell us that faith is all that really matters and God is the only one who can heal, you are effectively telling us atheists that there is nothing we can do to help. Because God is the one gift we can't bring you and you know that very well. We are convinced nonetheless that there is much we can offer within our secular package. However, by just going on about God, you make us feel embarassed about our presents and we sometimes just want to slink away unnoticed through the back door.

Often when I raise such objections in theist circles I get a patronising " Awwwh, so sorry that you feel left out, maybe you need a little atheist God to make you feel happy." They just don't get it. Our displeasure with them also plays into the widely held view that atheists are basically sad people who would be much happier if we just accepted their God . In reality, the sadness is not caused by a rejection of Christ but rather by the rejection of a Christian. What is often not realised is that when theists exclude us they are also hurting themselves. The truth is that they love us as friends and family members and want us to be with them in their hour of need or celebration. They just don't see a way to bring us into the circle unless we join them and their God on their terms. In those moments you want to say or do something to show them that their is a 'spirit' that soars above mere belief or disbelief in something. It is stronger than that which is contained in any faith tradition or secular ideology and it can unite us all as human beings.

This 'spirit' capable of transcending the faith boundary is exactly what so many of Whitney Houston's greatest works tapped into.Songs like 'I'll Always Love You' 'The Greatest Love of All,' 'I am Every Woman' and my favourite 'One Moment in Time' speak directly to that 'spirit'. The power of these songs comes from the fact that they can speak to people of faith or 'no faith.' For those that believe in God, they can relate to the sentiments and link them to the supernatural source they believe in. Persons more agnostic or atheistic can look towards the magnificence of the natural world, microscopic and macroscopic, and how when the right synergies are present the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. For me, that is the true power of the songs that were Whitney Houston's greatest. 'Yes Jesus Loves Me' may have been her last performance, but it will not be the song of hers that leaves the most lasting impression. Why? Because songs that speak to one special faith club will never beat the ones that can embrace all humanity.

Yes, the church is where Whitney got her start, but that's not what made her Whitney Houston. Whitney Houston was a star not because Christians loved her or because the black church loved her. Whitney was a star because the world loved her. It is a pity that we didn't let her speak a bit more to that world in her final moment in time.

Carols and more for Darwin Day!

Published

caribatheist

on February 12, 2012

Happy Darwin Day!

It wasn't how I designed it, but things evolved in such a way as to make it a full Darwin weekend for me at the university. A day of activities on Friday with the secular community included a discussion, video, 'carol singing' and a celebratory cake for the famous scientist. Even a "Happy Birthday Song" which included someone cheekily wishing Darwin ' many more.' So we can now say it is not just 'believers' that sing birthday songs to people who have passed from this life. I suppose we can argue that we have an advantage in that we actually know the birth date of him who we recognise. And no, in case you are wondering, we did not get down on our knees and pray to an " Evolving Saviour."

The planned talk by Daniel Dennett was to be Friday's highlight, but mechanical failure of a plane, meant a wait of an extra 24 hours.So Saturday ended up being 'Dennett Day', as the well known atheist philosopher spoke to a packed auditorium at the university. Much food for thought was delivered in that presentation. It was certainly worth the wait.

And now today, Sunday, I can share with the online community in recognising the famous author of 'Origin of the Species.' It does strike me that even though Darwin has made an amazing contribution to the field of biology, it is far more than that which people celebrate today. It is a recognition of the importance of scientific enquiry as a whole. The beauty of movement from a hypothesis in the mind, to a journey, sometimes lasting a lifetime, to look for evidence in the natural world. The development of a model, framework and a theory to tie it all together, based on what the data shows. It is a narrative to remind us all that for good science we must follow the data where it leads us, no matter the impact it may have for our previously held beliefs, traditions or embedded cultures. Reality is not something we can get close to discovering if we put loyalty to our home tribe, or desire for self satisfying answers as our goal. It is an important lesson for us all to remember, no matter where we fall on the theistic spectrum.

On this special day, I leave you with two carols we enjoyed singing for Darwin . Hope you enjoy them too.

Carols penned by Dr. Marcia Epstein, Humanist Liaison at the University of Calgary.

Charlie Darwin looked about

(To the tune of “Good King Wenceslas looked out”)

Charlie Darwin looked about

on the deck of Beagle;

thinking of the finch's beak,

and the wing of eagle.

Brightly gleamed the sea that day,

as the sun was shining:

Darwin paced the deck that day,

nature's laws divi--ning.

Studying geology, he

thought of ancient mountains,

questioning theology, he

quested for life's fountains:

pondering biology,

seeking a solution,

Darwin made a leap of faith

into evolu--tion!

Though he knew not Mendel's Laws, nor

DNA's connection,

Darwin knew that time and clime shaped

natural selection.

'Origin of Species' made

sense of evolution,

So we know today that he

sparked a revolu—tion!

Twelve Eons of Evolution

(To the tune of “12 days of Christmas”: add each verse to the first one until all 12 are sung)

1. We know that evolution made DNA the key ( to):

our human family!

2) the clever chimpanzee, and our human family.

3) primates in a tree, the clever chimpanzee, and our human family.

4) dolphins & whales,

5) Fe--males and Males! (note: the tune changes at this point)

6) predatory mammals

7) little furry mammals

8) birds of a feather

9) flying pterodactyls

10) great leaping lizards

11) phylum chordata

12) tiny protozoa

Principals and Principalities: Lessons in principle we can learn from Barbados

Published

caribatheist

on January 28, 2012

www.nationnews.com

So, finally we're back to school. It may seem a routine statement, but there was nothing routine about what transpired at the Alexandra School in Barbados during the first three weeks of the new term. If you look at the front page of local papers since the beginning of the year, there was virtually no other story. Thirty teachers from the school went on a strike led by the Barbados Secondary Teachers' Union (BSTU), as a result of a dispute with the principal of the school, Jeff Broomes. It seems the fracas was between Broomes and a teacher in the science department, where clearly there was a lack of chemistry. Nonetheless, given what had transpired behind the scenes and over the years it seemed reactions were bound to get out of hand sooner or later.

What was the most worrying thing to me, was that from the beginning, the court of public opinion painted the striking teachers as the villains in the piece. There were some who stood behind the teachers but they appeared to be relatively few. All this without a great deal of facts to go on in the public domain. This type of thing is not atypical for Barbados in such situations. Facts tend not to matter that much, it's all about personalities.You jump on the bandwagon of the one you like and paint those on the other side as devils incarnate. Your guy can do no wrong and theirs can do no right. You forget your own principles and just support the principal in your corner. And I don't mean only the principals that wield the authority in the school compound. By principals, I mean the 'main players' in society, those that hold leadership positions and tend to be the face of the organisations or groups they represent. The principals in governments, businesses, social groups, churches, media, sports, music or culture. These are the principals that we are often eager to blindly follow.

When we throw our weight behind our principals, we commit ourselves to opposing whoever our principals find themselves in conflict with.These become like Satans to our Gods. We can say that we see them as principalities fighting against our principals. According to the bible, principalities are evil demonic forces within the spirit world that need to be fought against at all costs. This is how the book of Ephesians puts it in the King James Version

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12)

Trinity of Principals: BSTU, Ministry of Education. Principal of Alexandra

In newer versions of the bible these principalities are described as 'evil rulers'. Principals within their own satanic domains. So one man's principal is the other man's principality. That's just the way it goes. It seems in the Alexandra School dispute the striking teachers were deemed to be those on the dark side. Mary Anne Redman, Presient of the BSTU, became seen as the principal principality in a demonic realm. Lest my friends who are not familiar with Barbados consider that I am just speaking metaphorically, let me put you straight. Demons have been identified as being present in Barbadian schools. I kid you not, some children in Barbados have been classified as 'demon possessed.' The claim is on record as having been said by a person of no less authority than the Minister of Education, Ronald Jones, another one of the key principals in this whole affair. We hear from Christians all the time that as a building needs a builder, and a painting needs a painter, every creation needs a creator. So, I suppose a demon in a child needs a child demoniser. Yes, as far as Barbados is concerned these supernatural forces are very real and need to be taken seriously. Who knows? We may one day have a class exorcise replacing a class exercise on the teachers' timetable.

Things did get rather ugly in this principal versus principality fight. Even as punches and counter punches were being thrown, people were shouting from the sidelines asking for a referee to come and stop the bout." Stop it for the children's sake!" was the cry. "It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the teachers must get back to work immediately for the sake of the children!" This made me stop in my tracks. It didn't matter who is right or wrong? Were these people implying that there is no circumstance in which industrial action is justified? If the idea is not to inconvenience those not involved, it would mean workers could never take action if they felt they were being unfairly treated. I mean, if the teachers were being beaten every morning before going to class, would it be right for them to grin, bear it and then go teach for the children's sake?

This is typical of how we deal with disputes in Barbados and perhaps even in the Caribbean on the whole. When controversy raises its head we want to quash it as quickly as possible. It's this type of attitude that makes our cause as atheists such a challenge. Even those who identify with our position are quick to say, "Shhhh, you don't want to rock the boat!" But conflict need not be seen like that. It is not something that should be feared. In any social system, conflicts will come up from time to time. It doesn't mean that either of the persons involved is bad or even that the persons do not have the interest of all parties at heart. People have differences in management styles and personalities and may have objectives that will not always square with those around them. This means that there will be arguments and disputes from time to time. In fact, the disputes and differences are a sign that there is openness and freedom of expression and that people are at least not afraid to speak out. Recognising these differences and taking the time to thrash out the issues is worth it and will often lead to a far better scenario afterwards, but the thing to remember is that the process takes time. Sending children back to school in an environment filled with tension would be counterproductive to all. You just can't expect to coerce people into saying 'yes'. .

It is also important to respect all of the parties, especially the party that considers that it has been hurt, whether you personally see that party as a principal or a principality. It was sad to see the teachers being looked at as demons. Telling them everyday in the press that they should be fired, or that they must come back to school immediately or else, is not the way to show a valued stakeholder respect. You are treating the teachers in a manner that you would not accept from those same people towards your own children. That is why I think the dispute was prolonged, the rhetoric just added fuel to the fire. Ironically, the attempt to wrap things up quickly, ultimately made the process much longer. The lack of respect has not ended yet either. The screaming headline,"Teachers Paid!" in the Nation newspaper said a lot. The words appeared to be suggesting that this was some kind of national scandal, as if Allen Stanford were coolly walking up to a commercial bank to collect his investment dividend cheque.

These educators were not on a beach somewhere, sipping martinis for the last two weeks. They were engaging in industrial action, to fight for what they consider was their right. I am not saying that their action was called for, maybe it was frivolous, but the important thing is that it was merited in their judgement. And in general, the judgement of teachers is something we consider to be reasonable. If we didn't feel that way we would not put our children in their hands for six hours a day, five days a week. So, we at least have to give some weight to the possibility that their judgement with respect to the evaluation of their own situation was also correct. In their opinion they were fighting for a principle, setting a precedent that could have long term implications. They did it through the channel of the BSTU which is an approved body set up to represent their interests. As far as I can tell, there were no laws broken here.Why the implication that they should now not get their due? It's as if paying the teachers what they are contractually due was like entering in to a pact with the devil. If we want our society to progress, we badly need to move away from the battles between principals and principalities and see ourselves as being a team. A team including parents, teachers, children and the wider society.Trying to slam your team mate is no way to get corporation.

No faith in negotiation

It is unfortunate that in times like these a society cannot turn to the faith on which it has built its foundation. Not that the parties involved were loathe to try to invoke it. At least twice pictures of groups in prayer circles were shown in the press. Parents or teachers holding hands aloft, asking God to lead them. But what does the Good Book have to tell us about negotiation? When it comes to dealing with conflict you either submit as Jesus advises in the New Testament and 'turn the other cheek,' 'or follow the Old Testament God's methods and look to subdue all that stand in your way. There really is not a lot in Christianity that prescribes a response that lies between the two testamental extremes. It would be great if we could go to the bible and read a passage that said something like this.

" Take heed of the teachings contained in thy holy texts but listen to thy brethren who may have ideas contrary to the revelation that thou believeth. If the evidence and justification for thy neighbour's position is better than that of thine, adjust thy thinking, for logic and reason are of the Lord. It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for an irrational man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

But no, unfortunately that verse did not make it into the Canon. Yes, when you use faith as your guide you tend to simply dig your heels in. Meanwhile you worship the overriding principal, God himself, who by definition is always on your side. He is the one whose word is the law, whose very nature dictates good and evil. With such a foundational belief it is easy to go into the world and look towards authority figures, seeing everything as good versus evil, black versus white, principal versus principality. Through all this we forget the principles.The principle that everyone deserves a chance to work, live and play in reasonable conditions. The principle that everyone deserves to be treated fairly. The principle of " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yes, that last one is a great principle. I know that many people believe in this principally because Jesus said it. For me, a great principle is a great principle regardless of the mouth it emanates from. It is sad that the principal people in society that we would expect to uphold these principles do not. That is the principal reason why we have huge disputes which, in principle, should not be that difficult to resolve.

So, where did the teacher resolution finally come? Of course it was through a principal. None other than the Prime Minister of Barbados, Freundel Stuart, the principal principal in the land. What principles did Stuart use to reach a resolution? We may never know. What we do know, is that when in comes to understanding the principles of negotiation, we in Barbados have much still to learn.

No one true New Year: But a lot to look forward to and reflect upon

Published

caribatheist

on January 12, 2012

It's 2012!

Yes, there is always something exciting about a new year. Although, I must admit, that a bit of the gloss of the midnight countdown has been removed for me in recent years. Now that I live in Calgary, I am among the later set of people to get to the New Year. With satellite TV, online radio and family and friends living in different parts of the globe, I have often 'seen in' the new year four or five times before it finally gets to me. It is hard to be excited when you know that in many parts of the world the champagne cork has long been popped, while a few to the west of you have it on ice waiting for their 'moment.' Not to mention our Chinese friends, who start the year at a totally different time.Still, this seems to be a completely irrelevant to those who wrap up in four layers of clothing, shivering head to toe, to countdown from 10 and kiss loved ones on the stroke of a Big Ben chime or a Big Ball drop. This reminds me so much of how it is with religion. It's like everybody in every part of the world believes that their New Year is the one true New Year. They celebrate the moment as if it is a universal cosmic event, setting off fireworks as if there was no tomorrow. Yet, for most of the world that is NOT the New Year moment. Whichever time zone you live in, there are more people that don't share your midnight celebration than those who do. But it doesn't matter at that time. You don't hear people say , " Happy New Year Mountain Time People!" No, there is nothing said by the MC to suggest that the countdown only applies to a certain group.You hear, " It's 2012!" or an all embracing " Happy New Year!" It feels as if the whole world is celebrating at that second. At least, that's what it used to feel like when I was celebrating as a kid in Barbados. Perhaps, that's why even today the Barbados New Year feels the most meaningful of all to me.

On New Year's morning I realised how similar time zones are to religions. When people get together to celebrate their God, they are well aware that there are many people from far flung places for whom that particular God is not real. But that doesn't stop them, they still pull out the music, the pomp,the ceremony and the parties as if there was no other faith in the world. Their friends from abroad who tell them about celebrations of their deities at different times and in different ways doesn't strike them as a contradiction to their own beliefs and it doesn't make their own celebrations any less true. It's almost like we human beings have some capacity to take our little community and make ourselves believe that the world is just US, even if it is for a few seconds before midnight or a couple of hours on a Saturday or Sunday morning.

The truth of the matter is that the New Year moment is simply an illusion. It doesn't really exist. The year changes over a 24 hour period, and the whole thing is arbitrary, totally man made . This was illustrated clearly this year when the government of the island of Western Samoa decided to 'cross the dateline' and set their clocks to coincide with their neighbours in the Pacific and Oceania. Friday December 30th, was skipped as a date on their calendar as a result. I hear people are still wondering what Seventh Day Adventists and other Sabbath keepers will do about that one, but that's another story.Yes, it's clear that the way we designate time is of our own doing. But at the same time we know that time itself, is something that exists. We can track earth's movement around the sun and recognise the axial tilt during this movement through seasons. We can see birth, growth and decay in nature that tells us that that time is passing, however we choose to measure it. The existence of time is not proven by the fact that we have New Year's parties, fireworks, hour glasses, sundials, clocks or watches. Nor from the fact that we have history books that tell us of events thousands of years past. We don't need to read and understand Stephen Hawking's , " A Brief History of Time" to let us know that time is real.

It so happens that just as we have many devices constructed to record and measure the passing of time , we have many inventions that are designed to record, designate and even influence the activities of gods. We have houses for them, books attributed to them, writings documenting their activities, statues of them, incantations used to communicate with them, paintings of them, countries that claim to be guided by them and people that wear symbols to represent them. There are perhaps as many man made artifacts designed with God in mind as they are products designed to make sense of time.However, there's one huge difference. Unlike our evidence for the passage of time, no passages we have that speak of a god can be counted as evidence. Unfortunately, neither can statues, monuments, souvenirs or trinkets. Neither can we consider the elaborate yearly, monthly or weekly celebrations with music, costumes or pageantry that are undertaken in their name. To say that any of these count as evidence would be like saying that the tradition of having a New Year's Eve Party every December 31st is evidence that the earth takes 365 and a quarter days to orbit the sun. It would be like throwing a party for someone every December 25th and saying it proves they were born on that day.

I think there is the feeling out there, that having a lot of representations and activities devoted to something means that the 'something' is real. Even if there is an admission that we human beings have made up many things about it. Millions reason that the fact that an idea has captured the imagination of the masses, means some real thing must lie underneath. They concede that many humans may have mistaken the smoke signals, but the puffs billowing all around just can't be a smokescreen. Surely, there must be fire somewhere beneath it all, even if only just a spark. Well, maybe there is, but we haven't found it yet and we have been looking for a long time. In my opinion, if we ever discover a god, it won't be through kneeling inside buildings that humans have built, reading books that humans have wrote or examining the art that humans have expertly crafted. It will be by looking out there in the nature which surrounds us. The external universal laboratory in which we can all share, observe and experience things together in the same time and space.

Reflecting and Looking Ahead

I have to say, that even though I recognise there is no true New Year, I want to reflect on some things that happened during the most recent 360 degree journey that the earth made around the sun. It has been a great year for me as far as my own secular journey is concerned. I have been thrilled to share some of the highlights with you my readers, although there is no way that I could capture all the feelings. I will always remember that day when I realised I was included on Greta Christina's blog as a 'prominent atheist of colour' that spurred me to push ahead as an activist and to make the decision to come out publicly as an atheist. I have not for a moment regretted either.The post ' Oh What A Week' that I wrote speaking of that experience was another memorable one in itself. It was great to see it highlighted on the 'A Week" Facebook group. The 500 hits, I got on the day I posted it was overwhelming as were the stories I received from people from various parts of the world who were going through the same journey I was. Indeed, I thank all of you who have read and supported this blog in 2011.

In 2011 we also saw the growth of 'Caribbean Atheists'. Travelling through the Caribbean and meeting a few isolated atheist souls and being able to write about it was certainly a great part of my year. Since then, I have met many more online through Atheist Nexus and Facebook. The Facebook page has been a great refuge of reason, with lively engagement in debate and sharing of resources and knowledge. I have been impressed at how well informed many of the members there are and how skilled they are at putting forward arguments and critiquing others. When I was in church I was often dumbfounded at how few people could even explain the basic principles of their faith. People that come to 'Caribbean Atheists,' in contrast seem to have given much thought to their position and most have taken the initiative to educate themselves on various topics. So, the quality of debate is generally high. But don't take what I am saying on faith, I encourage you to go to the Caribbean Atheists Facebook page and see for yourself. I am happy to report that the group reached 100 members just minutes before I started writing this post. It's very encouraging, but we need to keep building.We have started this year with a lot of interesting plans and have a small steering committee in place to try to get the ball rolling. Once again, I urge any of you out there from the Caribbean or with Caribbean roots to join us. We really need your support.

I cannot reflect on 2011 without mentioning my visit to New York and the brunch with the New York Atheists featuring Ayanna Watson of Black Atheists of America. On that day, in addition to hearing the great work Black Atheists of America is doing, I had my first experience of being in a room with a group of black atheists .Indeed, there were more than 15 other black atheists present that day. It was an exciting moment for me, very difficult to put in to words. Just meeting so many like minds in one place, sharing many similar backgrounds and stories. That was Perhaps my most memorable moment of the year as far as being an atheist is concerned. I am still to write about this experience on the blog. You can look out for more on that story in 2012.

Indeed the area of race and atheism has been one that has occupied my mind somewhat over the last year. It is a sensitive one, but I think it is one that needs to be tackled more. I have had the pleasure of reading two insightful books from Adebowale Ojowuro in 2011, " Crisis of Religion" and " Echoes of Common Sense." Ade is one of the leading voices out there speaking of the negative impact religion has had on the African continent and his material is well worth reading. It is interesting to compare these with my own Caribbean experience, there are quite a few parallels . Ade and I have had some interaction online and he has made reference to my work on occasion and graciously acknowledged my contribution to his writing. I have learnt a lot from him through our communication. In addition, I am in the process of reading Sikivu Hutchinson's "Moral Combat" which looks at black atheism and feminism as it plays out in the US. There is also a very interesting perspective of Guy P Harrison that I am reading in " Race and Reality." I have also looked at the writing of Norm Allen Jr. that speaks to some of these issues. So, there is definitely a lot of work to draw upon. I can't thank these people and many others enough for the work that they are doing in their various areas. I can only hope to follow them the best that I can.

So, as we start on another journey around the sun on the year we have designated as 2012, I wish all of you a happy ride. I look forward, from my part, to making it another atheist revolution.

My Christmas Pantomime: Handel and the ‘Baby King’

Published

caribatheist

on December 31, 2011

It was interesting for me to read my First Atheist Christmas blogpost from last year while getting ready to celebrate Atheist Christmas number two. One year ago I was tentative, not quite knowing the ropes. I almost wondered if I had any right to celebrate at all. Even as I listened to my old favourites then, I was wondering if I should be belting out 'O Come all Ye Faithful' or shyly withdrawing into a 'Silent Night.' This year was quite different, even though I can't by any means call myself a veteran. This Christmas I allowed myself to go back into the music I grew up on. I listened to the entire Handel's Messiah, one of my all time favourites. It was as pleasing to the ear as ever and I even found myself singing out loud to "Worthy is the Lamb" as I listened to the triumphant trumpets blasting accompanied by the thundering timpanis.

Myth Music- 'The Baby King'

How did I do it? I allowed myself to embrace the music for what it is; myth music. It is a new category I have designated to place all of the religious music that is still beautiful but whose story, I have to admit these days, has nothing to do with reality. I fully embraced the story of the 'Baby King' on Christmas day including the proclamation of the theme song in the video clip above," For unto us a child is born." In fact, as I listened to those lovely runs for which Handel is so famous and followed the story that is told in that iconic work, I thought of those pantomimes I used to enjoy as a child. The ones where the evil witch, dressed in black, would come and create some kind of turmoil with some magic spell or portion. Then, when all seemed lost, in would come the good fairy to clean up the mess and make everything right.

Christmas Pantomime

For those not so familiar, Handel's 'Messiah' sets many passages from the bible that relate to Christ to music. From the initial 'Fall' in Genesis, through the prophecies of Isaiah, to the ' Coming' in the New Testament. Perhaps the best known excerpt of all is the timeless " Hallelujah Chorus." To listen to the unabridged "Messiah" is to take yourself on a magical, dramatic journey. Indeed, this is what I pictured in my mind starting with the haunting melodic minor strains telling me how in "Adam all die" and " Behold Darkness Shall Cover the Earth." I could almost see the ' fade to black' on the stage with smoke emanating from a cauldron. Then, "Lo and Behold!" In the final act, emerges triumph from the midst of despair, in the person of ' The Baby King' , the prophesied one, the one who will one day free us from sin through his death. I did think to myself that the wave of a magic wand to make sin disappear would be more elegant and certainly a more palatable ending for the children. Anyway, there is still enough there in the Christmas story to at least make you smile, with all the wisemen, shepherds and angels. So, there I was on the morning of December 25th, enjoying my Christmas Pantomime just like in the days of my childhood.

oldham-chronicle.co.uk

Just like those days, I tried not to analyse the plot of the story too much. I could never understand, back in those pantomimes, why the witch in casting an evil spell, would always create some kind of loophole through which the spell could be broken. Why was there always some magic word, flower or wish upon a star that when discovered could just make the evil go away? Why leave the door open for your plan to be foiled? Now I understand. It was all part of the script to give you the desired ending. The formula is simple; everyone's happy at the beginning then something goes terribly awry as we approach intermission. In the second half comes the wonderful denouement where everything just sorts itself out and all live happily ever after.

So, my 'Christmas with Handel' morning was every bit as sweet as a 'Gretel with Hansel.' Yes, of course the holes in the plot were there. The difference here being that it is the good saviour rather than the evil witch that seems to be giving the opposition a lifeline.The 'devil' in Handel's masterpiece cannot be faulted for making things too easy for our hero. The question is how the powerful God of Goodness allowed evil into the picture in the first place. In the pantomimes I have watched, good fairy godmothers may have special powers but certainly nothing like the omnipotence our God father has. Fairies going up against witches are relatively even contests. In contrast, in Handel's work, the protagonist has infinite power, yet inexplicably never uses it to eliminate bad for good. Well, it's all part of the story mystery and it doesn't matter. The implausibility of pantomime storylines is what makes them humorous and fun. Handel's 'Baby king' is no different. The absurdity is all part of the entertainment.Yet, undeniably you can still leave the performance with real feelings of love or disgust for the actors. You may even see yourself in one or more of the characters and try to take away some lesson from their experience. However, when you leave the theater humming, laughing or contemplating what you have witnessed you know that the show is over.

Unfortunately for many of our friends, the pageantry does not end when the curtain is drawn for the last scene of 'Baby King.' They identify with the characters so much that they become part of an ongoing production with them and join an ever expanding cast of 'extras.' They are quick to tell us that the drama is not really over and that we have come back to see the actors perform once more when 'The Cross' opens in March or April. They tell us that tickets for 'The Cross' are ridiculously expensive but some generous soul has paid the entrance fee for all of us already and that we would be both stupid and ungrateful not to take up this incredible offer. I am sorry, I am very familiar with the script of ' The Cross,' and I respectfully have to decline it. Bloody pantomimes are just not my passion these days. I'd rather wait for December next year and enjoy my favourite ' Baby King' all over again.

Saying Goodbye to Christopher Hitchens: Unity in the Midst of Grief

Published

caribatheist

on December 21, 2011

Last Thursday night the non-believing world let out a collective groan. It was the news everyone knew was coming but no one wanted to hear. Christopher Hitchens was dead. Immediately, the tributes started to flow in from every corner of the 'atheosphere' and indeed from many in the religious world who stood on the opposite side, but could appreciate a champion when they saw one.

It was a strange feeling for me during that night. I experienced at that moment something I had never felt before in the three years that I have identified myself as an atheist. I suddenly realised that I was part of something truly global and it felt great to be part of it even as we all grieved. It has so often been said that bringing atheists together is like 'herding cats' but that night and the days following, every one in the herd was raising a toast to the fallen 'horseman' popularly known as Hitch. It didn't seem to matter what side of the secular spectrum you fell on. Those who favoured more measured methods of promoting secularism through humanism or explicitly working with the churches, seemed as touched as those that modelled themselves on the more hostile approach of Hitch himself. Many atheist bloggers and you tubers that are usually not short of an opinion, seemed genuinely too shocked to talk or make a key stroke on their computers.Thursday was a night when you saw en masse the humanity of atheism and the grieving from the heart of a community that is often accused of not having one. Yet, it was so different from the kind of tributes I had experienced in religious life, it was huge but it was not worship. Even in grief, atheists were talking about things they thought Hitch was flat out wrong about, like his support of the Iraq war. I was told growing up that one should never speak ill of the dead. That didn't seem to be the modus operandi applied Thursday night, yet the support for the man and what he represented was overwhelming. I think that says a lot for the value of the secular over the sacred.

It is common when a prominent person in any field dies to say, " There will never be another X." It is almost a cliche. Well, it seems on this occasion it may not be an exaggeration. The way Hitch delivered his points during a debate, showed absolute brilliance. He could easily have made it as a stand up comic, his timing and turns of phrase so impeccable. It was an honour to join with members of the secular community here in Calgary and give a toast to 'the Hitch' on Saturday. None of us there had ever met him, yet he had clearly touched all our lives. It was years since I had got together with other people to sip wine for someone none of us had ever met in person. In the days of old in Barbados it was a weekly gathering to pay homage to a Jew that lived 2000 years ago. Somehow the Christopher I was thinking about on Saturday meant so much more than the Christ offer I used to make in those bygone days.

I have been paying my own tribute to Hitch by listening to some of his famous debates. Some classic moments like these:

On the Catholic church: " They seem to have altered the popular ' no child left behind' to ' no child's behind left.' "

After a less than complimentary introduction of him from an MC at a debate: " Thanks for that introduction, which of all the introductions I have had in my life, is certainly the most.................(pause for dramatic effect) recent."

There was just nothing you could do with Hitch, not a moment that he ever appeared the slightest bit fazed in a debate.Yet, he could evoke an enormous degree of passion at any moment. Who could ever forget his many references to heaven as a 'Celestial North Korea'? There is a tinge of irony that Kim Jong Il, a man referenced so often by Hitch, died so soon after him. It would certainly have made for an interesting discussion between those two in the line up going to the 'Pearly Gates.'

Aside from all Hitch's brilliance though, I think it is something much more that is causing people to respond to him so emphatically after his death. It is the way he played out the last year of his life, the way he looked death in the face squarely and dealt with it. People of faith tend to face the threat of death by immediately seeking to get around it. They are like the student that begs the professor to grant an extension once he realises the assignment deadline is a tight one. Maybe, there are times such pleas are heard and leniency is granted but often valuable time is lost while going through the process of the appeal. Also, quite often even after the extra time, not much more work is produced. Scholars like Hitchens, don't spend time debating and negotiating with the time the professor has set, they just put their heads down and get going, using the deadline as a spur to get the brain in gear and motor down the track. By the time others get their extension granted, Hitch has already finished two or three assignments. That's just his way and I think that's the way we all should roll.

Indeed, the way Hitch finished his life reminds me a lot of the way that we were told to finish races on the track at school. We were always told to run through the tape, make that lunge to the line with the torso, regardless of the effort we had expended before. It was not something that came automatically, it was tempting to cruise through the finish after a gruelling run, especially if you thought you were well ahead or were on your way to capturing some kind of medal. Well, Hitch may have been a winner but he ran through the tape and threw everything he had as the finish line got closer. From the time he heard the bell he was off and away. The race is over for him now and he has plenty of time to rest. Sadly, he can't hear the applause now ringing for him around the stadium. At least we in the crowd can take heart, knowing that if we all take his example and run with it, reason will win out one day.

Godvertising all around us

Published

caribatheist

on December 6, 2011

www.forest-jones.net

Well, it's that time again. The month of December. The time where retailers rub their hands together in anticipation of increased sales, while churches moan about how the commercial aspects of Christmas have taken away from the 'true meaning' of the season. We know it's the dream of some in the pews to bring Santa to his knees before Jesus. Meanwhile, secular groups will be trying to break through the religious din to remind the world that Christmas has really only just arrived at the holiday party. The festivities were in full swing long before Mary, Joseph and the baby came knocking, desperately hoping there was room for them in the inside.

One thing is sure, through it all, God will win out. For all of the protestations of the faithful, the benefits of Christmas, wrapped in secular salutations of "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings," will spillover into the church. Church attendance will spike on December 25th and the offering plates will be just a bit heavier than there were in the 11 previous months. Don't fool yourself, the churches, just like the retail outlets, get a nice little bonus during the northern hemisphere winter solstice. They say they want the secular out, but throwing out the bathwater to leave the baby will make for a dry Christmas. There is no way that the world would pay attention to a holiday with a pure focus on religion. This would mean that populations would pay as much attention to Christmas as they do to Passover. I am sure that deep down in their hearts the churches don't want that.

In any case, I don't think that churches at Christmas or any other season for that matter are likely to be pushed aside by things 'of the world.' The reason for the churches' staying power has to do with an advertising campaign that is highly integrated and structured. A public relations campaign that has been going on for well over two millennia. It is advertising that is dedicated to promoting the product called 'God.' I call it 'Godvertising.' Everybody raised in a society where religion is dominant knows what Godvertising is and many have been part of it and continue to be. We start getting exposed to Godverts from the time we are born and receive our Christian names. We continue to have the divine promotion bombarding our psyche until we are on our death beds being told of judgement or are at such a low point that we think it is the end of the world.

The goal of Godvertising is to create in the mind of the faith consumer a connection between 'God' and 'good.' In short, the message is that everything in the universe that we consider good is sponsored by God. I remember watching Sesame Street as a child and being amused by the idea that a letter of the alphabet or a number could be the sponsor of a children's show. You would hear "Sesame Street is brought to you today by the letters 'C' and 'J' and by the number '5.' Even back then, I realised that letters and numbers are abstract constructs of the human mind, obviously they couldn't provide funding for television shows. Well, believe it or not, there is another abstract construct that apparently produces something far greater than one hour of education and entertainment. Yes, every single thing that you love, value or treasure in this life is brought to you by the letters G, O and D. That spectacular sunset, that awesome piece of classical music,that amazing sexual experience, that beautiful family that loves you, that ability to understand and reason and learn, all brought to you by G,O and D. In fact, even the entire universe from before the Big Bang was brought to you by that invisible entity that starts with a Gigantic, Galactic 'G.'

There is indeed no evidence to suggest that this G-O-D letter trinity exists in reality. Even if it does, there is no reason to think it has a connection to anything else in the universe. So, that is where Godvertising comes in. It has to be very strong and unrelenting if it is to fill in a gap that logic and evidence can't. Of course, Godvertisers are more than equal to the task.

This is how Godvertising works. Basically, we are told that God is good and good is God. Advertisers will often tell you that there is no better way to advertise than 'word of mouth.' Godvertising is no different. Words of clergy, teachers, parents and other authorities tell us that there is nothing we can achieve in life without God. We can't even take a breath without him. After being exposed to Godverts for many years, we start believing that all those things we have labelled 'compliments God' were written by God himself. Yes, Godvertisers just like crafty advertisers, know that your brain can play tricks on you like that, especially after a long exposure to a suggestive message.

Effective advertising campaigns tend to have 'jingles.' These short, repetitive ditties are composed so that people can remember the product and have connections that the advertiser wants resonating in the head. Godvertisers recognised this early and came up with some very catchy tunes that are extremely difficult to forget. Just like advertisers, Godvertisers recognise the importance of catching the children in order to develop brand loyalty early. One popular jingle that plays over and over in my head even to this day is, " Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so." This may seem a pretty innocuous line but it creates an important association between some key words. Jesus, bible and love. Getting this link into the mind early, helps to stave off questions later on when you actually open up that bible package. It is true that you may see endorsements of slavery, genocide and misogyny when you read. No worries, Godvertisers just want you to remember that 'hook' from the familiar jingle. The strong imprint of 'Yes Jesus Loves Me' washes away every stain of Old Testament horror.

Throughout our lives, the Godvertising continues. Billboards outside churches, brochures left strategically at bus stops, bumper stickers, customised number plates, door to door salesmen dressed in fancy suits, infomercials on late night television, swag with the 'cross' logo, it never lets up. Even in the mainstream media, Godvertising rules. On call-in shows people are often warned that giving free adverts for products they may be associated with is not allowed. For some reason, these stipulations are waived when it comes to Godvertising. It certainly seems that there is no time or place when Godvertisements are off limits. The Godvertisers, inspite of always claiming to be short of money, are somehow able to secure their positions as lead sponsors of every champion sports team and grammy award winning recording artiste.

Godvertisers are also excellent at creating demand for their product. Yes, everybody needs God. We have all seen the advertisements that prey on the lack of self esteem of persons who have a few spots on the face, carry a little extra weight in the middle or have a receding hair line. The advertisers don't rush to tell such traumatised consumers that they just need to recognise that their beauty goes beyond such minor blemishes. No, they are quick to offer them that cream, shampoo, or exercise machine that will magically make the problem disappear. More than that, they will assure the customers that they will turn from nervous, recoiling introvert to fearless, confident 'go getter' that can land that great job, relationship or promotion. We are shown the tearful testimonies from consumers who tried EVERYTHING until this life changing product came along one day. The Godvertisers are way ahead when in comes to this tactic. God, of course is the 'all in one' product for all blemishes and the marketers make sure to show you every dirty flaw under the microscopes they carry with them. It's just like how those telemarketers make sure they show you how bad your skin is before they bring out the moisturising lotion. Godvertisers, just like the telemarketers, know that the worse you feel about yourself the more you will buy of their 'Cross of Jesus' cure. It won't be a one time purchase either. Jesus may have paid the price for us in one installment, but they know we dirty sinners will keep coming back week after week after week for the Salvation Body Wash.

Godvertising really runs deep. Once that relationship between faith and morals is entrenched it impacts the choices people make, even as a career. Just as persons with a flair for the sciences are encouraged from early to pursue medicine or engineering, those with a strong sense of ethics and altruism tend to be pushed towards involvement in church life by both peers and parents. I have seen this many times. People with a strong sense of community service have made the decision to go into the priesthood so that they could get a chance to do what they felt a strong drive from inside to do. A drive which the Godvertisers were quick to point out was a calling from God himself. Often these persons realise later on that the product isn't all it is made out to be. However, by then they have such a high position in the Godvertising franchise that there is simply no other place to go. One of the saddest things about the Godvertising campaign is that it often catches those who are the most sincere in their desire to make the world a better place. Unfortunately the Godvertisers cause them to look upwards rather than inwards and around them for solutions.

In business strategy, one learns of the concept of path dependence. The idea that it takes time for a new company to develop the capabilities and reputation to compete with the incumbent 'big fish' companies. Well, the Jesus fish has been in business far too long for any new secular brand to even think of coming close. As a result, often when atheists want to get into the charity businesses they have to rely on the Godvertisers to make their programs effective.The Godvertisers love this. They may have nothing to do with the fund raising, but when the cheque is there to be handed over to the homeless mother of three, they are sure to be in the limelight. Once again the community perception will be emphasised. God= Good. I know it may seem cynical, but when it comes down to it, the Godvertisers are not as much concerned about the people getting the help as they are about the perception of where the help is coming from. In this regard the Godvertisers success is off the charts. "Thank God," is a Godvertising slogan we hear everyday. So powerful a catchphrase, even atheists who don't buy into the product, find themselves saying it.

Interestingly, Godvertisers are not really there to advertise God per se.Godvertisers are in the market in order to promote their particular brand of God. It's not that different from people in the market looking to sell 'Smart' phones. You don't hear, " Buy a Smart phone, choose anyone you wish but just get one." No, you hear , " Get the iphone 4." You need a Blackberry Pearl" or "Samsung Galaxy is the best." They don't want you to buy a cell phone. They want you to buy THEIR cell phone.

The Godverts are similar, churches don't tell you to just, " Try religion."They want you to pick THEIR God and will try to the best of their ability to tell you why their brand is better than all the others in the market. A curious thing happens though, both when it comes to smart phones and religion. Some brands will get the lion share of the market, some will struggle to survive, but at the end of the day you will have more sales overall of the general class of product. In other words, people may not buy your Smart phone, but they will very likely buy a smart phone of some kind. Religion is the same, the more Godverts people see, the more conflicting messages they receive the more confused they will get. They may not know which to choose but eventually they will pick one and some religious leader will have a new consumer of dogma.

The more Godvertising there is out there, the more the consumer is pressured to make a choice for one of them. With every Godvert the atheist option is pushed further and further from mind. Yes, religious leaders obviously would like to control the market, but they are savvy enough to realise they can't always be the big player. However, as long as the industry as a whole is thriving, there is always a chance to get something even if it's just the crumbs on the side left by the mega churches. So, it's important for Godvertisers to keep the discussion around ' which faith should I choose ?' rather than ' why choose faith?' The economist Adam Smith suggested that competitive markets work because a rising tide raises all ships. Religions on the whole seem to benefit as that faith tide rises.

In other words, Godvertisers work together to keep faith alive.This is why extreme Godvertisers that are manipulating congregations and making windfall profits from prayer handkerchiefs, miracle soap and holy spring water, are left untouched by mainstream promoters. The excuse given is that consumers should be free to choose the God product that they want. There is no thinking in these situations of consumer protection for the most vulnerable in society. Faith is the currency of religion and it must always remain liquid and flowing. For Godvertisers, much as they spend time fighting for market share among themselves, the most serious threat is one that is aimed at the entire Godverse. Moves that threaten to shutdown the entire industry from outside. Of course that danger comes from the atheists.

Not surprisingly, the Godvertisers and indeed the general public are often concerned why atheists feel the need to counteract Godvertising. The answer is simple. The widely accepted idea that God correlates to good is by implication saying that lack of God correlates with lack of good. Indirectly, the Godvertisers are saying that atheists are morally inferior and studies conducted in different parts of the world suggest that this attitude is widespread. Therefore as a group of non believers it is in our interest to counteract the Godvertising message. It is more about clearing our name and gaining respect than pulling down others' faith. There are serious implications for us personally and professionally should we not take action to show that such attitudes regarding our characters are unfounded.It is interesting how religious people can easily recognise how an atheist billboard is an affront to their beliefs and yet never stop to think that any piece of Godvertising is effectively saying, " Atheists you are all wrong!"

Yes, I know it's sometimes hard to convince them, but at this Christmastime Godvertisers need not worry. Even though atheists may be on the move,Godvertisers are the incumbents and will be major players in yuletide for years to come.The season is promoted as a season of joy, giving and thinking of others. For a significant proportion of the population, that implies all the things Jesus stands for. So Jesus will be there in peoples' minds even if his name is not uttered. Advertisers will tell you that once consumers make associations regarding their products, you don't have to mention names to get them to buy. You can 'just do it' without having to say 'Nike!' So, Christians don't have to worry about losing their influence in Christmas or Xmas, once they continue to Godvertise. In the meantime, we atheists will not refrain from telling them that Godverts that imply that belief in a God is needed for good, are advertisements that are both false and misleading.

Atheists have emotions too!

Published

caribatheist

on November 23, 2011

Last week I came across the video above by ReligiousFiction. It includes a live phone conversation between herself and a theist. The theist is learning for the first time that ReligiousFiction no longer believes in God. I thought the video was very moving and powerful. While I am not familiar with the Emmaus program that is being discussed here, the video immediately resonated with me. I felt so much as though I had this conversation before and I am sure that it is one that I will have many more times in the future. What caught my attention most in this video, were the changes in emotions on both ends of the line as the call progressed. I must say all in all, ReligiousFiction does a great job here although her commentary on the conversation doesn't seem to suggest that she thinks so. If every future conversation I had with a believer followed this script, I would be extremely happy.

"I don't have any supernatural beliefs"

One thing I learnt from listening to this exchange, was a new way to break the news to a friend in faith that I no longer believe in God. ReligiousFiction says that she, " No longer has any supernatural beliefs." I like this statement. It serves two important purposes. Firstly, it diverts attention from disbelief in THEIR God. It makes the point that you have made a judgement on an entire category of beings and it just happened that Yahweh and Jesus got swept away in the tide. It also emphasises that belief in God is a belief in the supernatural. To many people this may appear obvious, but I can assure you that this is not how it is seen by a lot of believers. I have come across quite a few Christians in Barbados who have told me that they don't believe in the supernatural. They go on to give a laundry list of phenomena that they consider fake. Ghosts, spirits, vampires, werewolves, mediums, haunted houses, psychics, telepaths and other spooks. It never occurs to them that their God is a supernatural entity too.They also don't realise that spirits and ghosts haunt their own religion. Somehow the mere action of putting the word 'Holy' in front, makes these entities part of the natural world order.

When they talk about there dismissal of things supernatural, they also seem to forget this popular song we sing in many Caribbean churches. Part of it goes like this:

" Super, super, super, super, super ,super, super, super, supernatural power, power."

I taught this song to a Christian friend in Canada. He laughed uncontrollably at this line, probably conjuring up images in his head of a Jesus with a cape and a big 'S' on his chest leaping over buildings. It was only then I realised that it was indeed a pretty ridiculous idea. Little did that friend know that he was laughing at his own belief system. In due course, I learned there was much more to laugh at within the faith, that of course is another story. The point is that going the 'rejection of the supernatural' route forces theists to see how God fits with the other super heroes, without resorting to the belittling strategy of telling them their saviour is no different from a leprechaun.

Apart from recognising the super piece of advice, I considered the video important in that it showed an atheist being emotionally torn about whether or not to take part in a religious activity. Atheist videos on youtube tend to be filled with rants on how destructive faith is and how religious people just need to wake up and use their brain. Other videos that take a softer approach, go through the logic step by step to demonstrate where the fallacies are and show how faith just doesn't add up in the end. In these cases, atheists can come across as persons that only care about logic, reason and evidence while viewing emotion as anathema. Any suggestion that there is emotional value in religion is dismissed as being a poor reason for belief. While I appreciate the strength of such arguments made by atheists, this approach often leads to some unfortunate consequences. We get put into a category of having no heart; at least not one beyond the organ that pumps blood. This is because we often make every effort to maintain the idea that we are the thinkers while they are the feelers and dreamers.

Keeping the two searches separate

The truth is that atheists are driven by emotions just as much as theists. The difference is that we tend to apply the logic and evidence first to try to determine what is real. Afterwards, we search for meaning in life and causes that we think are worth fighting for or promoting within the context of that reality.So, for us there are two clear cut steps. For religious people the search for reality and the search for meaning in reality tend to be taken together and this is where everything becomes muddled. So, scientific theories are accepted partly on the basis of evidence but also on the basis of whether they give satisfactory answers to the ultimate questions of meaning. For them, finding reality is a compromise between two very different searches. Consequently, emotionally unsatisfactory theories such as the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution often take a hit.

It has been suggested that logic is like the steering wheel of a car and emotion the gas pedal. Step on the gas without the steering and you are likely to have a cataclysmic crash very early. Steer without pushing the gas and you are not likely to move very far. In life you need to have both in order to get to where you want. Indeed, we in the atheist movement that are activists are fueled by emotion, wanting to correct issues that we see as social injustices that either anger or sadden us deeply.
The phone conversation in this video shows that emotions can also be like a brake pedal. There are times when the emotions cause us to feel awkward and uncertain about saying how we feel. The position of the atheist in the conversation in the video is one such situation. In spite of our recognition that the logic of our former belief system does not hold water, many of us still feel an emotional attachment having been involved in it for many years. In my case, the time I spent in church was a training ground for me in a number of ways. It was the first place I got the opportunity to speak in public before a large audience as I performed recitations from the time I was six years old and became a lay reader in later years. One of my proudest moments was memorising a lesson for one Sunday and stunning the entire congregation by delivering the entire passage without once looking down at the book opened in front of me.

Similarly memorable moments are there regarding my music. My skills as a performer honed in that environment, playing at many a harvest and church supper. I learnt aspects relating to teaching from leading Sunday School,Vacation Bible School and even adult bible study. I learnt how to be a manager and negotiator as I led a church instrumental ensemble and once coached the church athletics team. All of these activities have shaped how I approach my professional and personal life. I therefore feel a heaviness in my heart at times when I have to turn my back on church and say 'No more!'

Perhaps the most similar experience I had to ReligiousFiction was an email exchange I had with a friend I used to play music with. This friend and I played for more than 15 years in Barbados as a duo. We played at churches all over the island and frequently entertained as we ministered to congregations with our lively Caribbean rhythms. People would come up afterwards and speak of how they could 'feel the spirit' while we were playing. That 'spirit' sometimes caused them to dance in pews and wave arms in the air. This year when I was in Barbados, I played in partnership with my friend again, back at one of the same churches. Things were different for me now, but I couldn't bring myself to speak to him of my change. I just thought it might kill the vibe and I didn't want to risk that. I remember feeling the guilt minutes before I started playing. An excited lady from the congregation came up to me, hugged me and said, " So great to have you back in the land, we going to to have a great party in the house of the Lord tonight, we going to enjoy weself in Jesus name right David?" I just could not bring myself to say a word in reply and it left me with a hollow feeling.

I left Barbados days after that performance and although I successfully got through it, I had an uneasy feeling about it all. I did not feel guilty about having played. I was glad to share my talents with old friends. My problem was that I did that without them knowing about the change in my life. I took the decision to send an email to the friend I had played with and give him the heads up. The gist of the correspondence was similar to how ReligiousFiction put it, except that I did not say that I was averse to performing in church again. Still, I remember feeling a tinge of nausea in my stomach as I sent that email. Even five minutes after, I wondered if it was worth it. Things got worse as weeks went by and I got no reply from him. I had no idea what that silence meant. He eventually contacted me after more than a month telling me it was "only now beginning to sink in." It was great to hear him, but the fact that it took so long for him to even bring himself to say anything spoke volumes.

Stumbling across this youtube video brought back many of the feelings that I went through earlier this year. It reminded me that as far as my atheism is concerned I still had unfinished business. There are still good friends who I have not yet told personally that I am an atheist. So, on my facebook page yesterday I put this video up as a link. Perhaps it was my way of having vicariously, this same conversation with them. I must admit it helped me a lot and I feel as though I am now just about completely free. Since the posting, I have got some responses both from atheists and theists. Some have been surprised that I could have written so many blogposts on atheism and still have difficulty at times in telling people I don't believe. If I am relying on logic, evidence and reason, I should just tell people how I feel and not be worried about whether they like it or not. Some feel it is a lack of conviction not to speak out boldly on every occasion.

I even get a hint from a few theists that these internal emotional conflicts mean that deep down, I DO believe in God. Of course they are way off the mark on that. What some believers see as a lack of conviction, really reflects a desire on my part to spare their feelings as much as I can. However, I have to remember that most of these people will never know what it is like to be isolated in terms of religious belief and from that perspective it is hard to expect empathy. All I can tell them at the end of it all, is that atheists have emotions too.

Listening to my data when it speaks to me

Published

caribatheist

on November 5, 2011

The chart above probably looks like a set of lines and coloured blocks to you. Well, I am here to tell you that this apparent mish-mash has deep meaning to me.I have a personal relationship with this data and it continues to reveal many things to me every time I look upon its face. The magnificent thing is that even though I don't pray to it, it speaks to me every single day. Still looks like a random pattern of squares? Well, you just need to open your mind and accept that it is what I claim it to be. I can testify to the fact that since I started studying this data my intellectual life has been fundamentally changed.

For many years, I have tried to ask Christians who tell me that God speaks to them, what they really mean. I have had quite a few explanations on how Christian voices in the head can be differentiated. How to tell the difference between the voice of God, the voice of the devil or the voice of your own conscience. Apparently all three of these voices can be speaking to you at the same time. However, there are not three distinct tones or accents. You know who speaks by what he says. You know the sort of things God would tell you, you know the ideas the devil would want to put in your head and you know yourself well enough to know when you are talking to you. One wonders why any supernatural entity would need to talk to you in the first place, if you know what he would say before he says it. Anyway, I can now report that I have heard that still soft voice myself and it has become louder as I have got more submerged in my research over the last few weeks.

My data's voice is not always audible, it often manifests itself in a way that you couldn't record on a digital device, nevertheless it unquestionably speaks to my mind. Other times I do actually hear a voice. It happens in a way that it is just impossible to ignore even if I wanted to.Yes, my data is made up of voices, 75 to be exact. A number of interviews that I have conducted in the Caribbean over the last three years as part of my doctoral research on renewable energy development. Whenever I read my transcripts, I can hear my interviewees voices. I hear their comments in my head and am immediately transported back to the time and place where their words were uttered.

My data is amazing. It is made up of many different individual perspectives, yet there is a thread of similar goals, ideas and levels of understanding that go through all the discussions. Wow, 15 countries, 75 individuals, three years and so much agreement! I can show you times where two people said almost the same thing word for word and yet they have never met each other. Of course there are areas where opinions and beliefs differ or even contradict. That should be expected, after all people come from different professional backgrounds and live in places where cultures, governments and even languages are different. It's all a matter of interpretation. You have to understand each interviewee within his or her own context. If everybody said the same thing you would know they were just repeating whatever they heard others say and that you weren't getting something authentic.

I have also had instances where prophecies have been made that came true. In 2009, I spoke to many people about oil prices that had fallen from the previous year. Many told me that they were certain that oil prices would rise again soon. And guess what? They did! Before the end of that very year. These people were right, 100% on the mark. I tell you, my data has it all. Prophecies fulfilled, a unifying vision shared by many diverse inspired individuals, and contradictions in perspectives on truth which can be explained through differences in location, time and context. I think those characteristics taken together are enough to put my research data at least on equal footing with that super intellectual, who in spite of having only one publication to his name, has more citations than anybody else in history.

Despite the similarities, I cannot match this more illustrious author in terms of level of confidence. I cannot bring myself to claim the things he does about his work. I don't believe my data is divine and I am not going to put in an application for sainthood for any of my interviewees. I am far too skeptical to take what my data says as gospel. I acknowledge my data's fallibility, and recognise that there are gaps in it. Still, I will cling to my holey data for all that it is worth. I am very serious when I say that my life has changed through my data and that there are things my data can do for me which the Almighty cannot.

For one thing, my data is not jealous data. When it speaks to me, it encourages me to check other sources, look for other data to see what makes sense. In fact when I hear my data speak it often confesses to me it has not got the answer. It suggests to me new directions to look in, in order to find out more. So, my data helps me to broaden my perspective and through that I experience greater freedom. My data is very patient with me and never forces me in any one path. It recognises that I might sometimes misinterpret it, but I am never judged for being wrong. A bad conclusion may make me feel the heat from a journal reviewer or I might be shot down in flames at a conference for making an argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but at least there is no threat of an everlasting fire. Any heat that I get from others in the field will just help me to refine my way of thinking and writing. At the end of the day, I will be moulded into the finished article rather than having my insides burnt to a crisp for failing to turn over a new leaf when I had my chance.

Caribou- Photo from Environment and Natural Resources Canada

Apart from the fact that my data is merciful, I like that my data is objective. It tells me how things are rather than how I would want them to be. It also gets me to the heart of whatever I am studying. At the university here in Calgary, I know people who are studying a myriad of things, from species of wildlife and plants, to volcanoes and underground caves. In each case they gain their knowledge but studying whatever they are looking at in the highest level of detail possible. If you are studying caribou and want to determine what's best for them you have to spend time with them, observe what they like or don't like to eat, their migratory patterns, their mating habits, the way they care for their young and how they deal with predators. Yes, in spite of how many experts there may be in an area, nothing beats the knowledge that comes straight from the source, straight from the data itself. I heard a researcher express to me how easier her life would be if only the caribou could talk.The point being made here is that data takes you down to where the real knowledge is. It is as close as you can get to that which you are studying. That's why my data means so much to me,

It is curious that what is good for studying flora and fauna is not always considered the best method for humans. We don't look to an invisible entity beyond the cosmos to give us mitigation measures for a falling beetle population, but we choose to look to a spaceless, timeless, intergalactic being for guidance on how to curb homicide rates in homo sapiens. Even if there is somewhere out there, something that created us, that has a purpose for us, why should we assume its point of view regarding our lives is better than our own? Why should we consider him the expert on how we should run governments, what values we should believe in, how we should treat others or who we should be having sex with?

God as powerful and wise as he may be has not had the experience of not being God. To me, even omniscience does not substitute for direct experience. I know Christians will say that he knows what it is to be a man as he has been here in human form. Even if that is true he, according to them, was still a God when he was here."Fully man and fully God" they say, but that's not logically possible, it's like saying you ate an ice cream that was fully chocolate and fully vanilla. So, however you look at it, whatever God is, he is not the same as you or me. If he was, then we would be Gods too. Whatever he experiences, it is not the same thing we experience.

The fact is, we are the ones who live in this neck of the woods in 2011 and go through what it is like to be human everyday. It is disappointing to hear some religious people talk down human knowledge as if it has little or no value. They speak as if the moral codes, ethics and laws we develop mean nothing if we don't get a supernatural stamp of approval. I have no idea why millions of people in the world believe that this is so.

www.superstock.com

When I was a kid growing up in Barbados we regularly played impromptu games of cricket after school or in the neighbourhood. We would determine among ourselves what the rules would be on the spot. Maybe we would play ' first hop' so that you could be out caught even if the ball hit the ground before the fielder caught it. Perhaps ' tip me two' where you had to try to run for two every time you hit the ball. At times we made a rule that if you hit the ball into 'Ms. Lewis yard ' that would be out. Maybe there was a time limit on how long you could bat. Sometimes we had specific boundaries marked out for fours and sixes, sometimes you would just keep running until you got too tired. The point is, we made up the rules and played by them and they worked because they were designed for us and we agreed on them. We didn't feel we had to refrain from playing because the rules we were using were not those sanctioned by the International Cricket Council. We didn't feel we needed to run home to ask our parents whether the rules we were using made sense. Who cared what anybody else looking on thought about how we were playing? It was really none of their business. If they wanted to join in then they could have a say in how we made the rules. That's the problem, God is a perennial non player and yet we want to look to him to decide on everything in our lives. Some will refrain from playing the game of life altogether unless they know exactly what the Almighty thinks about it. To me, this attitude makes no sense, God or no God.

That's why when I want to find out what is best for the energy sector in the Caribbean I speak to people who work there and encourage them to develop ways of doing things that work in their environment. People who are on the ground and know what is going on can tell what works and what doesn't in that community better than anyone else in the world. Yes, I can read the works of Nobel Prize winning economists and political scientists and gain some insights, but that will not make much impact unless I talk to the people who are part of the daily reality that I am studying.

Any CEO will tell you the same. If you want to introduce a new policy, technology or process to a company , you have to talk with the people who work on the 'floor.' Make sure that they understand what you want to achieve and why you want to achieve it. No matter how brilliant the plan is from the head honcho, if the people below are unwilling or unable to comply with it, your plan is destined to fail. Success in industry almost solely depends on how clients accept a product, not what the producer thinks of it. The iPhone took off because customers liked the product, not just because Steve Jobs thought it was great. Elmo is a phenomenon in the Sesame Street empire because children love him. The four year olds are the target audience, it's what they think that matters, it's not the opinion of marketing consultants with MBAs. I know tons of adults who can't stand the furry red monster, but that doesn't matter one bit.

It is beyond me therefore, why God's opinion so often comes ahead of the collective wisdom of all humans. Why is it that knowledge that bubbles up from within us is seen as inferior to that which is imposed top-down? For some reason, we just have to accept God's ways because he has more knowledge and can see the bigger picture when we can't. It doesn't follow. If God were an earthly Marketing Manager he would fail on the grounds that he did not successfully communicate his objectives to his subordinates and that the product he designed was poorly crafted from the perspectives of those who planned to used it. The fact that he himself understood it perfectly would be no defense. He could give a presentation of how the company would be better if people had followed the rule, but that would not be enough. He would be fired on account of not considering his stakeholders and their limitations. People would ask why he didn't have questionnaires, surveys or a 'complaints hotline' to tell him how his Creation Plan was working out for his creatures.

Yes, we are told that God created everything for us. One would think that we might have a least some small say in how things operate.Well, that's not part of God's way of leading. I suppose he does allow us to pray to him for what we want, but this is a charade really. It is like a government that holds a Town Hall Meeting to get comments on a policy document long after it has been approved by Cabinet. The Divine Strategic Plan was written into law long before we came into existence, any feeling that our petitions, prayers or other interventions have made a difference is purely an illusion.

So, at the end of the day, even if a God exists I still will look to my data first for guidance. I will make my recommendations for humans based on the experience of humans. When I am commissioned to develop the Sustainable Energy Policy for 'Angels and Heavenly Beings', I promise that calling upon God is the first thing that I will do. I will keep his contact information in my database for when that time comes. However, once my investigations are dealing with phenomena in the natural world I will continue to listen and put my trust in that which my data tells me.
.

A Praisey Mindset: The Sunday School song that starts it all

Published

caribatheist

on October 20, 2011

Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelujah! Praisey the Lord!

There is no way that you could have grown up going to Sunday School in the Caribbean and not know this song. I know, I know it's "Praise ye" not "Praisey" but it was years after my early Sunday School days that I understood that. So, the song will always be called 'Praisey the Lord' as far as I am concerned. You may laugh, but I used to think that Praisey was just another name for God. After all, the Lord seemed to have so many others, God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Yahweh, Yeshua, Jesus, El Shaddai, Elohim, Saviour, Prince of Peace, the Alpha and Omega, why not Praisey? It made just as much sense as the other names at the time. There was even a period when I felt I had a personal relationship with 'Praisey'. Anyway as is the case with so many things you sing at church, the meanings of words don't matter too much. So, I never asked for clarification.

Although there were other tunes that could liven up a Sunday morning, none is engraved in my memory as much as 'Praisey the Lord.' It was a favourite of children and teachers alike . That secret weapon that any song leader could introduce, certain in the knowledge that it would wake everybody up and have bodies moving in the pews. Even back in those days I was not certain that the claim that Jesus was the saviour of the world was true, but I knew that 'Praisey the Lord' could bring salvation to any boring Sunday school class.

It's interesting to look back and try to figure out why this song was always such a hit. ' Praisey the Lord' was by no means only for children either. Indeed, I can remember this song being launched in the middle of deanery youth services and even during traditional Sunday morning 8 o'clock mass. I think what made the song so popular was that it was more than just a song. It was a fun game as well. Children, youths, adults and seniors all like to play and that's what made 'Praisey the Lord' a winner.

The video above gives some indication of how you do 'Praisey the Lord.' Basically, that is how it went. The congregation was divided into two halves. Generally each of the halves was assigned a song leader. One side of the church were labelled as team 'Hallelu' and the other as
'Praisey.' The introduction of the song would be played and the song leader would signal to the first side and they would stand and sing, "Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!" They would then sit down and the other side would stand and respond on cue with, "Praisey the Lord!" The leader would urge them to outdo the 'Hallelu' people in terms of volume. More often that not this was achieved. After that, battle lines were drawn, it was up to the 'Halellus' to raise the bar further and try to outdo the 'Praiseys' effort. And so as the song went on it got louder and louder and often faster and faster as people got more into it.

When the pace quickened it meant that you had to be lighter on your feet too, because you found yourself often back up in the air as soon as you sat down. So, if you didn't pay attention or were slow, you could get caught out standing for the wrong part, singing at the wrong time or missing your cue entirely. Not surprisingly, as people sang faster and louder, tone and singing in key would go out the window. By the third or fourth 'Hallelujah' people were bellowing at the top of their voices, shouting like you would at a local fish market. Probably this was the only time as children that we were allowed to shout as loudly as our lungs would permit. Believe you me, we stretched the envelope to the max. As a five year old it was simply astonishing to think you could get to that noise level without getting even so much as a 'Shush' or 'finger on lip' from an adult in your midst. I suppose that was close enough to heaven for us.

The song could go for several rounds as people challenged themselves to take it up a notch next time. This meant that the tune could easily last over 20 minutes . The climax was generally a rousing long held out ' Praaaaaaaiiiiiisey the Lord!' Everyone joined in for that, even the 'Hallelus' who would reluctantly switch sides for the finale. Inevitably there would be some 'rebel' who would start up with another "Hallelu, Hallelu"and that would mean on for another lap, and the fun would continue. It was definitely hard to stop " Praisey the Lord" once in got going.

In recent times I seem to be remembering 'Praisey' a lot. It comes back to me regularly when I get into debates or discussions about God with Christians or listen to debates on podcasts or youtube. There is definitely a ' Praisey' mindset that seems to stay with you after Sunday School days. I remember in my church days in Barbados writing two songs that actually gained some popularity on the gospel scene. One was called " Sing His Praises!" the other was called " Sing Hallelujah!" So I was definitely caught up in the 'praisey' fad myself. Today on Christian forums online you see a lot of 'Praisiness' in evidence. Below is a fictional example, but it represents what you typically see.

Posted Message: I am happy to report that my daughter that had an asthma attack last night is now doing much better. The Lord is marvellous! Thank you all for your prayers. We must always give him praise.

Responder 1: Hallelujah, The Lord's name be praised!

Responder 2: He is worthy! Praise his holy name!

Responder 3: Hallelujah, Hallelujah!

Responder 4: Hallelu, Hallelujah, Praise his Name!

Responder 5: HALLELUJAH!!

Responder 6: HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!! PRAISE YE THE LORD

Responder 7: HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!! HALLLELUJAH!!! THE LORD'S NAME BE PRAISED

Responder 8: PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIM!

Responder 9: PRAISE HIM!!! PRAISE HIM!! PRAISE HIM!!

Responder 10: PRAISE HIM!!!! PRAISE HIM !!!!!!PRAISE HIM!!!!!! PRAISE HIM!!!!!!

Responder 11: THE LORD IS SO GOOD! PRAISE, PRAISE PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIS NAME THE MOST HIGH!

Responder 12: HAAAAALLLLLLLEEEEEEELUUUUJAH! PRAISE HIM!!

You can see clearly here the 'Praisey' influence that goes all those years back. The same two key words 'Hallelujah' and 'Praise'. Today in the 21st century, things have changed a bit. Instead of trying to drown out your neighbour with noise, you add volume by using ALL CAPS or simply typing the word more times. To take things up an extra notch you bring in more exclamation marks!!!!!! and even bolding. Then you can just elongate the words and repeat as much as you want. I saw someone actually post the message below, I am not kidding.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thankfully that person didn't bother to tack on 'Praise the Lord.' He would have probably needed a new laptop for that. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with believers using all the features available on their keyboard to get God's attention. It is clear that God is well into this internet age, he has millions of friends on facebook in spite of the fact that he has no recent posts. I even heard a lady say that God downloads songs into her spirit. Not sure if he is using itunes but it is quite clear that the Lord is very open to working with the latest technology. Now it would appear that he has Steve Jobs himself to do the necessary updating.

I must admit that these things seem a bit comical to me, but in all seriousness, if you believe that God will hear you if you type more EMPHATICALLY, go right ahead. If you think it demonstrates your level of faith to your fellow believers when you do that, that is fine too. If you think that such proclamations in BOLD will bring unbelievers into the fold, that's OK too. If you believe in Him, no one should try to stop you from expressing yourself how you wish. So I can't say I am a fan of the atheists who respond to the 'Praisey' comments with "What the &*%#*@%*$&*%*$*%#@#!" It contributes nothing to the dialogue and only adds to keyboard suffering.

Where I have a problem is when the 'praisey' mindset finds its way into debates or discussions between atheists and theists regarding the existence of God. Similar to the way we did it when singing 'Praisey' as children, these debaters have specific words which the people on their side are required to say. They may 'hear' what the other side is saying, but it is not a matter of responding to an argument as much as it is restating what they said the time before. Maybe faster, in a louder voice in a different key but always the same message. Indeed, maybe they don't respond to atheist arguments because they assume what we are going to say. They think of us saying 'hallelu' and they just get up with 'praisey' all the time. And more often than not from a 'praisey' point of view they win hands down. There are more singing on their side than ours for sure, so we can't match them for sound. And just like the 'praiseys' in the Sunday School song they always seem to get the last word too. The long held out phrase to end the discussion. It happens because often atheists get tired after a certain point, of making the same argument over and over without them being addressed. We bow out once we realise we are not making headway. In a way, Christians make us play their game, for we end up being as repetitive as they are. We have to, because if they are not answering our points we end up having to restate them and it becomes as repetitive as "Hallelu."

The only difference is that we don't generally resort to turning up the decibels although we do try to change the rhythm and the tone as we go along, just to see if a different strategy will lead to better understanding. It seldom works, because they are only counting down the time as we talk, looking forward to springing up from their seats and shouting "Praisey the Lord" one more time.

So here's how the 'Praisey' mindset works in debates. The atheist makes a point the theists counters, the atheists counters the counter argument, the theists repeats original counter argument without any acknowledgement of directly previous counter argument from atheist. Atheist restates the previous counter argument that was not addressed by the theists last counter argument and the cycle continues. Sounds confusing? Here are two examples:

Praisey Argument One

Atheist: I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. You are making the extraordinary claim that there is a supernatural being controlling everything in the world. The burden of proof is on you to give justification for that belief.

Theist: But where is your proof that God doesn't exist? You believe in science. I choose to live and praise my God. Science has not proved that there is no God.

Atheist: That is true, but the point I was making is that the burden of proof is on you, because you are making the God claim. It has to be like that, otherwise you couldn't say you didn't believe in fairies unless you could provide evidence for the non existence of fairies.

Theist: I am still waiting on your proof that your atheism is correct. You have not provided a shred of evidence on your side so far. Your position is just one of blind faith.

Atheist: No, it's not, as I said before the burden of proof is not on the person who is challenging the claim. Atheism is not a faith anymore than 'off'is a TV channel. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Theist: Jeez, you just dance all over the place with a lot of fancy talk but you still have given me NOTHING! Not one piece of evidence to support your belief that no God exists. You expect me to take you seriously???? What is your evidence that God does not exist?

Atheist: Again, I am saying to you that you are asking the wrong question. You are the one required to give support for your claim. I am not making any claim, my disbelief is due to lack of supporting evidence for your claim. Where is your evidence that Santa Claus is not real?

Theist: Well that does it. This conversation is over, you are not responding to me. Now you are answering my question with a question. You guys are so silly, no wonder God calls you FOOLS. Thank God I am not so blind to JESUS as you.YOU BETTER FALL ON YOUR KNEES WHEN HE COMES TO YOU. All I can do is PRAY FOR YOU. OHHH PRAISE THE LORD THANK GOD !

Praisey Argument Two

(This time the 'praisey' theist starts)

Theist: Oh praise the Lord! How can anybody look at the beauty of creation and deny that there is a God. It just doesn't make sense to me. They would have to be blind. .

Atheist: But the existence of the natural world is not evidence of anything other than the natural world. You can't just assume that God made nature and then claim that the existence of nature proves God, that's circular reasoning. You are assuming what you want to prove at the beginning. In any case if you think God made nature, then who made God? How do you account for him?

Theist: So who made creation then? How did all this get here? A design must have a designer? A painting must have a painter?

Atheist: Well, we have ideas about origins of the universe through Big Bang cosmology but still scientists don't have a clear idea of the state of the universe further back than the 'Planck time.' So, there are still many unanswered questions. I have to accept that I really don't know exactly how everything got here, but a God doesn't help explain. Because you still have to explain his origins. You are just answering one mystery with another mystery.

Theist: Just as I thought. You don't know. I will ask you again. How can you get CREATION without a CREATOR? You think that all this came from nothing? When it comes down to it the answer that you atheists have to the big questions are " Don't have a clue, don't have a clue and don't have a clue."

Atheist: But you don't know either, you still haven't given an explanation for how your God got here. How did God come to be? Did he appear from nothing? You are making an argument from ignorance, putting in a God that you have no evidence to support. Then you claim that you know this God exists because of his 'creation.' Why do you assume that the universe was created?

Theist: You are so arrogant, now you are calling me ignorant. I can't understand why you keep denying God. How do you think you are able to breathe? Who gave you that oxygen? Who woke you up this morning? When was the last time you created a human being, MR. ATHEIST? You can't even do one millionth of what God can do. He created you, gave you life and a brain you could use and you use it to deny the existence of him who gave you everything. It's very sad. Why don't you just give God the Praise. ALL PRAISE AND GLORY ON TO HIM!

Atheist: All those things are just assumptions. As I said before, you can't just assume that all of those things you mentioned were created by God if we are trying to establish whether God exists or not. You are just making bald assertions. All your arguments rest on the assumption that God's existence is fact. How can you know what God did if you can't even establish that God is? And we still haven't addressed the point about how God came to exist.

Theist: This is really ridiculous. You have no idea where anything came from and yet you are rejecting my explanation that gives you all the answers you are looking for. God's creatures continue to choose darkness over light, blindness over sight and death over light. ALL CREATION TESTIFIES TO THE MAGNIFICENCE OF GOD. HE IS WORTHY, SO WORTHY, WORTHY TO BE PRAISED. I PRAY that you will one day accept the LORD AS YOUR SAVIOUR!!! So that we can be TOGETHER PRAISING GOD FOR ETERNITY IN HEAVEN!!!! SO, REPENT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!! HALLELUJAH PRAISE THE LORD MOST HIGH!!!

Well, what can I say? These are the 'praisey' arguments we see and hear everyday. I have to say that in spite of what Harold Camping may be saying about October 21st, I feel we will be stuck with these types of arguments for many years to come. We in the secular community just have to be patient and continue to find strategies for survival. It won't be that easy in this 'praisey' world we live in.