The Pageless Book

Photo Above by Steve Garry. Photo Below by Braden Kowitz.

Is it so strange to want to befriend those who disagree with and challenge my beliefs rigorously? I have no real good reason why, but I like atheists. I like how they think, how they look at the world, their honesty, and straight-forwardness. The first thing I think about when I hear that someone is an atheist is the enjoyment I will have debating with that person about religion and spirituality.

Many atheists might assume that someone like myself would want to debate as a means of converting them to my way of thinking. However, I’m not interested so much in changing their mind as I am in challenging their mind and being challenged in return. If either of us learn something in the process, then so much the better. It is this contest of the minds that ultimately pleases me - not winning or losing.

So, as a result of my healthy obsession with atheists, I often find myself writing about non-theistic thinking, browsing the atheist blogosphere, and chuckling at humorous jabs made about religion. I embrace their criticism, even though I don’t always agree with it, and try to keep the lines of communication open. Unfortunately, not everyone sees attempts of fellowship between their camps desirable.

That actually saddens me a great deal. I don’t think we need more harsh rhetoric between the religious and the non-religious - it betrays an insecurity on the part of both. Regardless of what an individual believes, if they take themselves too seriously, they come off as being fools or, worse still, tyrants. I don’t think I should have to suffer the mind of a tyrant, nor should anyone.

In contrast, it makes me very happy to see websites such as Friendly Atheist.com and Friendly Christian.com share banter and refer to each other’s articles on a regular basis. I want to see more of this, yet I’m not always entirely sure how to initiate it on my own site. I have the feeling that I might come off a little too eccentric to be taken seriously… although, to be honest, that hasn’t stopped me before.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Debate, Humor, Reason, Religion

“Reason is our soul’s left hand, faith her right;
By these we reach divinity.”
- John Donne, 1572 - 1631.

Above Photo by Old Sarge. Photo Below by Zorilla.

Whether the religion in question venerates one god or one hundred gods, believes that their gods are a part of creation or apart from creation, all religions share one trait; the worship of the Divine. While that single similarity seems obvious, it is also the most over looked. It also happens to be the most important.

The moment a seeker starts questioning one aspect of the religion in which she was born, the tendency is to question all aspects of that religion, including the teachings, rituals, and practices. This usually results one of two extreme reactions - either the adoption of a radically different religion to spite the religion of their parents or the rejection of the Divine in all forms resulting in atheism.

To avoid such drastic changes in belief and maintain the emotionally satisfying and fulfilling connection to the Divine, many religious men and women cling to the teachings of their given faith. They reject anything that contradicts the literal interpretation of their religion to avoid having to question and endanger their faith. They forgo reason to satisfy their spiritual hunger.

The ideal situation is to be able openly to question the teachings and practices of any given religion, and yet to feel no loss for that with the Divine. In western society, we’ve been convinced that ideal is all but unattainable and unrealistic. Western society has been informed incorrectly. We merely need to recognize that spiritual and reason are not opposites, but rather two different ways of understanding. Spirituality is meant for understanding one’s self, while reason is meant for understanding the world beyond one’s self.

From this perspective, how each individual religion defines the Divine is irrelevant as we believe that the Divine is beyond definition. One or many, a part of or apart from, involved or observing - all of the definitions that we apply to the Divine are merely for the convenience of our limited human intellect. It is our deeper emotions to which the Divine appeals; the logic of definitions are meaningless.

Once we have moved away from trying to define, contain, and restrict our spirituality to our intellect, several amazing things happen. We find that we are free to worship the Divine in the way that most satisfies that spiritual hunger. As a culture, we begin to see all religions as different means of devotion to the same source. One more barrier that divides us against one another will have been torn down, and one less issue will be distracting us from the larger problems we face.
Originally Posted September 25, 2007.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Faith, God, Reason, Religion, Spirituality

Above Photo by Marcin Wichary. Photo Below by CBS Fan.

Recently, I had found this blog “90 Day Jane,” about a young woman who claimed that she would kill herself in 90 days. She wasn’t deathly ill or depressed - she was claiming to do this because life has no intrinsic meaning. She also claimed to be an atheist. Don’t bother to look for her blog, however… the whole thing was a hoax (excuse me, I meant “art project”) from the start and has been taken down. You can read more about it here.

There’s a lists of reasons longer than my arm as to why I’m disturbed by this recent non-event. First of all, there is the blatant abuse of suicide threats as means of entertainment. Having been suicidal before in my own life, I cannot begin to express how angry this makes me feel. There is also the matter of reinforcing the association between atheism and nihilism. While it may be true that most nihilists are also atheists, the reverse is not true. What most puzzles me, though, is that this even occurred to someone as being a good idea. Chuck Palahniuk and Hunter S. Thompson couldn’t ask for a better example of nihilism.

Why do I think that? Lets pretend for a moment that 90 Day Jane was really going to off herself in grand fashion on her own blog. She claims that her reason for doing this is to demonstrate the meaninglessness of existence. By advertising and making this public, she ironically gives meaning to her own existence - to serve as an example of nihilism. If someone can make their own meaning, that very act proves nihilism to be false. However, if this act becomes a mockery of itself it would serve only as twisted proof (however delusional) of the meaninglessness of existence. This is soundly accomplished through Jane’s half-hearted confession. This ordeal has all the offensiveness of a Nine Inch Nails video but none of the creativity.

It could be argued that I’m over reacting, and I very well may be. But I ask you, what else can you think of that is more of an affront to the principles of Unitarian Universalism? While I am tolerant and open minded, nihilism is not a philosophy that I can accept as being viable to live under or put into practice. It isn’t that I am afraid of the metaphorical abyss of nihilism; I’ve tread that edge before myself. No, I’ve just realized that it isn’t practical or useful. Never has it been said that reality had to be practical or useful, but our understanding of reality should be.

The only time I can think of when nihilism was acceptable is in the movie The Big Lebowski. Something about avowed nihilists beaten up by middle-aged bowlers strikes me as hilarious. If only nihilism was that easy to be rid of…

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Anger, Atheism, Death, Nihilism, Philosophy, Reason, Unitarian Universalism

One of the things that some of the more hard-core atheists pride themselves on is being firmly placed in reality. The argument is that because theists choose to believe in something not verifiable by modern science, they are delusional. A delusional person is not in touch with reality. There are atheists who use this as a reason to argue that they are superior to theists. If by reality they mean “only that which is verifiable by modern science,” it would seem that they are correct. However, reality is more than just what is observable.

There is a great deal that can be experienced in the natural world that cannot be measured or verified by the scientific method. Just as much as the ground under you feet, your dreams, thoughts, and feelings are aspects of reality. Artwork, fiction, poetry, music, and acting each can illuminate truth that cannot be defined empirically, but can be felt. In our dreams and within any works of artistic endeavors there is a sense of “realness” that is immeasurable.

Reality is fluid - it takes the shape of the container in which you place it. The shape of your reality’s “container” is dictated by your paradigm. A paradigm is a filter through which you experience reality; it is the accumulation of preferences, prejudices, and protocol shaped both by physical ability and experience. Language is a key factor to an individual paradigm, as is childhood memories.

In the same way your paradigm shapes your reality, it also limits your reality. One bucket full of water is not an accurate representative of all the forms which water can take; in the same way your paradigm is not representative of the fullness of reality. Every paradigm is flawed or missing some aspect of reality. However, this does not mean that every paradigm is equal. To continue my metaphor, Lake Michigan is a lot closer to representing all the forms of water than a bucket of water. Broader paradigms, although still limited, are more accurate than narrow paradigms.

Science attempts to utilize one of the broadest paradigm possible by including only those ideas which can be tested and verified by a community of peers. However, this is still a paradigm, as it is limited to the scope of our ability to perceive the physical world, and does not include those phenomena that are immeasurable. One day science may progress so far as to be able to measure and understand even those phenomena which are currently outside its paradigm. However, to reject the fundamental reality of those things which remain untestable simply due to one paradigm’s limitations is short sighted.

The Divine is one of those aspects of reality which does not fit so neatly into every paradigm. It is so often reinterpreted and misunderstood as a result of our individual paradigms that no single broad paradigm can reach consensus with a majority of people. As a result, it is often easier to exclude that concept from our mutual paradigm. Could this be because the Divine truly does not exist? Is the Divine nothing more than myth?

It is true that one of the reasons why the concept of the Divine has not reached consensus could be due to the Divine not being real in a universal sense, but rather be real a limited individual sense. If this were the case, non-theists would have a valid argument against theism in all forms. Still, when the whole of human history is looked at in an honest manner, you cannot help but notice the consistency in which the Divine manifests itself in every culture. There is another possible reason why the Divine remains so consistent in human cultures, yet is so subject to individual opinion; it could be that when we talk about God or the Divine, we are really referencing to the ultimate reality which no single paradigm can adequately explain.

Might I be wrong? Of course, but I don’t think that is adequate reason to not expand my own paradigm beyond that provided by modern science. Albert Einstein had once said “All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” Limiting our paradigm to one branch of reality or another limits us as individual human beings and as a species. It is worth risking being wrong.

Temple Photo by Neal McQuaid. Blue Liquid Photo by Anticline. Bar Plaque Photo by Bruno Girin.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Art, Atheism, God, Myth, Reason, Religion, Science

Above photo by Area10. Photo below by Daniel Villar Onrubia. Final image by Image Editor.

Apologetics do not work. Occasionally, a man or woman might be convinced of God’s existence as a result of Christian apologetics, but this is the rare exception rather than the rule. Attempts to develop logical reasons to believe in God just don’t make sense; it’s like attempting to find logical reasons to believe in love. Without a logical reason to believe in God, we have to accept God as an abstract idea that is unique to the human experience. This doesn’t sit well with most theists and I can understand why - it plays all too well into the arguments of atheists.

One issue with apologetics is that it attempts to serve two purposes; first to soothe the minds of believers who have doubts, and second to debate the issue with atheists. Believers are often more poetic, metaphorical, and are usually flexible as to the exact definition of a particular word. Atheists, on the other hand, tend to be literal and demand exacting definitions of words. Take for instance the meaning of the word “faith.” For the atheist, this word means the unwavering belief in something in the absence of evidence, and therefore they feel that faith is in opposition to logic. A believer would argue, however, that faith doesn’t occur in the head but rather in the heart - that faith does not conflict with logic at all. Both meanings are viable, but attempting to adapt your argument to both definitions lead to messy and meandering debates.

The other problem of apologetics is the use of soft logic as opposed to hard logic. Soft logic, which is logic rooted in non-physical concepts, works best when speaking to an audience that accepts your understanding of these non-physical concepts. Love is such an example of a non-physical concept; I love my cat, and I love my wife, but I don’t love my cat in the same way that I love my wife (one hopes). There is no way to quantify love, or distill it into it’s purest form. Atheists want something measurable and testable - they want hard logic. Believers try not to meet atheism on that front and, quite honestly, when believers do try they often fail due to their loose grasp of the nature of scientific inquiry.

That isn’t to say there isn’t logical reasons to believe in God, however. Currently, there is only one scientific argument that I know of that could be made on the behalf of faith, but it involves accepting a few ideas with which most Christians feel uncomfortable. Neuroscience, which is the research into the human brain, shows that religious and spiritual experiences originate from a specific area of the brain nearly identically in each individual, regardless of faith. While some non-theists have harped upon this as being proof that spiritual experience is nothing more than a quirk of the brain, I would seriously have to argue against that view.

If this region of the brain is present in the majority of the human species, regardless of faith or non-faith, than it must have been the product of evolution. This leads us to the interesting question of what evolutionary purpose that particular function of our brain serves. The ability to have spiritual experiences needs to contribute to the success of the species if it is to be perpetuated through evolution. While a deity may not be the only explanation, it certainly seems that I am at a loss for any other logical reasons for this development. Should one be found, though, I seriously doubt that this would completely invalidate spirituality. It would be cast in a different light, to be sure, but I suspect it would also raise new and more interesting questions.

Regardless of whether science validates religious and spiritual experience or seemingly invalidates it, my faith need not falter. I experience God in the same manner that I experience love, faith, or happiness. No amount of scientific discovery can strip me of what it means to be human, so long as I remain true to myself. This is the ultimate logic behind faith in God; it is real because of my personal experience and personal meaning. It is apart of my heritage as a human being to have faith in and honor something greater than all of humanity.

For more information on the scientific inquire into spiritual experiences, see the following articles:

• Seeking God in the Brain — Efforts to Localize Higher Brain Functions
• The Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and Neuroscience Meet - Review
• Religion and the Brain: Can science explain experience?
• The Neuroscience of Consciousness
• Your Brain on Religion: Mystic visions or brain circuits at work?
• Tracing the Synapses of Our Spirituality

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Faith, God, Humanity, Questions, Reason, Science, Spirituality

DNA rendering by Ynse

I believe that there is no contradiction between science and spirituality; both speak of different truths. Science speaks in regards to the verifiable truth of empirical research, while spirituality speaks in regards to the truth of the human condition which we can only know in our hearts. Yet many people find the two incompatible, based upon literal interpretation of religious scripture or practice, and it’s conflict with scientific discoveries.Like myself, Dr. Francis S. Collins sees no contradiction between science and spirituality and attempts to show those on both sides of the argument why. Unlike myself, Dr. Collins has an advantage in that he himself is a former atheist who converted to Christianity and was the head of the Human Genome Project. With having been on both sides of the argument, as well as being one of the world’s most prestigious scientists, one would think that his reasoning would be sound and solid. Unfortunately, I found this not to be so in his book The Language of God.

While I liked The Language of God, I found it lacking in several areas. Most important of these, as it is central to the book’s theme, is his use of apologetics to explain his belief in God. The very first chapter of the book, which attempts to show the reason he came to believing in God, argues that altruism could not be the result of evolution and so must be considered evidence of God’s Moral Law inherent within humanity. However, this argument is based upon what I would call soft logic - that is logic that has no basis in concrete physical reality.

Altruistic behavior has to be defined and quantified, observed and studied in order for even the suggestion to be taken seriously. What you might define as altruistic may not be strictly without evolutionary benefit. Those examples of altruism that cannot be explained as being evolutionary could possibly be explained as psychological anomalies or the result of social conditioning. There are simply too many variables to make that claim; if I were an atheist, I wouldn’t accept this argument.

The failure of Dr. Collins’s “Moral Law” argument puts a large dent in his other arguments, as he repeatedly refers back to this throughout the book. In addition to that issue, Dr. Collins relies far too much on C.S. Lewis and not enough on his own understanding or experiences to promote his views. I hate to say it, but if I wanted to read C.S. Lewis, I would have picked a book authored by him. I did say that I like this book, didn’t I?

I do like The Language of God… but not for it’s intended purpose. His personal stories and explanation of the current struggle between science and religion is where this book truly shines. His disarming demeanor serves him well in bringing a better understanding of science to the religious community, which all too often looks upon the scientific community with suspicion. As it is the religious community that is instigating the argument over evolution, his goal of ending the disagreement would better be served by concentrating his efforts on that audience.

So while I feel that The Language of God is worth reading, the chances of an atheist reading this book and having doubts over their non-belief in God is very slim indeed. If you are going to read this book, read it for one man’s story from atheism to Christianity, his growth as a human being, and to understand the science behind the controversies. Don’t look here for irrefutable proof of God’s existence - you won’t find it.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Christian, God, Growth, Humanity, Reason, Religion, Reviews

Photo by Todd Huffman

Did you notice the point at which Wicca became a world religion? There is a definite period when this religion started taking on adherents at a rapid rate. In the early 1990’s, this religion, which seemed destined to be little more than foot note in history, was suddenly exposed to a vast number of spiritual seekers. Wiccans kept their religion quiet in fear of persecution for forty years up to this point; the religion seemed to be waiting for the right time to make itself known.

The Dawn of the Internet

Then, the information age dawned, which changed everything for this small religion. The internet seemed tailor made for Wicca. It gave them anonymity so to avoid persecution, allowed them the freedom to reach spiritual seekers in large numbers, and gave new (and often solitary) practitioners access to a community. This is a religion that doesn’t proselytize - they don’t actively seek out new members. In ten short years, it went from virtually unknown to a growing world religion, all as a result of the internet.

Today, there is a similar surge in Atheism. Again, they are using the internet as a vehicle to get their message out. I read a number of Atheist blogs, mostly because I enjoy debating with them, and have noticed that they have a vibrant growing community. Witnessing this, I have to ask why the liberal religious online community isn’t like that?

Marketing Liberal Religion

Recently, the answer was made clear to me through a fellow Universalist’s blog. Shelby, the webmaster of LookingForFaith.org, wrote an article regarding religious identity and marketing. She points out the trend among evangelicals to use product marketing techniques and asks if religious identity can be synonymous with brand identity. She poses the question as to whether or not liberal religions, such as Unitarian Universalism, should be marketing themselves through clothing, music, television shows, movies and other products. While I would argue against blatant consumerism, we should be marketing ourselves. When it comes to online communities, that means social media.

From what I’ve seen of our blogging community, I don’t think we are using social media services to promote ourselves. Perhaps some in our community do not even know what social media is or how it can it can improve traffic to your blog or to other blogs in our community. Social media is nothing less than another opportunity to share you opinion of what makes a good website with others.

Social Media is - ?

Social media sites essentially give you an up or down vote on content that is generated by other users. In many cases, the user generated content that is being judged are individual web pages. While your single vote may not seem like much, that one vote makes it far more likely that someone else will look at and vote for that web page. The effect is cumulative; the more up-votes a page receives, the more voters likely to read that page who will, if they believe the content is good, give another up-vote.

Now, I will be honest and admit that I don’t use social media as much as I should, either. But at the same time, I want to watch this community grow. So from now on, I will have a regular column on Sundays regarding my usage of different social media sites in my attempt to promote liberal religion blogs, other than my own. Each week, I will concentrate my efforts on one social media site and ask other bloggers to weigh in on it’s usefulness

The Grand Experiment

I encourage everyone to join me in this grand experiment; the more of us using social media, the more power we have as a community to bring in new readers. Why should you care? You have several very good reasons to care. Liberal religion needs to grow in order to survive; we need new petitioners. There are untold numbers of people who are fed-up with the politics of more conservative religions, but do not know that liberal religions such as ours exists. We need money in order to accomplish the good deeds on which we, as a denomination, set our sights. And if none of these reasons are enough to persuade you to participate in social media, than please consider this question: What good is your blog if nobody reads it?

I believe this endeavor is worth the time an effort, and I hope to see you here again next Sunday when I report on my use of StumbleUpon. Until then, I’ve included the following links on how to use StumbleUpon for your reading pleasure:

• How to use StumbleUpon like a Pro
• Building Your Blog with StumbleUpon
• A Comprehensive Guide to StumbleUpon

Namaste.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Advertising, Atheism, Blogging, Information, Reason, Religion, Reviews

Photo by Sharon Mollerus

Two weeks ago, I wrote an article debating that, while there are problems with modern religion, aspects of religion were both true and helpful, and could not be discounted as being a factor concerning the validity of religion as an institution. This was in response to Greta Christina’s article regarding the nature of the debate between atheists and theists. While I was hoping to garner the attention of the queen bee herself, she made it quite clear that she may not have the time to respond properly. No problem. I figured if she didn’t have time to respond that there was an atheist somewhere who would rise to the challenge.

It wasn’t until this past Thursday that I received a response. John B. Hodges was polite enough to comment on my lonely post and point out a few weaknesses in my argument. He wrote, “AFAICT you seem to be saying that (1) religion minus claims of Truth = Practices and values, and (2) the practices and values can be beneficial, even if the associated story is fiction… If ethics and practices are based, in any degree, upon false stories, thay (sic) are likely, to that degree, to be bad ethics.”

While I wouldn’t say he disproved my argument with this, he did manage to dent it. I hadn’t sufficiently addressed why I felt that religion and/or spirituality was “true”. The problem is that, Mr. Hodges and I are speaking about two different types of truth, neither of which are incompatible or all encompassing.

Logic, one method of understanding the universe, derives truth from a series of binary decisions. This method of inquiry has the amazing capability to allow us realize technologies and live richer then we would otherwise be able to do. Only fools dismiss the possibilities. Logic is mankind’s greatest tool for understanding the perceivable world. Yet it isn’t perfect.

The universe does not conform to logic, rather it is logic that must conform to the universe. We may only apply logic to something that we can perceive and that can be verified independently of any outside influence. Most importantly, logic does not describe the totality of the human existence.

We human beings have an emotion element, which defies logic, cannot be perceived or quantified, and yet plays an essential part in our experience. Emotional truth, found in art and spirituality, is far undervalued. It is also a type of truth, but unlike logic, does not fit nice little boxes. To be sure, emotional truth should not be applied to outside world, but by the same token, logic should not be applied to the world within us.

It is this that I am defending when I defend religion. It should be understood that religion is emotional truth, not logical truth. When I talk about the stories of the Bible being taken literally, I’m talking about applying logic to something that should remain only emotional.

Morality, however, is one of those tricky animals that deal with both emotional truths and logical truths. When logic or emotion overcomes the other as the primary deciding factor of morality, we have frightening results. Religion should not have the final say in regards to morality, but neither should science.

I conclude by saying, yet again, I don’t know how well I’ve defended my position. I like putting myself in the precarious position of agreeing and yet disagreeing with those whom I debate. Inevitably, someone will come along and find yet more holes in my argument. I personally think that’s the fun part of theist-atheist dialogue - being challenged to think.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Art, Atheism, Bible, Morality, Reason, Religion, Spirituality

Or, One Theist’s Response to Greta Christina’s Article.

On November 19th, Greta Christina wrote an article concerning the nature of debate between atheists and theists. The general premise of the article is that both parties are actually debating two different questions regarding the nature of religion: (1) are religious beliefs true or are they false and (2) are religions helpful or harmful to mankind? She argued that because we do not differentiate between the two debates, the discussion often devolves into a messy tangle of circular logic. Her conclusion was that we needed to debate the two issues separately, but that both sides also needed to recognize that incorrect assumptions about reality are always harmful.

I honestly can’t debate those points. She is absolutely correct in her conclusion. So why am I writing an article about it? Two reasons. First of all, I would like to try to make a convincing argument on the behalf of spirituality and religious practices, while properly separating the two discussions. The second reason I am writing about this is because I believe that the discussions could be divided even further. To inject a sense of irony in this article, I won’t be attempting to achieve those two objectives independently from each other; I like making it difficult on myself.

First of all, let’s look at the “true or false” question. Is religion true or false? The first problem I have with this question is that it lumps all religion into one category. Are we talking about Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or Buddhism? Each religion has different teachings to be proved or disproved. If the teachings of one religion is disproven, that does not necessarily invalidate another religion. The Zen sect of Buddhism, for example, have no mystical assumptions associated with it, and thus could be considered an atheist religion.

We also have to consider which aspect of religion is true or false. Religion is fairly complex social phenomenon. When we discuss religion, are we just discussing the laundry list of convictions, or are we also discussing the traditions, values, and practices of that particular religion? These are each separate things. It is one thing to argue that Jesus Christ was a composite of various teachers alive before or during the first century, but it is a completely separate thing to claim that the symbolic act of baptism should not have any meaning to the person being baptized.

Dogma, or the literal interpretation of, and belief in, religious stories, is always false. There are no choirs of winged chubby babies up in the sky, nor is there an angry white old man who will send you to a fiery pit of brimstone if you don’t do exactly what he tells you to. Religions need to let go of this insistence upon the absolute truth of their own stories and we need to realize that dogma isn’t their defining characteristic.

If dogma isn’t the defining characteristic of religion, then what is? Spirituality, as well as the values, practices, and artwork that support that spirituality. Spirituality cannot be called “false” because it is feeling. Spirituality is a feeling of being in harmony with the world around you and finding meaning in life. An individual can participate in those spiritual practices and find no meaning in them. An individual can lie and claim to value something that they do not. In these cases, it is the individual who is false and not the practice or the value.

Since it is a fair assumption that anything that is proven to be false is also, by it’s very nature, harmful, we know dogma to be inherently harmful. I won’t argue against that. Religions that still cling to absolute authority and literal interpretation are undoubtedly harmful. If we strip them of that dogmatic approach, and leave only their practices and values, are religious institutions harmful or helpful? It really depends on the practice or value. Many Christians put a great deal of value on family, but some will only value heterosexual relationships and the families that are built upon heterosexual relationships. Muslims practice celibacy before marriage for both men and women, but for some Muslims female circumcision is apart of that practice.

The practices and values of a religion gives spiritual substance and can be psychologically therapeutic, but some practices and values can be simply inhumane. The good news is that the more abusive practices and values of the world’s religions are due to their insistence on the inherent truth of their dogma. As each religion becomes more liberal and less literal, these practices and values will cease to be relevant and fade into obscurity. The bad news is that, for the majority of religious institutions, this is yet to happen.

I know that much of my argument is based on what I envision religion to become in the future. Even though I admit that weakness in my argument, I still cannot help but see that as the direction in which western society is moving. By no means do I feel that my defense of religion should be reason enough for an atheist to convert to theist; at no time was that my intent. My intent is to show that religion does not need to be irrational or inherently harmful, and to show that there is more to this discussion than flat “yes/no” answers. I welcome any additional comments regarding this issue.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Faith, Information, Questions, Reason, Religion, Religious Tolerance, Spirituality

“Think for yourself and question authority.”
- Timothy Francis Leary (1920 – 1996)

I constantly find myself in the position of devil’s advocate. It’s an enjoyable habit to take the position of devil’s advocate - almost a hobby of mine. I’m not quite sure when it started, or what initiated this habit. Perhaps it’s because I was born a Gemini (pft!), or maybe it’s because I am a reincarnation of Socrates (unlikely). All I know is that the world would be a better place if everyone asked more questions and were willing to listen to questions.

People who ask questions aren’t generally liked very much. A question is perceived as a threat. If you question your employer’s decisions, you are soon without a job. If you question your government, you’re no longer patriotic. If you question your religion, you’re a heretic. There are very few venues where it’s acceptable to ask questions and challenge ideas. In general, the internet is one of those precious few places where questions are encouraged.

One of the things that I constantly attempt to do on this site is provide you, my readership, an uncommon view of the world we live in. This plays right into the role I cast for myself. It’s in my nature to ask questions. Questions are the answer, for me. Questions are spiritual.

Why do I believe that questions are spiritual? Take a look at every great spiritual teacher that had ever graced this earth. Jesus and Mohamad both questioned the societies in which they lived. The Buddha questioned why anyone had to suffer. Lao Tzu questioned the basic assumptions we makes concerning progress and then was audacious enough to call it “The Way”. Questions are the basis of spiritual understanding. As Jesus said “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:22, KJV). How else would you know the truth if you do not ask for it?

You wonder why I rail against mainstream religion? It isn’t because they are wrong - it’s because they don’t let others find new ways to be right. If you think for yourself and question authority, you’ll find the new and better ways that are yet to be thought of, and through those you shall truly be made free.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Atheism, Faith, Questions, Reason, Timothy Leary