(non)Belief

Two weeks ago, I joined a Facebook group for atheists and agnostics. Last week I was kicked out -- for not being atheist / agnostic enough.

Here was what I was told:

Just wanted to let you know we've revoked your membership as you are a self professed theist. While a questioning nature and agnosticism is absolutely encouraged within theist communities, we cannot allow any theists to be in the group.

Such utter BS.

I wrote her back, clarifying my (non)beliefs as an "agnostic theist." She wouldn't have any of it: I was told that I may accidentally preach or interject belief into my comments or posts in the group, and where do I get off breaking the rules and then complaining about getting kicked out? This is an atheist group!

More BS. The group description specifically indicates it is for atheists and agnostics. Which, of course, leads to a world of confusion because people don't realize that the terms are actually mutually exclusive. Therefore one can be agnostic and atheist, or agnostic and theist. I will expand on this in a moment.

The whole affair left me feeling quite dejected -- after all, I wasn't expecting the atheists to be so exclusive (reminds me of a lot of religious organizations) -- and after seeking council on the Facebook page for Minority Atheists of Michigan (who do accept agnostic theists), I ended up making two new friends. So that lemon got turned into a sweet fruity beverage! Winning!

However, this ordeal made me pause and think: how, exactly, should I define my (non)belief? I've been claiming to be agnostic theist for months now, but after all that I've read and begun to understand, I don't feel that is is the right banner under which I should stand. So what should I be calling myself?

There are two philosophical standpoints when it comes to metaphysical belief:

• Gnosticism -- from the Greek, gnosis, which means "knowledge." I'm using this term in a purely academic manner, not in a manner associated with the pre-orthodox Christian sects called "Gnostics." For my purposes in this post, a gnostic is someone who claims specific knowledge of the existence of one or more deities -- be it from a book, oral tradition, personal revelation or anywhere else.
• Agnosticism -- from the Greek, a gnosis, which means "without knowledge." An agnostic claims to have no specific knowledge of any deities, regardless if he believes in any or not.

There are two major standpoints of metaphysical belief:

• Theism -- from the Greek, theos, which means "god." A theist is someone who claims belief in at least one deity, regardless if he holds to a gnostic or agnostic philosophy.
• Atheism -- from the Greek, a theos, which means "without god." An atheist is someone who claims no belief in any deities, regardless if he holds to a gnostic or agnostic philosophy.

So combined, there are four major categories concerning one's position on the existence of a god:

• Gnostic Theist -- The majority of religious adherents in the world fall into this category, which claims that there is evidence for the existence of at least one deity. 
• Gnostic Atheist -- The rarest of these four categories, where you may find those who are anti-theist (opposed to the concept of deity) or "explicit" atheists (argues from philosophy against the concept of deity). 
• Agnostic Theist -- Those who are skeptical about religious beliefs or the supernatural, or who claim that one cannot know anything about any deity, and yet still believe that at least one deity exists.
• Agnostic Atheist -- Most self-professed atheists fall into this category, which claims that there is no evidence for any deities, and so therefore there is nothing to actually believe in.

Please note that, for the purposes of this post, I created the terms of "gnostic theist" and "gnostic athiest." While these concepts do exist (and so far as I am aware, they remain ungrouped in such a manner), the terms themselves do not.

I am definitely agnostic -- I don't believe that there is any empirical evidence for or true knowledge of any particular god(s). This is the default position for a skeptical mind, as the skeptic wants proof and such has been lacking from the very beginning. But here is my dilemma: I am not quite atheist and not quite theist; I fall somewhere between.

Despite the lack of evidence, I do believe that there may be a god, who may have began the universe and / or may have sparked off life on at least this planet. My simple human mind just cannot wrap itself around how things started or where matter originated from. And of course, this opens me up to the First Cause counter-argument (more colloquially known as "Who created god?"). We all know where this path leads: if a god can be eternal then why cannot the universe be eternal in god's stead?

Is there an alternative to the four major positions I've outlined? It turns out that there are quite a few, but one in particular seems to fit me better than agnostic theism:

• Agnostic Pragmatism -- Also known as "pragmatic agnosticism", or its catchy portemanteau "Apatheism" (apathetic and a/theism). The best way I can describe this concept is as a contract between you and any deity that he/she/it/they is/are going to ignore you and you are going to ignore him/her/it/them back. No phone calls. No text messages. No Facebook tagging or emails or showing up randomly at your door at 4 in the morning. If you see each other at the club, you'll just stay in your own respective corners. And if god wants to stop being so stand-offish and actually reach out, then perhaps you'll say "hi" back. Maybe.

It is obvious to me that there is a total lack of interest by any deity in the workings of our universe (let alone our planet or individual lives). To boil it down to a simple statement: if a god were truly interested in humanity, that god would manifest itself to humanity, and not leave stupid humans to try and interpret its divinely-inspired words.

If god is apathetic with regards to me, then there is absolutely no reason why I cannot be apathetic back. And so this arrangement works perfectly for me: I can stay comfortably somewhere between atheist and theist (about 95% / 5% respectively) without having to violate my leanings in either direction!

I'm happy to report that I've updated my Facebook profile. Let's see how many groups I get kicked out of now...

Until next Monday,
Frank

About the Holy Bible

Two weeks ago I finished reading a short book, "About The Holy Bible", by Robert G. Ingersoll, a lawyer from the mid-19th century.

Many have praised the book as being one of the first of its kind to unabashedly blast the bible with truthful objections. Any Christian reading it would either shudder and throw the book away (claiming it to be a blasphemous work of the devil) or instantly leave the faith.

One section has resonated so fully with my beliefs on the "holy scripture" that still two weeks later I ponder its apt presentation. Because I wholeheartedly agree with what Ingersoll says in this section, and my words cannot do justice (or so sharply stab) by him, I am this week substituting my own words with his.

Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack the Bible.

I will tell them:

This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death, the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of man. 

This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants--the enslaver of women and children. This book has corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with hateful, cruel, ignorant and warring sects. This book taught men to kill their fellows for religion's sake. This book founded the inquisition, invented the instruments of torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh, erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled fagots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason from the minds of millions and filled the asylums with the insane. 

This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on which the slave-mother stood when she was sold from her child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader and made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the fires that burned "witches" and "wizards." This book filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies of men and women with devils. This book polluted the souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain. This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and investigation the greatest of crimes. This book filled nations with hermits, monks and nuns--with the pious and the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be happy in another--to waste this world for the sake of the next. 

I attack this book because it is the enemy of human liberty--the greatest obstruction across the highway of human progress. 

Let me ask the ministers one question: How can you be wicked enough to defend this book?

You can read the entire text online here (or download as an eBook).

Until next Monday,

Frank

Faith (part 2)

Today's topic is on faith in the New Testament -- specifically faith as spoken about by Jesus. Even more specifically, about what we are told a believer can accomplish with his faith. The following four verses sum up just about everything Jesus had to say on this topic (emphasis mine):

And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him; and the child was cured from that very hour. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not cast it out?" So Jesus said to them, "Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:18-20 NKJV)

And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither away so soon?" So Jesus answered and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' it will be done. And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."  (Matthew 21:19-22 NKJV)

And the apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith." So the Lord said, "If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,' and it would obey you." (Luke 17:5-6 NKJV)

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes* in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:12-14 NKJV) [*pisteuó: believe, have faith in]

I grew up in the Lutheran church, Missouri synod. We were taught that miracles such as moving mountains or withering fig trees were powers vested upon the original disciples and that such days are long gone. When I converted to Apostolic Pentecostalism in 2001, I was taught the complete opposite: that the magical powers of god were at my fingertips -- contrary to what those evangelical, liturgical, trinitarian heretics were teaching -- all I needed was "faith faith faith, just a little bit of faith" (as the gospel song goes).

I believed this; I believed wholeheartedly in the anecdotal evidence I was constantly supplied with during my time in the charismatic movement. I heard of healings, miracles, people being raised from the dead… and although I could never find a single ounce of evidence, in all my searches through books, the internet, and interviews, that didn’t matter because others had seen them and I trusted their stories. And after all, I had the TRUTH and god was on my side! Hallelujah!

I could easily spend this post writing an epic dissertation on confirmation bias, coincidence, and some of the truly abysmal let-downs that the optimistically faithful have experienced (and continue to, regardless of what branch of Christianity one belongs to). And as salacious and eye-opening as it would be, it would make this post entirely too long and bound to push me off my point. Anyone honestly looking for that kind of information will quickly and easily find an abundance of it; perhaps one day I will, myself, venture to compile some of it to make a more rounded case for what I'm here presenting.

The fact is, almost every religion claims that their god or gods provide magical blessings for her/his/its/their chosen. And so every religion has its anecdotal stories which keep the converts rolling in -- Christianity is certainly no exception.

There are a plethora of points I can make on this, but I want to focus on just one: the ignored requests of the faithful.

I've seen parents pleading with god in tears, over their comatose child. I've known a man in a motorized wheelchair, so stricken with ALS that he could only move his head and arms, told that he will be healed in god's time. I've seen people with cancer, people with addiction, people struggling just to provide for their families; all on their knees, all asking their lord for just some small ounce of help.

And yet that help never comes.

In my own experience, there are four reasons usually given as to why faithful prayers go unanswered, all of which contradict the previously quoted scriptures:

1. God's timing
   Like a starving dog at master's table, the faithful are often left in a state of constant begging, until the master benevolently throws a morsel. An offensive analogy, but accurate. However the scriptures say nothing of god's timing. There is no caveat of "eventually" or "when god is ready" attached to any of the verses. And yet this is the most standard response given when god doesn't follow through with his promise.
2. Not enough faith
   Twice we are told that all is needed is the faith of a mustard seed -- chosen because of its tiny size, it was used to illustrate that one only needs a small amount of faith to accomplish great things through god. And yet, when god doesn't follow through, the faithful is blamed for not having enough faith. After all, god is perfect and god does not lie, so maybe the believer just needs to pray louder or something.
3. Sometimes god says "no"
   I will let scripture itself answer this question:

   Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NKJV)

   And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive. (Matthew 19:22 NKJV)

   If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. (John 14:14 NKJV)

4. Asking amiss
   One could truly argue that motives have everything to do with faith, and asking, and doing all sorts of wondrous and magical things in Jesus’ name.
   

   You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. (James 4:3 NKJV)

   This is a truly legitimate reason for god ignoring the requests of his faithful. But the problem is, how many are asking amiss when they are seeking healing or relief from pain? How many are asking amiss when they pray for a means to financial resources in order to take care of their loved ones? How many are asking amiss when they are just asking their god to listen to them and do what he promised?

And as if ignoring his faithful wasn't enough, god allows them to be mislead and deceived by agents claiming to come in his name!

Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff, and all those other circus animals on television, or on their stages, or in their gold-laced pulpits who put on these amazing spectacles in the name of god and his powers are nothing but leeches who rape the humanity out of people seeking hope. Hope which, for whatever reason, has been misplaced in a deaf and blind god.

Think about it: if a god were to actually heal people and raise them from death then people would have reason to actually believe! And, according to scripture, that is what god wants:

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

The ultimate hypocrisy here is that, according to the bible, god wants everyone to be saved, but in truth isn't actually willing to actually provide any evidence of his existence.

My dear Christians, how can you continue to believe in a god who turns a blind eye to those who place their trust in him? How can you continue to serve a master who demands you to beg? How can you not shy away from a god who allows false hopes, false healing, and false security done under his authority to those who need real hope, real healing, and real security?

Would you remain friends with someone who makes promises to you, but never follows through? If you answer "no" then you have some serious thinking to do about your faith.

And so, 20 years later, that man with ALS is still waiting for his healing. God will fix him... eventually. He just needs to keep the faith.

Until next Monday,

Frank

Faith (part 1)

I attended a Lutheran high school just north of Detroit. One day the theology teacher explained “faith” to our class. I do not remember exactly what he said, but I do remember that he pointed to his chair and told us that we all have “faith that the chair will hold us up.”

Faith, to a Christian, is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1, KJV) And this is precisely the point our teacher was trying to make that day: that just because we do not understand how god works, just because we have no corporeal evidence for the accuracy of the bible, we should still have “faith”.

Faith in the alleged truth of an alleged god’s alleged word.

Allegedly.

But what are we actually buying into when we accept this scripture as truth?

1. the substance of things hoped for
   We all hope for things -- that plans will work out, that the weather will be decent, that there won't be a screw-up in the payroll department on the 15th. Christians hope that there is a god and a heaven and a Christ whose work will bring about salvation to those who follow him. But what exactly is hope? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, hope is “to want something to happen or be true and think that it could happen or be true.” So therefore it would be fully logical to say that the “substance of things hoped for” is wishes.
2. the evidence of things not seen
   There are millions of things we do not see; quarks and black holes are good examples. Now, I realize that the scripture is dealing with the concept of spiritualism, but I have to ask: what, exactly, does this spiritualism encompass? Up until about 500 years ago it was the magical will of the gods that governed how our universe functioned. When the gods became angry, they caused storms or earthquakes or falling stars. People had “faith” that this was how the universe worked. For our predecessors, claiming faith to be (spiritually speaking) the “evidence of things not seen” was logically the same as claiming faith in magic.

In the end, all we have with Hebrews 11:1 is wishes and magic. That is your faith, dear Christian, if you’re really going to be honest and examine it for what it is.

Those twenty years ago, sitting in that classroom, I didn’t really consider fully what the teacher was saying. As a young, impressionable, fundamentalist Christian, I was eager to lap up anything theological about my religion.

Now I know better. I do not have faith that any chair will hold me up: I have reason and logic, and applied scientific principles which all together state that if the chair held me up yesterday, there is no reason -- barring decay or destruction -- why it should not hold me up today. I do not need faith or a god to understand and observe how basic physics work.

Let’s have a little parable, shall we?

Little Harold went to school one sunny Spring day. At first glance, his desk chair looked fine, but as he began to look closer -- to examine its legs, and seat, and back -- he noticed that it was not in very good shape after all. There was a good deal of rust, some of the screws had fallen out, and a leg was slightly bent. It was wobbly. Harold didn’t mind; the chair had always looked like this, but he had FAITH it would hold him up. And so he sat down and smiled. And as usual, nothing bad happened. His faith had been justified! But ten seconds later he was laying on his back, the ruins of the chair underneath him.

Is there a lesson to be learned here? Perhaps, if you think about it. Go on - I have faith that you can work it out…

In part 2 I will be discussing New Testament teaching on faith and how it miserably fails at moving mountains.

Until next Monday,

Frank

No Excuses!

Sorry I’m late… I spent most of last week working on a workplace presentation on same-sex marriage, and my creative energies are about sapped.

I spent yesterday giving the presentation, then I helped friends move, and today after work I have a wake to attend.

These are not excuses, but rather a begging of pardon for lateness and the brevity of this post!

I finished reading “Godless” by Dan Barker, and now have added him to the very short list of deconverts I would love to meet one day (the only other entry is Bart Ehrman -- I'm actually thinking about converting to polytheism so I can worship these two as gods -- just kidding!). His book was inspiring, to say the least, especially since I followed some of the same path, and had many of the same questions (and objections).

Certainly, “Godless” was a very refreshing read, especially after the more scientific Dawkins and philosophic Carrier. I mean no disrespect to either, but sometimes one is thirsty for an easy read and these two learned gentleman can make one’s brain ache with knowledge!

Speaking on thirst for reading, I cannot believe that I have so far read 11 books in aid of my deconversion! Number 12 is in progress. This is nearly double what I read last year... a new record!

On a more bittersweet note, I feel that soon I will be ready to start moving past the self-centricity of this topic to start working on redeveloping this blog into a more useful resource for Christians looking to deconvert, or for those who have already done so and are seeking information and/or fellowship. This means my blog will probably become a bi-weekly or monthly affair (but hopefully more informative posts).

The fact is, I am moving out of the inquisitive phase, where one tries to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible. I’m starting to feel the itch of needing to take action. To find others like me, to mobilize, and to start helping to hit back against the monster that Christianity is.

Until next Monday,

Frank