It's Okay to Not Believe in God

So I've been thinking lately about the very concept of God - where did it come from? Why does it permeate our society, our psyche, and our cultural experience? It's been an interesting experience as I have gone about studying what this "God" concept is to much of the world. To some, God is a Spinoza character, a hands-off creator who made our reality then sat back and observed (Einstein favored this point of view). Some believe that God is a father-figure we must impress with our actions. Others (most Americans) believe God is a loving, personal being that watches over us and reveals truth as we request it.

Then, there is a growing sect of people who believe there is no God - and these, I have decided, are very different and distinct from the common atheist, who does not believe in God. To believe there is no God is a stance that the world is natural, that it is good as it is, and that God is not only unnecessary, but nonexistent. The atheist, on the other hand, requires little evidence but that which in convenient to his or her preconceived notions of the world - have you ever noticed how many atheists are friends with eachother, listen to the same music, engage in the same activities, and read the same books? This isn't herd mentality, it's a coincidence produced because they, as people, are designed a certain way and the concept of God doesn't jive with how they are.

And that's just fine. Childish, but fine.

On the other hand, there are the people who believe there is no God. I must say, I actually empathize and respect this view because it is, at least, based on some objective pursuit of truth, some rational understanding of reality (which is, ironically, the very endeavor that brought me to God.) It is a belief that is the result of reason and struggle, not the path of least resistance.

I must contrast this with the common practices of many prominent atheists who deny Christianity and other God-centered religions (but mainly Christianity) based on what it teaches - in other words, they disagree with it, therefor it is false. The atheist's ego or sense of ethics is offended by Christianity, and therefor it is cast out from their sense of reality as a straw-man or social enigma. In doing this, the atheist reveals the age-old natural motto: The world is natural because it must be natural. Nothing else will do.

Many Christians, to further contrast the perspective, believe in God despite the moral and ethical implications of a personal God - I, for example, would much prefer a physical existence devoid of God or afterlife because it allows me to pursue whatever hedonistic, pleasure-seeking experiences I want with no regard for those around me or the state of the human condition. However, the existence of God guides me to a higher level of happiness (one with a counterpart in responsibility) and demands that I refuse to invite the animal inside up for tea.

To not believe in God is to not reject God as inconvenient or as an obstacle to our physical fulfillment, but it is the result of our God-given reason. And that's okay. I can't agree ... but that's okay.

The UN: All Talk, No Action

The following is the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a concept in which the UN, in all its wisdom, decided to set forth certain absolute rights which all people are guaranteed to. Oddly enough, it's essentially the American Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights re-arranged and worded more carefully (without mention of God, I noticed. You gotta be PC when you're spouting rhetoric.)

I found it funny (no, not funny ... sad, actually) that an organization that allows tyrants and dictators to sit on its council, that has turned a blind eye to genocide and torture worldwide, that has sat idly by as nations starved to death, were murdered by their governments, that sends troops to "keep the peace" by standing by with their guns holstered as people slaughtered each other has the audacity to tell the world what their rights are.

This is another prime example of how useless, flaccid, and unnecessary the UN has become. Say what you will about the United States, but at least we act on our convictions from time to time - with varying degrees of success.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. *

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. *

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

* I thought these were particularly pathetic since the UN has allowed Iran to enter its council chambers countless times and defend its theocratic government which has ignored human rights since the Iranian Shi'ite revolution.

A Razor-Thin Line Between Patriotism and Propaganda

[Author's note: I have made use of some symbols and images in this article - some are concrete, others inflammatory, others purely anecdotal. I have included these for a reason, and the clever reader will find this reason with ease. For the rest - pay attention to symbols. They have great power.]


Last night, Americans across this nation celebrated our Independence Day - on this day nearly two and a half centuries ago, a room full of brilliant, brave men made the concrete resolution to create a new nation, born from oppression, and destined to lead the world into a new era. This was to be an era where governance was done by reason, by virtue, by a government responsible to its people and freely election by its people - it was to be an age of freedom. And so, every fourth of July, we Americans gather to celebrate this New Age of Reason, to come together as one nation to give thanks to those great men who founded our great nation and forged its borders with sweat and blood.

And yet, here we are, celebrating our independence ... but from what? America was supposed to be a shining beacon of decency and liberty, a nation free from the trappings of Empire, free from the tyranny of ambition and the slavery of taxation. She was designed to give every person an equal chance at finding peace, happiness, and freedom within her borders. Now, a little more than two-hundred years later, America, it seems has little to celebrate on this day.

Still, the songs are sang and the slogans chanted, the banners raised and the flags waved. We shout "God Bless America, home of the Brave, land of the free!" and we seem to have forgotten what these words mean. Indeed, there has been a great effort to make us forget what they mean. The first step in controlling ideas is to control language, and the best way to control language it to control its meaning.

Within the past fifty years, we have seen the meaning of freedom change so many times - when our nation was founded, it meant freedom from tyrannical governments, from burdensome taxation, from religious oppression and the shackles of the British Empire. Then, during the sixties, freedom meant equality - that every man or woman, regardless of their race, gender, or ethnicity, is free to participate in the American Dream. Now, what does freedom mean to us today? If you believe popular conception, and I contend that you must, freedom to America today means the right of a nation to govern the world; Of a culture to invade other cultures and infect it like a virus; Of a renegade presidency to declare itself above the law; It means the right to shout down opposition by calling them "unpatriotic"; It means the right to abandon our rights in a state of fear.

In America today, we have shamed our forefathers by exchanging our right to free speech, the right to fair and free commerce, the right to bear arms, the right to pursue happiness in whatever way we choose - all because we are told there are people everywhere who want nothing more than to kill us, to undermine our religion, or to lead lives different from ours. And, in our panic, we have handed over that God-given power of the People back to the Empire, and have led ourselves back into slavery.

It's an unfortunate truth that King Henry is back in power, except now, he wears fine suits, lives in Texas, and controls an even more oppressive, deadly army.

But still, every fourth of July, we sing the same songs, we raise the same flags, and shout the same jingoistic, ultra-nationalist slogans. I cannot help but wonder if, by participating in these mind-numbing activities, if we aren't participating in the selling-out of America. If, every times we are engrossed by the flashing of lights and blasts of sound when the fireworks launch, if we aren't engaging in a battle of ideas - on the wrong side. Everywhere, there are distractions: Cable news programs, fear-mongering newspaper, liars behind podiums, smug radio talk-show hosts condemning anyone who disagrees, international organizations who seek world domination .... the list goes on and on. And yet, to claim victory, all we need do is stop being distracted - look beyond the propaganda, beyond the lies, and try to see what is really happening to America. We are living in the Age of the Death of Reason, and we must save this country.

Stop saying freedom unless you are sure of its meaning. Stop singing the songs unless you really understand what went into composing them. And, for God's sake, stop saying God Bless America.

In fact, isn't God Bless America beginning to sound less of a statement and more of a plea these days?

Perhaps its time for America to start blessing God ... as she did those hundreds of years ago.

We should never forget the words of Sinclare Lewis when he prophesied, "When fascism arrives in America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the bible." Pay attention to what happens in your country.

I am Inspired.

I ran across this on a wonderful little program called "Stumble Upon" which, if you're an internet junky or just love random cool stuff like me, is a God-send. Anyway, without further ado:

by Robert A. Heinlein

"I am not going to talk about religious beliefs but about matters so obvious that it has gone out of style to mention them. I believe in my neighbors. I know their faults, and I know that their virtues far outweigh their faults.
"Take Father Michael down our road a piece. I'm not of his creed, but I know that goodness and charity and lovingkindness shine in his daily actions. I believe in Father Mike. If I'm in trouble, I'll go to him."
"My next-door neighbor is a veterinary doctor. Doc will get out of bed after a hard day to help a stray cat. No fee--no prospect of a fee--I believe in Doc.
"I believe in my townspeople. You can knock on any door in our town saying, `I'm hungry,' and you will be fed. Our town is no exception. I've found the same ready charity everywhere. But for the one who says, `To heck with you--I got mine,' there are a hundred, a thousand who will say, `Sure, pal, sit down.'
"I know that despite all warnings against hitchhikers I can step up to the highway, thumb for a ride and in a few minutes a car or a truck will stop and someone will say, `Climb in Mac--how far you going?'
"I believe in my fellow citizens. Our headlines are splashed with crime yet for every criminal there are 10,000 honest, decent, kindly men. If it were not so, no child would live to grow up. Business could not go on from day to day. Decency is not news. It is buried in the obituaries, but is a force stronger than crime. I believe in the patient gallantry of nurses and the tedious sacrifices of teachers. I believe in the unseen and unending fight against desperate odds that goes on quietly in almost every home in the land.
"I believe in the honest craft of workmen. Take a look around you. There never were enough bosses to check up on all that work. From Independence Hall to the Grand Coulee Dam, these things were built level and square by craftsmen who were honest in their bones.
"I believe that almost all politicians are honest . . . there are hundreds of politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true we would never have gotten past the 13 colonies.
"I believe in Rodger Young. You and I are free today because of endless unnamed heroes from Valley Forge to the Yalu River. I believe in--I am proud to belong to--the United States. Despite shortcomings from lynchings to bad faith in high places, our nation has had the most decent and kindly internal practices and foreign policies to be found anywhere in history.
"And finally, I believe in my whole race. Yellow, white, black, red, brown. In the honesty, courage, intelligence, durability, and goodness of the overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters everywhere on this planet. I am proud to be a human being. I believe that we have come this far by the skin of our teeth. That we always make it just by the skin of our teeth, but that we will always make it. Survive. Endure. I believe that this hairless embryo with the aching, oversize brain case and the opposable thumb, this animal barely up from the apes will endure. Will endure longer than his home planet -- will spread out to the stars and beyond, carrying with him his honesty and his insatiable curiosity, his unlimited courage and his noble essential decency.
"This I believe with all my heart."

This really inspired me because sometimes we can get caught up in religious or moral arguments that we tend to forget what really keeps humanity together - it is humanity itself! We were designed by our creator to love and serve one another, to be there for each other in times of need, to reach out to the sick and poor, to bind ourselves to the world through service and kindness. And yet, when we manipulate our minds with religion, reason, even education, suddenly we learn the concept of separateness. We are taught that there is such thing as a "sinner" and a "saint" when in our hearts we know that these terms mean nothing - we are all sinners, we are all saints, we are all heretics and prophets, because we are all a part of humanity.

When I read things like this, I can't help but feel like we have inherited a world that has lost its sense of humanity. We have been taught in classrooms that man is an animal, that physics guide our every move, and that morals is just a fancy word for ethics. But somewhere inside, doesn't something scream the truth? Doesn't sometimes inside still foster the notion that there is something more to life? That beyond the ecclesiastical arguments, the hateful bickering among denominations and faiths, past the divisions of belief or rationality, there is a very basic, core understanding of what we are?

In my short lifetime, I have seen genocide, religious wars, dirty politicians playing chess with young peoples' lives. I have seen blood, death, disease, greed, disgust, and racism. I have heard arguments praising hate and intolerance, I have been called a sinner and a disgrace, I have been made to feel like I am wrong in everything I believe. I have witnessed a world standing with its back turned to the dying, the hungry, and the merciless. But I have also witness miracles of faith, hope, charity, and love ... and these things burn most brightly in my memory because they are reminders of that spark inside the heart of us all ...

... they are reminders of our humanity.

Alternatives to the U.S. Dollar: It Can Be Done!

If you're familiar with my objections to the Federal Reserve, you'll know why this concept excites me. If not, it's still a cool idea. Puller from Reuters:

p.s. I certainly wouldn't waste my Berkshares on "past life regression therapy", but to each their own, right?

GREAT BARRINGTON, Massachusetts (Reuters) - A walk down Main Street in this New England town calls to mind the pictures of Norman Rockwell, who lived nearby and chronicled small-town American life in the mid-20th Century.

So it is fitting that the artist's face adorns the 50 BerkShares note, one of five denominations in a currency adopted by towns in western Massachusetts to support locally owned businesses over national chains.

"I just love the feel of using a local currency," said Trice Atchison, 43, a teacher who used BerkShares to buy a snack at a cafe in Great Barrington, a town of about 7,400 people. "It keeps the profit within the community."

There are about 844,000 BerkShares in circulation, worth $759,600 at the fixed exchange rate of 1 BerkShare to 90 U.S. cents, according to program organizers. The paper scrip is available in denominations of one, five, 10, 20 and 50.

In their 10 months of circulation, they've become a regular feature of the local economy. Businesses that accept BerkShares treat them interchangeably with dollars: a $1 cup of coffee sells for 1 BerkShare, a 10 percent discount for people paying in BerkShares.

Named for the local Berkshire Hills, BerkShares are accepted in about 280 cafes, coffee shops, grocery stores and other businesses in Great Barrington and neighboring towns, including Stockbridge, the town where Rockwell lived for a quarter century.

"BerkShares are cash, and so people have transferred their cash habits to BerkShares," said Susan Witt, executive director of the E.F. Schumacher Society, a nonprofit group that set up the program. "They might have 50 in their pocket, but not 150. They're buying their lunch, their coffee, a small birthday present."

Great Barrington attracts weekend residents and tourists from the New York area who help to support its wealth of organic farms, yoga studios, cafes and businesses like Allow Yourself to Be, which offers services ranging from massage to "chakra balancing" and Infinite Quest, which sells "past life regression therapy."

The BerkShares program is one of about a dozen such efforts in the nation. Local groups in California, Kansas, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin run similar ones. One of the oldest is Ithaca Hours, which went into circulation in 1991 in Ithaca, New York.

About $120,000 of that currency circulates in the rural town. Unlike BerkShares, Ithaca Hours cannot officially be freely converted to dollars, though some businesses buy them.

Stephen Burkle, president of the Ithaca Hours program, said the notes are a badge of local pride.

"At the beginning it was very hard to get small businesses to get on board with it," said Burkle, who also owns a music store in Ithaca. "When Ithaca Hours first started, there wasn't a Home Depot in town, there wasn't a Borders, there wasn't a Starbucks. Now that there are, it's a mechanism for small businesses to compete with national chains."

U.S. law prevents states from issuing their own currency but allows private groups to print paper scrip, though not coins, said Lewis Solomon, a professor of law at George Washington University, who studies local currencies.

"As long as you don't turn out quarters and you don't turn out something that looks like the U.S. dollar, it's legal," Solomon said.

FULL CIRCLE

The BerkShares experiment comes as the dollar is losing some of its status on international markets, with governments shifting some reserves into euros, the pound and other investments as the U.S. currency has slid in value.

But the dollar is still the currency that businesses in Great Barrington need to pay most of their bills.

"The promise of this program is for it to be a completed circle," said Matt Rubiner, owner of Rubiner's cheese shop and Rubi's cafe. Some local farmers who supply him accept BerkShares, but he pays most of his bills in dollars.

"The circle isn't quite completed yet in most cases, and someone has to take the hit," Rubiner said, referring to the 10 percent discount. "The person who takes the hit is the merchant, it's me."

Meanwhile, Berkshire Hills Bancorp Inc., a western Massachusetts bank that exchanges BerkShares for dollars, is considering BerkShares-denominated checks and debit cards.

"Businesses aren't comfortable walking around with wads of BerkShares to pay for their supplies or their advertising," said Melissa Joyce, a branch officer with the bank, which has 25 branches, six of which exchange BerkShares. "I do hope that we're able to develop the checking account and debit card, because it will make it easier for everyone."

The Reason of Faith, or, EAT IT, SAM HARRIS!

Not too long ago, there emerged a sect of the whole religious sha-bang which, in a previous blog I wrote, I called Evangelical Atheism. I've been thinking a lot about this concept lately, and feel the need to deposit a few thoughts on the matter. I should note here that I don't mean to further entrench the ongoing battle between religious and non-religious people, but all I can say is this: they fired the first shot. All will be explained.

I was surprised recently to learn that the Hebrew language, in which the Holy Bible was originally written in its scattered form, has no word for faith, unlike Greek, from which most modern Bibles are derived. The Greek faith is the one we're familiar with today - as the most cynical critics may put it, this faith is the belief in something that defies reason and which has no basis but in superstition. This particular faith is the one that the Evangelical Atheist Sam Harris was writing in his book The End of Faith and the "is anybody still paying attention to me?" paper-thin Letter to a Christian Nation. See, Sam Harris took the default "Science Guy" position of railing against faith based on his belief that science is the only way to know anything about the world - that if something can't be produced in a laboratory, it's superstition. So, in his logic (however full of holes it may be) something is not worth believing in unless it can be proven empirically (more on this later.)

Anyway, so the Hebrew language has no word for faith - and the closest terminology we have for the word we used in the Bible is actually faithfulness. It's funny how much difference a few letters make, isn't it? Suddenly, we have a great shift in vocabulary. We no longer have faith in God, we are faithful to Him. When you really study the difference here, it becomes terribly evident (however inconvenient to critics) that the Christian faith is not one of blind acceptance of superstition and assumed belief in God, but a penetrating belief in God and an assumed faithfulness to Him.

Evangelicals like Sam Harris like to toss around the "science" word as if it meant anything - but what does this word mean, this new holy process by which all things can be made known? Why do we treat it with such reverence? Why, when someone says "I believe in science" are we never allowed to criticize, to use our reason, to challenge such a view? I believe very strongly in science - that is, I know it exists. I have read many studies, reviewed many findings by great men of science. So, I know it exists, but how does one "believe in" it? The answer is so very linked to Christianity, it's making me giddy just thinking about it.

You see, it's terribly difficult to disprove that Jesus Christ existed - there are records as far back as 1 A.D. from historians, both Jewish and Roman, about this man who called himself the Christ. We can trace His footsteps, His homeland, we can see where He did the things the Bible says He did. The problem is that you can't prove the meaning of his life - that is, you know he was crucified by reading the writings of the Romans, but you can't know why He was killed. This is why we have our faithfulness in Him - to take Him at His word and remain faithful to His gift of Grace.

I'm afraid the same standard applies to science - we know, with a certain degree of certainty, that the word exists. We know the things it is made up of. We know that this world must have come from somewhere, by some process, and we must work backwards (when dealing with scientific inquiry) to determine how this came to be. So, science has developed a few theories (creation stories) by which to explain our world:

1) The Argument from Design: Science tells us of a time when there was no time, space, energy, or matter. When this was is irrelevant because there was no time to tell us what time it was or a calendar, since these are made of matter, which also didn't exist. Then, something happened - time started. Why time started or how it was kicked into being is irrelevant - all we know is that at some moment (the first moment, actually) everything came into being. However, everything didn't look like it did today - it was all chaos and jumbled together in one heap of everythingness and time-crunched. Then, time, space, energy, and matter exploded, sending the whole of existence flying into space - and someday, all of these things will return to a crumpled ball of everything. This totally explains things.

2) The Argument from Elegance: People like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris will argue that Darwinism and the theories of natural evolution provide an elegant, simple explanation for why creation exists, and that if you view things from a totally Darwinist point of view, there is no need for a Creator. The funny thing is, if you view things from a Creation point of view, there's no need for a Darwin! Sometimes the door of logic swings both ways and hits you in the ass on the way out. The simple fact is that if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails - and if all you have is evolution, everything starts to look like apes.

3) The Argument from Argument: The last Canon of Atheism is a rational, ethical argument against Christianity because they believe that Christianity is ethically wrong, and that our God is a mean, vindictive God that likes to burn down cities, murder children, and punish lots of people for the first two people discovering what's between their legs. This is the most basic argument, which undoubtedly will include references to the Crusades, Inquisitions, and Third Day's music.

There are solid arguments against all of these Canon points, but I won't waste my time debating them right now - mostly because you, dear reader, are either on one side or the other. You are either a Christian, in which case this gave you a laugh, you are an Atheist, in which case you probably huffed and puffed your way through it and at one point actually pointed at the monitor and said, "that's totally wrong!", or you are an Agnostic, in which case you said "what does it matter?" then went off to smoke pot and murder babies. Just kidding.

The point is that what we are engaged in is not a battle of reason vs. faith - indeed, it is clear that reason and faith (fullness) are both parts of the Christian world-view and one without the other is useless and pointless. The Christian faith is a deep, full experience which requires critical thinking, reason, logic, and ethics, but also requires that we remain faithful to God in all things. Now, insert the word "atheistic" and "science" where I have used "Christian" and "God" and you will see my point: Sam Harris is not the voice of reason calling people to the truth of Atheism, he is an apologist for his religion who knows very little about that which he is fighting against.

Discourse on a Zombie: Why I Love Zombie Movies

Here's something you may not know about me: I love Zombie movies. Oh, and if you'll notice that I've capitalized the "Z", and that's simply out of respect. It's not a proper noun or anything, but I add the capitalization in such a way as I would if I were talking about Jesus - ie, to capitalize the "H" in "Him" when referring to Christ. That's not to equate Jesus with beings who rise from the dead or anything, but ... wow ... oh wait ... I am certainly onto something here. Jesus rose from the dead 2,000 years ago, long before the venerable George A. Romero brought us the concept of Zombism ... ergo, I say Jesus was the first Zombie! Call me a blasphemer, but you can't deny the truth of things. Sure, Christ never ate brains (unless there's a similarity between "bread" and "brains" in Hebrew that I'm unaware of), but brain-eating does not a zombie make!

Anyway, I do, indeed, love Zombie movies. Why? Jeez, why not?

Zombie movies, like many other horror movies provide a glimpse into the zeitgeist (that's for you, Chris) into the age in which they were made. For example, let's examine the classic Dawn of the Dead, which was great for a few reasons. Firstly, it was one of the first times the term "Zombie" actually appears in a Zombie flick - in fact, "Dawn of the Dead" was actually a subtitle for the film, which was really titled, simply, Zombie. In this little cult gem, a group of police and military personnel are seen struggling with the systematic destruction of people ... err, Zombies ... err ... Oh God, are they people or not!? What has come of the world?!!! This is the central concept behind the first half of the film - the political struggle between maintaining order and control while preserving human dignity and respect for your fellow man.

And so goes the central theme of so many Zombie movies, including the little-seen and grossly under-rated Romero vehicle Land of the Dead, which was released not too long ago and failed to be accepted by the common people as part of the Zombie Canon. And why the hell not? Was it John Leguizamo's weak portrayal of a military zealot, or was it the absurd inclusion of Dennis Hopper as the cliche "Old Rich Bastard" character? I'm sorry, but Zombie films thrive on cliches, my friends. In fact, as long as the genre's been around, it's been essentially self-satirical! In Land of the Dead, we watch the horrified reactions of one afro-Zombie as he watches his Zombie brotha's cut down by a bunch of white (and one Mexican) military bastards, so they rebel against the system by breaking into the mall-like human haven and eating everyone. Why's the white man always keepin' the Zombie brotha down? Hell naw!

Back in 1968, Romero produced the first bona-fide Zombie movie, called Night of the Living Dead, which was actually utterly horrifying and stands as one of the greatest horror movies of all time. But after that, most Zombie flicks were aimed at skewering the very genre they belonged to!

For example, the 1985 Dan O'Bannon movie, Return of the Living Dead (not to be confused with the sub-par Return of the Living Dead II, III, and IV) may as well have been a direct sequel to the Romero genre (the title is one of many resemblances between the two movies) and was a side-splitting comedy! Who can forget the Zombie hordes talking into the CB radio, "Send ... more ... paramedics!" Or "Scream Queen" Linnea Quigley's "Graveyard Dance" and prophetic sexual fantasy of being torn apart naked (later on in the film, she torn apart while naked!)

Oh, wait, what was I talking about? Something about the memory of Quigley's cod-piece-wearing hip-thrusting dance gets me off track time after time. Oh, right, the Zeitgeist. I'm capitalizing all of my Z's. Again, it's all about respect.

Fast-forward to today - probably one of the best Zombie movies of all time (I don't care what you say) was the 2004 remake of the Romero film Dawn of the Dead (they dropped the Zombie part this time, probably out of respect for the tradition of not actually using the term "Zombie" in a Zombie movie. "Don't say that!" "What" "That word!" "Why" "I don't know ... just don't!") In which the socio-political message is deepened with a Lord of the Flies-esque scenario in which different classes of people come together, establish a social order, overthrow said social order, and establish a Marxian society of equality until those damn Yankees ... er ... Zombies break in and ruin everything (ever wonder why the Zombies were drawn to the Mall in the first place? Yep, the evils of capitalism! Long live the motherland!"

So let me sum things up here: Zombie Movies are to themselves as Manowar is to heavy metal - they are, in themselves wonderful, but as a practice of self-mockery, they're even better. Zombie movies reflect a part of ourselves, our society, and our sense of self-absurdity. In watching a Zombie movie, we are forced to view our society from the outside-in, because obviously once we start returning from the dead, all sense of social order just collapses, and what good is a system that can't stand up under the rising of the dead into cannibalistic animals? And finally, the Zombie genre is a message from God demanding that we accept Christ ... or he'll chew our brains and spit them out.*

I'm going to Mass now. I'm in need of some serious absolution.

* I should mention here that I believe God has a sense of humor, and so should we. And if He doesn't ... I'm screwed.

In the Age of Terror: Finding a Definition in a World that is Starving of Definition

I recently acquired the new Megadeth CD, "United Abominations" from a call-in contest on a local heavy metal radio station. I've never been a big Megadeth fan, but in thumbing through the pages of the booklet, I came to a startling revelation: Art is imitating Life, and Art is becoming Destructive. In the record, Megadeth explores the nuances of our post-9/11 world, and their conclusions are terrifying: The world has entered what they call the "end game" and it's time to start fighting for "our side" to win.

My God, could this be true? Maybe. The evidence is everywhere. The most glaring evidence is in the growing battle between religions - atheists are battling Christians (and, it seems, only Christians), Christians are battling non-Christians, Muslims are battling non-Muslims, and Jews are battling ... every country on every side of theirs. It seems we live in a world that is constantly at war. Alliances are made and broken, unions forged and destroyed, and we are slowly moving toward an age of worldwide totalitarianism, universal corporatism, and religious relativism on a never-before-seen scale.

What does this mean? It means that what we believe is becoming more important, not less, in a time when our beliefs are starting to create wars and violence. In the modern world, there is a cry for the end of definition, which some believe is the key to attaining peace - if we have nothing to believe in, then there is nothing to kill each other over! This is a dangerous path to tread, but let's explore it.

Atheism's modern goal is to secularize the world - to believe in nothing but what science can know for sure (and what is that, exactly?) Islam's modern goal is to rule by the sword (or, by the IED.) What's the difference? The main difference here is in the way that different religions go about spreading their world-view, and I fail to see a difference between many of these tactics. Each has the goal of homogenizing everyone to their specific Dogma, either by humiliation, cohesion, or, most rarely, reason.

It is, I'm sad to say, a hard time to be a Christian. It seems that we have inherited a world where the default position is that all religions (but mainly Christianity, right?) are based on superstition, fear, and fairy-tale beliefs. And the hardest part is there is no arguing this point, because since it is based on nothing more than caricaturization and half-truths, the only way to argue against it is with the same tactics, in which case we are labeled as hateful. If we counter with reason, we are being apologists. If we counter with compassion, we're being bleeding-hearts. If we counter with our own experience or wisdom from the bible, we are being weak-minded, brain-washed victims of religion.

So the time has come to ask of the world: What do you want from us? Christians live, many of us, with our backs in the corner. No argument is valid, no excuse good enough for the rising Atheist agenda against our beliefs - it seems that Atheism has become just another religion bent on acquiring more members. Uh, oh ... I may have stumbled onto something here. Atheism, that ultra-secular, cynical world-view has become a full-fledged religion, complete with Dogmas, coercion tactics, and an intolerance for any world-view that isn't theirs.

But we can't judge too harshly, can we? What evils have been done in the name of God before? C.S. Lewis once wrote, "Of all bad men religious bad men are the worst", and gosh, isn't he right? They love to remind us of the Inquisition with all its evils, the Crusades, the countless acts of pure evil done under the counterfeit banner of heaven ... but what of the good things to come of the Christian religion? They don't like to talk about those, and if they do, the argument comes out something like this: "Yes, but the people who did good things have little to do with their religion, and more to do with them being good people anyway." And yet, the evil things men do are because of their religion? That's a terrible double-standard!

So I ask, then, what is the alternative to a religion? Secularism, the absence of guidance by a moral law (unless you choose ethics, which serves no master but whoever has the sharpest wit ... a dangerous proposition!), and hedonism, to which C.S. Lewis responds: "We have had enough, once and for all, of Hedonism--the gloomy philosophy which says that Pleasure is the only good." Isn't this what we're asked to accept from the Atheism alternative - that the only good (not, as Christ said, "none but God is good") is what our instincts lead us to do? And what will that yield - a life led for self-gratification, in giving ourselves over to our animal nature?

Maybe Huxley was onto something when he made the case for Atheism. Aldous Huxley said, to summarize, "I want this world to be natural, because that frees me to explore my erotic desires". Typical, coming from a man who once said, "Maybe this world is another planet's hell." If you examine the Atheist Dogma, you will eventually come to the conclusion that life is both based on pleasure-appeasement, miserable, and inherently meaninglessness. This is the basis of the religion, no matter whose perspective you use - the biological Atheist Richard Dawkins once said, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Ouch. And we are the hateful ones? The truth is, you can't argue the "science" question when it comes to Religion vs. Atheism - what science would you use? Biological science? Physics? Quantum Theory? Which perspective would you use? Which age of science? Science, like secularism and pure reason, serves whichever master makes the most compelling argument, so if we use that paradigm, our parameters will constantly be changing with the latest Dogma-shift. It used to be Relativity, but now it's Strings! Burn the Relativist!

You understand my point, I have to assume. Science has entered that realm of a religion as it begins to splinter and refocus its Dogmas, to the point where contesting viewpoints and alternative conclusions are no longer acceptable and must be squashed. Science is undergoing its own (less violent) inquisition - but no longer are witches burned or heretics drawn and quartered. No, in the new inquisition, competing view-points are humiliated to death, stripped of their right to express, and left to rot in the discard pile of the Scientific Majority.

Now, more than ever, I find it important to understand not only what I believe, but that I have a belief. The world demands that I believe in nothing, and it is becoming more and more difficult to resist. I am told that I'm a "bad Christian" because, from time to time, I fall short of perfection (duh) and don't live the image of a "good Christian". But, as the great Ravi Zacharias once said, "Jesus didn't come to make bad men good, he came to make dead men live." This is the heart of my religion, and it is the most important to me - any regular study of the Christian religion will render the understanding that it is not in existence to perfect people (at least not in this life) but to enable them to be forgiven for not being perfect. What, then, can Atheism offer in contrast to that? While Christianity recognizes sin and imperfection, it allows for a way out, a plan for redemption. Atheism, on the other hand, removes sin by giving it a glossy goat of paint and calling it "nature" - it gives up the search for a cure for the disease and called the disease "health".

So, perhaps Megadeth is right - the world is changing. Battle-lines are being formed. I have chosen which side I will remain on, and I believe it's the right one. And if I'm wrong? Who cares ... we're all dead men in the end. Unless I'm right, in which case only some of us are dead men.

Lost in Antiquity

Last Tuesday, I was sitting in my recliner chair, and just like any other Tuesday night, I was doing what most Americans do on that day - I was watching American Idol. It's like a drug, a torrid love affair, a guilty pleasure like watching hockey or eating macaroni and cheese from the box. And now, since I've had time to really let the experience settle in, I've come to one conclusion, and it's really the only conclusion one can come from after watching that show - oh, boy, are we in trouble.

American culture, if one can even claim there is such a thing, is in the toilet. Wait, scratch that - it is a toilet, one that takes all the predigested, market-tested, sterile entertainment the world has to offer, dumps it into time slots and lets America obsess. Mine is a generation whose sole contribution to the world is the phrase "More cowbell!" We are the inventors of the Weird Al's of the world, the purveyors of classless, shallow laughs, distillers of wit and fart jokes, consumers of anything with a shiny coat of bullshit.

But like I said, I was watching American Idol. I'm not a victim of the system, I'm an active participant, a knowing conspirator in the death of culture.

I cannot help but ask, how did we get here? What has changed in the last few hundred years that has caused us to remove any value in entertainment, any sense of intelligence to consumerism - where, O' God, did we go wrong? Are there some hidden toxins in our food that make up prefer ass jokes to Shakespeare?

When comparing the popular culture of a few hundred years ago to today, one must come to a conclusion that humanity is on its way out. In the span of civilized culture all throughout the world, it has been in the last 30 years that popular culture has utterly dumbed down. Gone are the poets, the great novelists, the witty playwrites and meaningful discussions on all things laughter and sex. Now, we are given lust, greed, violence, fear, distaste, and vulgarity, and they call it "good fun". Don't get me wrong , this isn't a moral lesson, it's a matter of taste!

I recall studying the medieval town of Florence, Italy this last semester. In its time, it stood as a monument of culture, one of the greatest cities since Rome's Golden Age. In the evenings, the people would gather in a commons area to discuss love, religion, politics, art, sex ... whatever was important at the time, then disperse to cafes for dinner, then perhaps catch a public reading of Dante's Divine Comedy or Machiavelli's The Prince. And this was their entertainment! It was their way of unwinding after a particularly hard day weaving cloth or perhaps changing money. And this was the way of the antiquated world - community, intelligence, and art were entertainment, not aversions to it.

Now, thanks in large part to the advent of television and film, our tastes have been homogenized to whatever those in power (also known as those in money) deem tasteful for us. We are just driftwood on a tide of incoming and outgoing trends and styles, blank slates to be dressed up in the latest sitcom, torturous horror film, or catch-phrase.

That's not to say that there's not the occasional gem in today's pop culture bog. I recently saw the film Stranger than Fiction and was utterly moved by it - it was graceful, understated, witty, and, get this, meaningful. It shot me back to the times I long so much to be a part of - it was a slice of antiquated goodness. And from time to time, there are those moments in modern culture that beg us to return to that goodness, the Schindler's Lists among the Hostels, if you will. It is in those brilliant moments that I find myself lost in antiquity, nostalgic for a time that I will never know - I remember, with my classicist imagination, a time when life was beautiful, when art was culture, and community was self. And I yearn for that attitude to return.

But until then, I'll keep rooting for the guy with the gray hair. And keep finding myself adrift on an ocean of meaninglessness.