Richard Dawkins is one of the most eloquent spokespersons for science in this age.  He has a knack for explaining complex scientific concepts in ways that lay people of average intelligence can grasp, if they’re interested in taking the time to do so. Richard Dawkins is also one of the most visible spokespersons for atheism in this age.  He has stated his arguments for atheism only slightly less eloquently than he has communicated his love for science, particularly evolutionary science.

Because of his high visibility as an evolutionary biologist and atheist, Richard Dawkins has become a celebrity in, for lack of a better term, popular culture.  According to a recent interview in the Telegraph, Dawkins wonders whether fiction, specifically, the Harry Potter series, has a pernicious effect on children.  According to the Telegraph:

“I haven’t read Harry Potter, I have read Pullman who is the other leading children’s author that one might mention and I love his books. I don’t know what to think about magic and fairy tales.”

Prof. Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of “bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards”.

“I think it is anti-scientific - whether that has a pernicious effect, I don’t know,” he told More4 News.

If Dr. Dawkins seriously wants to investigate the effects of reading fiction, particularly fantasy, on children, I suggest that he begin by doing the following:

1. The first step of his investigation should be to read the Harry Potter books - all seven of them. He shouldn’t read anything that others say about the books until he’s read them himself. And he certainly shouldn’t try to design experiments, surveys or any other instruments to measure the books’ effects until he’s read them.

2. Give kids credit for some measure of intelligence. Unlike what happens with religious indoctrination, kids know from the start that the Harry Potter universe is fictional. They are not “being brought up to believe in spells and wizards.”  The knowledge that they are dealing with make-believe gives children all the tools they need to deal with the fictional nature of the stories.

3. Resist the impulse to view the books as anti-scientific just because they engage in fantasy.  The fact that the books do not teach “real science” does not make them anti-science.  In fact, the books promote the importance of studying and excelling at one’s schoolwork.  Such lessons should be welcome in a culture in which standardized test scores seem to fall nearly every year.  Moreover, the “magic” of Potter’s world often proceeds according to scientific principles. For example, potions, notwithstanding their exotic uses in Potter’s world, have to be mixed in just the right way to bring about the desired effects. Mixing the ingredients carelessly, or combining the wrong ingredients, yields disastrous results. The same is true for the potions westerners use every day, such as aspirin, Lipitor and Viagra, to name a few. There’s clearly nothing anti-scientific about Potter’s potions lessons.

4. Remember that scientific discoveries have usually been the product of imagination, of being able to ask questions or perceive phenomena from unusual points of view.  I’m astonished that the scientist who brought us the memorable analogy of the Selfish Gene apparently has forgotten this.  Engaging in fantasy and imagination need not be anti-scientific.  It may, in fact, be a requisite for engaging in groundbreaking science.

5. Recognize that sometimes people read for entertainment. It’s often the “entertaining” literature that enables readers to consider moral issues in a secure environment.  Think of it as a way to engage in thought experiments in which readers can safely try on different points of view.  The Harry Potter novels are full of important moral lessons: loyalty to friends; handling intense scrutiny and unwanted attention with dignity and grace; setting aside one’s own ambitions to help others; the costs of greed; opposing social prejudices and oppression….  Those are valuable lessons and I, for one, welcome any medium that teaches such lessons effectively without being doctrinaire.

The Harry Potter books, much like the Dark Materials trilogy that Dawkins loves, are rich with characters and life lessons that children won’t gain by reading scientific treatises. Those lessons can be taught through other means, but a captivating series of fiction books is a memorable, enjoyable way to engage thinking about important issues. Dr. Dawkins has done much great work, but, in this case, he may need to take a deep breath, lighten up and allow kids to have some fun.  A life without fun is not a life worth living, no matter how scientifically correct it may be.  More importantly, a life without fantasy is a sterile life that could stifle the pursuit of knowledge.  So, notwithstanding Dr. Dawkins’ misgivings, I’ll continue taking my dose of science with a dash of fantasy and a generous scoop of imagination.

H/T to Digital Dame for links.

– the chaplain

I noticed this equation on a church sign as I drove to work this morning. Now, I’m not a mathematician (a fact that the deacon will gladly verify), but it seems to me that this equation does not say what I assume Christians want it to say.  As I read this equation, I see it saying that Jesus is the sum or product of all of the factors above the line. I thought the Christian message was that Jesus is the source of peace, joy, love and hope, not the result of adding (or multiplying) those things together.  When I add those factors, I don’t get Jesus as the answer.

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to do one of the following:

a) tell me what answer you derive from adding or multiplying these four factors, or

b) tell me what factors you would add or multiply to derive the answer, Jesus.

Spelling counts, and you must show your work.

– the chaplain

Timothy Shriver says Yes on the Warren Choice. It must be nice to be a member of America’s Royal Family and have access to all sorts of outlets for displaying one’s idiocy. I won’t bore you with all of the details of Shriver’s drivel. You may follow the link and read all of it for yourself, if you are feeling particularly masochistic right now. As for me, I will just focus on some key points of his article.

Remember that Warren has been asked to pray, not to govern. For those who are uncomfortable with the pastor’s views on gay rights or other hot-button issues, that’s an important distinction. When it comes to a new type of tolerance, prayer is a good place to start. Perhaps this choice can be a reminder to us all that prayer has no limits in being able to bring us closer to the kindness and gentleness of the divine. And that’s where we need to go if we have any hope of finding ways to join together despite our many divisions.

Yes, Rick Warren has been asked to pray at what should be a purely civic event, an affair entirely free of religious overtones. As a secularist, I have a serious objection to that fact. It’s worth noting that most American presidents have not invoked any deities at their inaugurations. The first inaugural prayer was uttered in 1933, when a pastor offered a benediction at FDR’s first inauguration. FDR accomplished a lot of good things, but the inaugural prayer was not one of his better ideas. Mr. Shriver, however, believes that prayer on such an occasion will provide a wonderful occasion for bringing together 300 million Americans of disparate beliefs. As for the assertion that “prayer has no limits in being able to bring us closer to the kindness and gentleness of the divine,” all I can say is that bullshit is too kind a label to apply to such nonsense.

First of all, it’s difficult to see how a prayer can realistically unite people who pray to different deities that, as far as I can tell, are perennially at odds with each other (a characteristic that many believers share with their deities, by the way). Secondly, maybe Mr. Shriver’s version of the divine is a kind and gentle being, but many divinities are not. In fact, if Mr. Shriver’s deity of choice is YHWH (as depicted in the Bible, not as reconstructed by believers), I disagree with his characterization of that deity as kind and gentle. Moreover, the fact that this is the unpleasant deity to whom Rick Warren will pray may bother others besides me.

Continuing on, here’s a bit from Shriver’s pen (or keyboard, as the case may be):

Perhaps most importantly, I think the Warren choice is an effort by the President-elect to signal that the message of his campaign will carry forward into his administration: what unites us is far more powerful than what divides us. What better place to make that point than at his inauguration? And what better moment to summon the wisdom of that message than the moment of prayer?

All this points to the truth that we are living in a spiritual age where what matters most is what you’re looking for and not what you’ve found. It’s the spirit that drives us to the seeking and the spirit that will revive within us the hope and confidence to believe in the search.

I would like to think that Shriver and Obama are correct in saying that “what unites us is far more powerful than what divides us.” As a secular humanist, I believe that what unites us is our common humanity. Unfortunately, history has taught us that what often divides us are unfounded belief structures, such as the stuff of which most religions are composed. That is the basis upon which I’d like to answer Shriver’s next two questions: “What better place to make that point than at his inauguration? And what better moment to summon the wisdom of that message than the moment of prayer?”

The answer to the first question is, none; the inauguration is precisely the time and place for Obama to send his message and set the tone for his presidency. The answer to the second question is, there are many moments that would be better, since prayer is a total waste of time. It seems clear to me that the best moment to “summon the wisdom of that message” would be at some point during President Obama’s speech. I anticipate that he will do so and the invocation, regardless of who delivers it, will be entirely superfluous.

Shriver’s references to “the truth that we are living in a spiritual age,” “what matters most…” and “the spirit” that “drives” and “revives us” are hilarious. They’re thoroughly empty and unproven, but they have the ring of fine rhetorical flourishes. I beg to differ with his assertions. Notwithstanding Shriver’s faith positions to the contrary, what we’ve already found is of supreme importance, as it is the foundation for all that yet remains to be discovered. Moreover, what drives humankind to further exploration are our own innate curiosity and the very real challenges that living, thriving and surviving in an indifferent environment present to all living beings. Spirits and supernatural beings have nothing whatsoever to do with human endeavors.

Shriver goes on to say,

I thank him for selecting someone who disagrees with him on some issues, but agrees with him that the most important issue is the search for purpose and justice and mercy. Just read The Purpose Driven Life.

After reading that paragraph, I can’t help wondering whether Shriver has actually read Warren’s book. I have, and my finding was that it has plenty to do with finding God’s purpose for one’s life and almost nothing to do with finding justice and mercy, particularly as those concepts apply to social and political matters. Warren’s book is perfectly suited for feeding Christian narcissism and little else.

Moving on - bear with me, we’re coming close to the end (as readers heave deep sighs of relief) - we find this:

No matter what name we call our religion, the shared faith of virtually all religious people is in a being who transcends any name. If people of faith believe any one thing, it is that we are each created by a compassionate God, that each of us was fashioned with care and love in the palm of divine light. In other words: each of us is a center of value.

Even if you don’t agree with Rick Warren on everything, people of faith–and people of no faith too–can agree on that.

We are created by a compassionate God who “fashioned us with care and love in the palm of divine light” - yet has consigned the majority of the world’s inhabitants - those who, for mysterious reasons known only to the deity in question, have not been fortunate enough to be among the Chosen - to eternal condemnation. I continue to be astounded that any religious believer can hold this pair of beliefs in the same mind at the same time. Then again, what do I know? I’m still trying to figure out what the “palm of divine light” is (to be honest, it just sounds like more rhetorical flourishing to me).

I do agree that believers and nonbelievers alike can agree with the notion that “each of us is a center of value.” Where we differ sharply, and consequently veer onto widely divergent paths, is with regard to the source of that value. Religious adherents believe that value is bestowed upon humankind from a deity. Nonbelievers believe that human value is shaped by humanity itself. We don’t need to look to a deity for guidance, sustenance or worth. Instead, we can - indeed, we must - look to ourselves and each other to solve the problems of life and to treat each other with the dignity that is due to all.

In closing, I will say that, realistically speaking, it would be political suicide for Barack Obama to dispense with prayers at his inauguration this year. In the current political climate, such a bold move would be a quick road to a one-term presidency. Moreover, given that he is a believer himself, Mr. Obama may not have a personal disdain for the practice. What I would like to see, should Mr. Obama be re-elected in 2012, is that the current controversy would prompt him, at that more opportune time, to discard a practice that was poorly conceived at its inception, will grow increasingly outdated and divisive over time, and is not amenable to the spirit of the Constitution that he will soon be promising to uphold on behalf of all Americans. Should that happen, then maybe, just maybe, the selection of Rick Warren as an inaugural participant this time around will have been a good thing.

– the chaplain

– the deacon

Several months ago, my friend, The Exterminator noted his frustration that many atheist bloggers seem to spend a lot of time bashing creationists/IDers. My take on this is that I’m not particularly interested in pointing out the stupidity of creationists. Most of them are not stupid at all. In fact, many of them are very intelligent - they’re just wrong about this issue (and others, but those are matters for other posts). What I’m interested in doing is reminding scientifically literate people that the battle for decent science education and scientific research in this country is ongoing, and it’s a long way from over. Moreover, as another friend of mine, Spanish Inquisitor, has noted in several recent posts, there is a disturbing body of evidence that indicates that sound science education is losing ground that this country cannot afford to lose. Those of us who care about education and the future health - physical, mental, social, intellectual, cultural, artistic, economic - of this country cannot dismiss creationists/IDers as a fringe band of loonies. They are not (all) loonies and they are far from the fringes of our society. We don’t need to disparage them. We don’t even need to convert them to atheism. But, we do need to educate them.

P. Z. Myers posted a video yesterday that highlights some important points about where this battle stands right now and how we got to this place on the battlefield. Watch the video below, then stay with me for a discussion of this brief conversation.

First of all, Whoopi Goldberg opened the conversation by noting George W. Bush’s recent declaration that he believes in both God and evolution. Moreover, he believes that the Bible probably should not be read literally. I am furious with President Bush for stating this belief at this point in his presidency. Now that he won’t be running for office again and does not need to kowtow to the millions of biblical literalists that form the core of the Republican party, he comes out and repudiates a view that he has implicitly, at the very least, upheld for the past decade. He allowed people to believe that he shared their biblically narrow views while it was expedient for him to do so. He even advocated teaching Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory. I cannot count the number of times over the past eight years that President Bush has undermined science education and scientific research in this country for the sake of political expediency (and, presumably, whatever religious beliefs he actually does hold), nor can I calculate the intellectual, medical and economic setbacks this country has endured because of President Bush’s unwillingness to reveal that his beliefs were not as compatible with his base’s as he allowed (if not outright led) them to believe. To say I’m disgusted by President Bush’s behavior on this matter is a gross understatement.

Moving past the first 30 seconds or so of the clip, the rest of the conversation is not particularly interesting. Whoopi Goldberg posits a deistic view and Elizabeth Hasselback argues for an Intelligent Design view (Gucci bags are designed, therefore the universe is designed). Sherri Shepherd aligns with Hasselback and Joy Behar argues for evolution. It is not clear from this clip whether Behar shares Goldberg’s deistic view or is a nontheist. Nor is that point particularly important. What bothers me is the way this conversation unfolded and abruptly halted. I’m concerned that the nearly 5 million people who watched that show probably were not swayed one way or another about this issue on the basis of this far-too-brief conversation. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe some believers heard Goldberg say that a deity established evolution and thought, “Huh. I never thought of it like that. Maybe evolution isn’t so evil after all.” I hope so. It’s also likely that a lot of believers heard Hasselback and said, “Yeah! You go, girl!” I think it’s great that the hosts discussed the subject at all. I also think it’s good that opposing views were aired. Even though the design argument is crap, it is a view that is widely held, so it’s good that it was put out in the open for discussion. I just wish that the hosts would have given the matter more attention and gotten past the few verbal spars they exchanged. I wish they would have prepared for this specific discussion and devoted more time to debating the issue in a rational way rather than throwing a couple of views into the air and letting them lie wherever they landed. The panel missed a significant opportunity to educate its audience about this issue. That bothers me a lot.

Alas, The View is not an educational show. It’s not even infotainment, although some people think it is. After all, it seems to be the only women’s show on which the panel ventures to discuss anything other than fashion and sex (which go together, naturally - one leads to the other). No, The View is just entertainment. Therefore, even though opposing views can be aired, no side is allowed to defeat the other. After all, this is America and everyone is equally entitled to his or her point of view. This means that, even though many Americans are badly informed about science, their views are never seriously challenged, let alone corrected. Many Americans oppose critical medical procedures and scientific research on the basis of poorly informed beliefs. They will continue doing so as long as political leaders curry favor with interest groups and networks provide allegedly non-partisan entertainment instead of informational programming. Politicians will continue pandering to special interest groups with their pronouncements and Talking Heads will continue avoiding controversy on their shows. Consequently, the writers of blogs, newspaper editorials, books and other media must continue raising significant issues and fighting to prevent discussions of those issues from degenerating into relativistic “all views are equally valid” agreements. They must try to actually educate their audiences because politicians, pundits and personalities are not doing so.

All views are not equally valid. Some views are costly and even deadly. Science is a field in which both of those consequences are real. If we get it wrong about science, people will pay horrendous costs, up to and including death, for those errors. We cannot afford to remain silent about Creationism/ID because evolution is at the heart of most contemporary scientific research. As long as the Creationist/ID view continues wielding unwarranted influence in American life and undermining research and practice based on evolutionary theory, those who are scientifically informed must keep opposing it. As tiresome as it is to do so, we have to keep going over much of the same ground, and continue refining and restating our positions until more people actually get it. Doing anything less would be irresponsible, because the potential costs of failure are astoundingly high. That is why writing about Creationism/Intelligent Design matters.

– the chaplain

Both Possummomma and Ordinary Girl have tagged me for this meme. Thanks to both of you for inviting me to join the fun!

These are the rules for this meme:
1. List ten things that make you happy.
2. Tag ten people.

Ten things that make me happy are:

1. The Deacon and I are still married (almost 30 years!) and happy about it.
2. Both of our sons will be with us for Christmas.
3. The Deacon, our sons and I are all in good health.
4. In a time of economic uncertainty for many, our family is still managing quite well.
5. I get four paid holidays in a two-month period: American Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s Day and Martin Luther King Day.
6. Lots of great sports entertainment is available on TV at this time of year: NCAA football, NFL football, NHL hockey, NCAA basketball.
7. Our long national Bush Administration Nightmare is almost over.
8. Good friends with good senses of humor and intelligence.
9. I live in a prosperous, progressive area of the USA.
10. I’m a woman living in my current time and place. Had I lived at any other time, my social, economic and political stations would have been much lower than they are now and my opportunities would have been much more restricted. Even if I lived at this time, but in many other places, my social, economic and political stations, and opportunities, would be much more restricted than they are here. Therefore, I’m happy to be where I am at this moment in history.

I tag the first ten people who read this post and want to participate in the meme.

– the chaplain

The Golfing Nun

A nun is sitting with her Mother Superior chatting, “I used some horrible language this week and feel absolutely terrible about it.”

“When did you use this awful language?” asks the elder nun.

“Well, I was golfing and hit an incredible drive that looked like it was going to go over 280 yards, but it struck a telephone line that is hanging alongside the fairway and fell straight down to the ground after going only about 100 yards.”

“Is that when you swore?”

“No, Mother,” says the nun. “After that, a squirrel ran out of the bushes and grabbed my ball in its mouth and began to run away.”

“Is that when you swore?” asks the Mother Superior again.

“Well, no.” says the nun. “You see, as the squirrel was running, an eagle came down out of the sky, grabbed the squirrel in his talons and began to fly away!”

“Is that when you swore?” asks the amazed elder nun.

“No, not yet. As the eagle carried the squirrel away in its claws, it flew near the green and the squirrel dropped my ball.”

“Did you swear then?” asked Mother Superior, becoming impatient.

“No, because the ball fell out of the squirrel’s mouth, onto a big rock, bounced over the sand trap, rolled onto the green, and stopped about six inches from the hole.”

The two nuns were silent for a moment.

Then Mother Superior sighed and asked, “You missed the fucking putt, didn’t you?”

**********

Email from Hell

Typing in the wrong e-mail address could cause some serious harm. Consider the case of the Illinois man who left the snow-filled streets of Chicago for a vacation in Florida. His wife was on a business trip and was planning to meet him there the next day. When he reached his hotel, he decided to send his wife a quick e-mail. Unable to find the scrap of paper on which he had written her e-mail address, he did his best to type it in from memory. Unfortunately, he missed one letter, and his note was directed instead to an elderly preacher’s wife, whose husband had passed away only the day before. When the grieving widow checked her e-mail, she took one look at the monitor, let out a piercing scream, and fell to the floor in a dead faint. At the sound, her family rushed into the room and saw this note on the screen:

Dearest Wife,
Just got checked in. Everything prepared for your arrival tomorrow.
Signed,
Your eternally loving husband.
P.S. Sure is hot down here.

**********

Doomed Skeptic

During the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, one morning’s executions began with three men: a rabbi, a Catholic priest, and a rationalist skeptic.

The rabbi was marched up onto the platform first. There, facing the guillotine, he was asked if he had any last words. And the rabbi cried out, “I believe in the one and only true God, and He shall save me.” The executioner then positioned the rabbi below the blade, set the block above his neck, and pulled the cord to set the terrible instrument in motion. The heavy cleaver plunged downward, searing the air. But then, abruptly, it stopped with a crack just a few inches above the would-be victim’s neck. To which the rabbi said, “I told you so.”

“It’s a miracle!” gasped the crowd. And the executioner had to agree, letting the rabbi go.

Next in line was the priest. Asked for his final words, he declared, “I believe in Jesus Christ  the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost  who will rescue me in my hour of need.” The executioner then positioned this man beneath the blade. And he pulled the cord. Again the blade flew downward  thump! creak!  …stopping just short of its mark once more.

“Another miracle!” sighed the disappointed crowd. And the executioner for the second time had no choice but to let the condemned go free.

Now it was the skeptic’s turn. “What final words have you to say?” he was asked. But the skeptic didn’t hear. Staring intently at the ominous engine of death, he seemed lost. Not until the executioner poked him in the ribs and the question was asked again did he reply.

“Oh, I see your problem,” the skeptic said pointing. “You’ve got a blockage in the gear assembly, right there!”

– the chaplain

Since the deacon and I are addicted to Star Wars, Star Trek and James Bond, you won’t be surprised to learn that, two weeks ago, we fought the opening night crowds and took our places - in very bad seats in the second row, stage right - to watch the latest Bond flick. Even though the theater was packed, we managed to avoid violence, bloodshed and death - unlike shopping addicts who got carried away with Black Friday sales yesterday.

Quantum of Solace picks up where Casino Royale left off: with Bond seeking to avenge the death of his beloved Vesper. The movie is full of amazing stunts (some of which proved to be extremely dangerous), great cinematography and cool technological wizardry. All of those great features are offset, though, by it’s less than engaging dialog. I guess that’s no surprise: Bond is, after all, a man of action, not words. (I might as well mention here, in order to be thorough, that the opening song is terrible, one of the worst Bond songs ever. Fortunately, David Arnold’s musical score matches his usual high quality.)

Daniel Craig is a great Bond. In addition to being the best-built Bond of all (although Sean Connery had great legs), he portrays Bond as a dangerous yet sensitive character, a balance that’s difficult to achieve (Connery may have come closest to Craig in finding it). When I wasn’t being swept away by the intensity of the action and the resultant adrenalin rushes, I enjoyed watching the development of the relationship between Bond and M. Judi Dench is a superb actress, the perfect choice to play a female M; she and Daniel Craig have the chemistry that she and Pierce Brosnan lacked. That relationship development, which built throughout the movie, kept me fully engaged and ensured that the movie was not just another mindless action flick.

Overall, even though Casino Royale was a superior story (and movie), Quantum of Solace is entertaining and Bond fans will surely enjoy it.

– the chaplain

Some readers at my personal blog have asked me why it took me so long to come to my senses about religion. I’ve given the question a lot of thought, and I think the title of this piece summarizes it best.

When I was a teen, most of my friends and I were apathetic believers in the Judeo-Christian version of god. We believed in a deity, but we weren’t the least bit interested in surrendering to him or finding his perfect will for our lives. In fact, as a preacher’s kid, I may have been more overtly anti-religious and rebellious than my peers. This was my basic attitude until I was sixteen years old, when I underwent two major life changes.

The first change took place over the summer, when I had an opportunity to travel with an evangelistic team for ten weeks. Even though my faith was apathetic, at best, I was enticed by the glamor of traveling with a group of teens and young adults and actually getting paid for the privilege! What a blast! And it was. The team consisted of eleven members, ten of whom were actually committed Christians. I was the odd person out. I didn’t let on that I wasn’t saved and, since I could easily talk the talk, I breezed through the summer and, to all outward appearances, fit right in with the rest of the group. I really liked these people: even though they were on fire for Jesus, they were friendly, fun and funny.

Notwithstanding the close relationships that developed in that ten weeks, had I simply returned home to my usual peer group of apatheists, I likely would have fit right back in with them too. The thing is - this is the second change - I never returned home. My parents had received “farewell orders” (Salvation Army-speak for a transfer) in the middle of the summer, and we moved in early September. I never even got to say goodbye to most of my old friends.

So, within the space of three months I had a) developed an important new peer group and b) been removed completely from the old peer group. Moreover, after the move I was able to maintain my connections with my new friends. Since they were all Christians, I wanted to be more like them. I wanted to fit in for real and not fake it anymore. So, at the age of sixteen, I got saved. At that point, my religious experience was primarily about belonging, about being like my friends.

Fast forward two years. My parents insisted that I spend at least one year at an evangelical Christian college. They promised that, if I really didn’t like it, I could transfer after the first year. You can guess what happened next. Moving 500 miles from home to attend college meant that, once again, I had to leave behind my peer group and establish an entirely new social network. Since we were in a Christian college, most of my new friends were Christians. Not surprisingly, by the end of the year, I had adjusted to the place and the people and was not eager to make yet another change. I had started dating the deacon too. Needless to say, I didn’t even think about transferring to another college.

By this time, my Christian faith was genuine. I honestly believed in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the resurrection and most of the typical conservative Christian doctrines. Moreover, I was being taught by very skilled biblical scholars, theologians and apologists. They seemed to have the answers to any questions one could raise about the content of Christian beliefs. This indoctrination was enhanced by being shared with a community of believers. Quite simply, by this point, virtually everyone I knew was a conservative Christian. It was easy to be one of them.

After the deacon and I finished that phase of our educations, we moved into full-time ministry. I only found out this past year that the deacon had already begun having serious questions about Christianity before we even finished school. But, he was married to an evangelical Christian; he couldn’t possibly share his severe doubts with me. Yep - it was that belonging thing again. As for me, I didn’t think much about my beliefs for well over a decade. Why would I have done so? I had a great husband and family, and even though life had its ups and downs, it was basically pretty good. Why would I question my beliefs?

And yet, somewhere along the line, I did start questioning them. It was a slow, erratic process, but, once the doors of my mind had cracked open, I had to keep pushing them farther and farther apart. After about ten years of questioning, shelving questions, coming back later to take questions off the shelves and dust them off for another look, I decided to settle the issue once and for all in the summer of 2007. Looking back now, I see that shedding the religious beliefs is the easy part of rejecting Christianity (don’t think for a moment that it’s a painless process; it hurts as much as the death of a family member or close friend does). The really tough thing about rejecting Christianity is the not-belongingness it entails. Now, when Christian friends and family members talk about how God is working in their lives or how God answers their prayers, I can only listen as an incredulous outsider. I know what it’s like to believe those things happen, but I no longer share the experiences of those beliefs and feelings (nor do I want to do so). I don’t belong to the fellowship of religious believers anymore. It’s okay, though; I got a good bargain when I traded the comfort of belonging for intellectual integrity and independence.

- the chaplain