Reconversion!

So, I'm a Christian again now.

LOL! Just kidding. God, you're so gullible sometimes!

So a few weeks ago, a friend of a friend on Facebook noticed a comment I had made about my recent deconversion on a particular posting. He had some questions about that, and so sent a message indicating that he was an atheist who converted to Christianity. He wanted to see if he could address the issues I had regarding the religion, which caused me to leave; to which I responded that he would be wasting his time, if his goal was to reconvert me.

And so the time wasting began.

He wanted to know what, exactly, caused me to leave Christianity. My response:

Too many questions that Christianity couldn't answer, my friend. 

There comes a certain point when history and science and logic put a wedge into one's faith, and then the hammer falls down upon that wedge and breaks it apart...

...just questions, and history, and science, and logic. And 30+ years of religion crumbled away...

Naturally, he was curious as to what those questions were. So I presented them:

1. If Christianity is true, then why are there some 40,000 different denominations? Many of those are at odds with each other over very fundamental beliefs. Many pronounce doom on believers of other denominations. How is the Christian supposed to know which one is really true, and which one is not?

2. How do we even know that the god of the bible, among the millions of other gods throughout human history, is the true god? Every religion has its anecdotal stories which supposedly prove prayer and faith works.

3. How can any loving, personal god, who is truly interested in his creation's salvation, leave that creation with nothing but questions and mystery over what is true, and then say, "oh by the way if you don't figure it out you're spending eternity in hell"? What kind of god can be called loving for punishing humanity for not knowing the truth he refuses to clarify, and to punish eternally? The judgment does not even fit the crime. It reeks of a man-made concept used to reign people in.

And this is where things started to go downhill. The first thing he did was to start arguing from bible scripture. Which is, of course, the #1 no-no when trying to argue your faith with someone who does not believe it. To begin with, the "non-believer" probably doesn't even accept your religious book as valid or true (much like Christians do not believe the Koran or Bhagavad Gita to be true). And so starting off in this manner comes across as very arrogant, as you are all but saying, "your holy book is false, therefore what you believe is false -- let me correct you using my holy book, inspired by the true god."

Christians, how would you react if someone from a different faith approached you like this? Would you laugh them off, or try to convince them otherwise? So why expect your targets to act any different?

Now, in the course of this conversation, arguing from bible scripture was just the starting point. Then he began, in all honesty, making excuses for how men misinterpret things, and we should just stick to the scripture and, quite frankly, blah blah blah. If you are interested, here is my (rather wordy) response:

I understand completely what you are saying, as an apologist I also argued from this position myself. The problem we get into, with the concept of just following the scripture, is that it is up for too much personal interpretation. In fact, the innumerable translations from the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into English can determine multiple different ways a particular scripture can be interpreted.

Another problem with the concept of "solo scriptura" is that there are thousands of different manuscripts of the Greek New Testament books. All of them are divergent from each other in some way...

The third problem is that there are actually more non-cannonical New Testament gospels than there are in the currently accepted cannon. The New Testament as we know it today evolved over the course of 400 years. So does that mean all the other types of Christians were wrong and are in hell, because they believed adoptionism, or gnosis, or any one of the other dozens of divergent concepts of who Christ was in early Christianity?

Finally there is one other glaring problem: with exception of a few books of the New Testament, we don't even know who the authors were. All of the gospels were anonymous, and are completely at odds with each other in many areas. Many of the epistles were not written by who they claim to be, and several were written upwards of 150 years after the fact.

...I appreciate your gusto and what you're trying to do. But the more I read into the history of bible, its origins and formation, the more I see that it really is a loose coupling of books written by divergent men over diverse time periods.

If you want a good understanding of why I don't believe the bible to be reliable, read this blog post of mine on Paganini's 24th Caprice.

I welcome any arguments that you may be able to present from outside the bible, but anything from inside that book I am not going to agree with. I am sorry, but that is where I am at. It is not that I don't believe in the possibility of a god, but that I do not believe in the god of the bible.

Sadly, his response was only more rhetoric: "you can actually read the writings of the early church father's and put together the entire New Testament cannon just from the quotations of their writings." I have heard this argument plenty of times.

In fact, the same argument can be used of any religious text. All religious fathers will quote their holy books as they make their cases or debates. I am sure one can reconstruct with some accuracy the entire texts of the aforementioned Koran and Bhagavad Gita by referencing religious pundits' quotations of them.

You can do the same with almost any popular book of any antiquity on this planet. Eventually (if it hasn't happened already) enough people will quote enough of Shakespeare's Hamlet that one could recompile the whole play without the actual source material.

Let's be honest here: the proliferation of quotes is not a logical argument for the accuracy or truth or reliability of what is being quoted. Truth is not a democracy, it is not based upon majority rule. 200 copies of the same section of scripture does not mean it is more true than one copied only 20 times. It just means it was copied more, for whatever reason.

But single-handedly the most disturbing thing he said during our discourse (before I stopped him and told him he really is wasting his time because I already know all the arguments he is going to use, and defeated them all for myself): 

I believe because I believe the evidence bears out that what the scripture says is true. Not necessarily from the context of naturalist materialist post-scientific 21st century American worldview, but from the context in which it was given - that of the pre-scientific ancient near east Semitic people from about 2,000 BC to 100 AD. It makes quite a bit more sense when we don't try to impose filters on the scripture that are completely foreign to it.

So... basically you're telling me that your own belief is not even based upon evidence, but upon the belief that it proves scripture? And, that we should relate to the bible in a way which only ancient Jews understand? And that the bible makes more sense when we don't apply logic, reason, or science?

Is this the same religion which tells me I can have a personal relationship with god and that the bible can be relevant in my daily life?

To answer those questions: The evidence constantly and overwhelmingly disproves scripture. We cannot relate to anything in any capacity other than what we have, ourselves, experienced (in other words, I am not an ancient Jew...). And if we were to remove logic, reason, and science from everything (in the same way religion asks us to) humanity would regress to what we were hundreds of years ago. Of course, then maybe we could relate to the bible like ancient Jews a little easier... 

It is obvious, through this short conversation I had with him, that he is just spouting off the same spoon-fed apologetic arguments that all Christians use. I wonder what would happen if he honestly questioned these arguments. Would he revert to atheism? No, I doubt it. Any atheist that would engage in such weak logic would be doomed to waffle.

Above all, I truly feel bad for him. And I know he feels bad for me too, because he said he would pray for me. And we all know how well prayer works. Oh wait, no we don't... (check out my previous post on Faith, part 2).

Until next Monday,

Frank

Relics

Everyone has heard, I am sure, about how the Catholic church has maintained certain relics throughout history. Bones of saints, bits of the cross, the spear which pierced the side of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea's toilet paper, and the like. Of course, most of us in this enlightened age realize the truth -- that relics such as these are complete hooey.

But yet there is still a reverent fervency for certain biblical relics; specifically the Holy Grail, Noah's Ark, Mount Sinai, and the Ark of the Covenant. Well, at any rate the Holy Grail certainly does not exist (and never did -- it is a purely Catholic tradition which got entirely out of hand). But what about the others? Many have actually claimed to have found them.

One of the most prolific self-proclaimed biblical archeologists in history, Ron Wyatt, claimed to have found the site of the Red Sea crossing, the "real" Mount Sinai, Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and just for good measure, Sodom and Gomorrah. PS: Wyatt was a nurse anesthetist who claimed that the big guy upstairs had blessed him with keen insight. In other words, he had absolutely no experience as an archaeologist.

As a fundamentalist bible-literalist young-earth creationist I also believed wholeheartedly in Wyatt's discoveries; to such an extent that even through my deconversion and up to this very weekend I had a difficult time trying to reconcile them with the fact that I no longer believe the bible or consider it to be anything close to historically accurate.

But then! I ran across this blog: Against Jebel al-Lawz, which presented a very clear, concise, and well-researched, well-referenced rebuttal on some of Wyatt's "discoveries." The author even piled on the resources to help refute all of Wyatt's other claims. It was scathing. But the best article I read was about the Noah's Ark formation on Mount Arat: the author theorized that the formation (while certainly not a boat) may actually be responsible for the creation of the legend!

Regardless, it is satisfying to once again learn the truth and dispose of the fiction. But also a little sad -- another bit of childhood, of the last 35 years of my understanding of the universe, is gone. It seems like a recurring theme now -- in some regards, I am digging up these religious relics of my mind and exposing them to the light of truth and reason. And just like those physical relics, each mental one "promptly disappears in a puff of logic."

Until next Monday,

Frank

The Butterfly Effect

Three weeks ago, one of my coworkers gave me (along with several others) a monarch caterpillar to care for while it embarked on its journey to become a butterfly. I took it home, watched it munch down on milkweed plants for a few days, and then form a chrysalis. For ten days it did nothing but hang there; then yesterday morning a beautiful, giant orange butterfly emerged. This morning we set it out into nature. It waved an antenna and then fluttered away.

I spent a good deal of time researching monarchs during the chrysalis phase, and I learned a great deal: that they shed their skin and the chrysalis is underneath, that they only eat milkweed when they're caterpillars, and that those little caterpillars are feces-making machines. I am not joking -- they poop. A lot.

But the most amazing thing I did learn was that monarchs go through four generations every year. The first three all hatch, eat, transform, lay more eggs, and then die -- all within a two-month time-span. But the last generation, born in late August / early September, is special. They break that short-cycle and migrate to Mexico for the winter. There, they enjoy the fine beaches, cuisine, and everything else the exciting central American country has to offer. Well, no: they hibernate, for six to eight months. Then they fly back to their homes, lay eggs, and the cycle continues.

Evolution at it's best! And I am sure that it would be a very fascinating story, to discover why caterpillars ended up this way. But for me, the monarch has come to symbolize transformation; I am sure it has symbolized this to many people over many eons. But it hits home in a special way for me, having gone through my own metamorphosis recently. On top of learning about evolution, seeing a miniature version of it was a fairly emotional experience. I think that the monarch will forever hold a place in my heart; and may very well be my new favorite insect (it used to be the pillbug).

It’s almost enough to make me believe in god again.

LOL, just kidding. Hooray science!

Until next Monday,

Frank

Patriot Games

First, this: making this post was a very difficult decision. The topic strays somewhat away from my usual anti-religious rhetoric and into the arena of politics. The subject matter is still, over a decade later, a painful spot; so I apologize in advance if I cause offense -- this is not my goal. My goal is to take offense this time.

This Thursday is the thirteenth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Flight 93. "Patriot Day," as it is now officially called, was designated as a national day of remembrance in December of 2001. It was signed into law by George W. Bush, who also signed into law the Patriot Act earlier that fall. Sheesh, what was with this guy and the word "patriot"?

While I do agree that it was a most horrific example of what humanity is capable of doing to itself, I hold the opinion that calling it "Patriot Day" is a misnomer and a disservice to our country.

For the majority of the last thirteen years, I have asked many why the government chose the term "patriot" -- and no one has yet given a reasonable answer. Usually I just receive a shrug and an "I don't know." So what, exactly, is a patriot? And who, exactly, were the patriots the day was named for?

According to Merriam-Webster, a patriot is "a person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country."

In the great dance of events that occurred on September 11th, there were only five "categories" of people. In descending order of active involvement they are:

1. The bystanders (you and me and the families of the victims)
2. The victims
3. Those who tried to retake Flight 93
4. The government and rescue workers
5. The terrorists

So which of these categories fit the definition of a patriot?

It could not be the bystanders, as they were powerless to do anything. The victims were everyday citizens who just showed up to work or boarded the flights. The valiant passengers and crew of Flight 93 were fighting for their lives, not their country. And the government and rescue workers were probably more concerned with responding to the unforeseen and horrific tragedy (and the cost of life and property) than being patriotic.

That leaves just one category: the terrorists. 

The true patriots of Patriot Day are those who, by instruction of a call to martyrdom, entered our country. They are those who took flying lessons, who snuck weapons on board at least three flights and hijacked them. And who, I am sure, shouted praises to their god as they murdered thousands.

Is it blasphemy that I should equate the actions of those terrorists with patriotism? I do not think so. I am certain that they considered themselves patriots of their extremist ideals.

"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people... We say that the end of the United States is imminent, whether Bin Laden or his followers are alive or dead, for the awakening of the Muslim umma (nation) has occurred." Osama Bin Laden, 12/27/2001

It is apparent that they were actively instigating war against us as a response to our support of Israel. Bin Laden equates his movement with a nation. Certainly the ideal with regards to these extremists is to destroy and conquer. And the hate continues even to this day: the successor to Al Qaeda, ISIS, dominates today’s news with its terrorist tactics.

(PS: I am not so naive to think that America has not brought some of this punishment upon itself.)

In my mind it does disservice to the citizens of this country and to its armed forces, to continue to call September 11th "Patriot Day," because we are giving credence to what those extremists did by way of justification through their religion. I am sure, America, that our Lord and Savior Jesus (and his mother, for you Catholics) is crying over our country unwittingly giving props to a terrorist god. 

It's just another reason why religion causes more harm than good, if you ask me. Well, you didn't but you know I'm going to give you my opinion anyways. Think I'm being harsh about this? Just wait until Columbus Day...

Until next Monday,

Frank

Mental Health

Three weeks ago, Robin Williams took his own life. It was a tragic end to a unique life and a brilliant career, but there has been a slight glimmer of positivity because of it: people are, for the first time, openly and unabashedly coming forward and discussing their own mental health issues, their struggles, and their thoughts of suicide. Perhaps Robin's death need not be in vain -- perhaps it can be the catalyst our nation needs to really start openly addressing mental health.

In an earlier entry I wrote about the suicidal thoughts which occupied my mind prior to abandoning my religious beliefs, and how those thoughts disappeared. For the most part, this is still true; yet every so often they still pop up. They aren't as strong, not by a long shot; but they are very cavalier, and this concerns me.

I used to view this life and its problems as temporary, and that when one died one spent the rest of eternity in heaven or hell. Life, therefore, was not altogether precious -- it was just a necessary step to reach our real destination. As a religious individual, it was fear of hell which stayed my hand from suicide.

Now, since I don't believe in an eternal destination, I see life as unique and important and fleeting. It is precious. But some small part of me struggles now with the finality of death. Why should I continue living, if I'm just going to end up as worm food? And, of course, the answer is because life is unique and important and fleeting. But the part of me that struggles seems to have a "devil may care" attitude and I'm concerned that I may do something stupid on a whim. So I decided to seek some help.

It's been 14 years since I last visited Susie, my psychologist. I went through a very rough period in my life back in 2000, her help and guidance impacted me in a wonderful way -- so naturally I was brimming with excitement when she responded that she could fit me in to her schedule.

Meeting with her last week caused me to explore many things in my past that I had forgotten... but nothing floored me so much as her impression during my last sessions with her, as I was beginning to join the Apostolic Pentecostal church.

"I'm going to lose him," is what she told me she was thinking back then. She could not understand how a rational human could lose himself to a religion. I laughed! "That is exactly what happened," I told her. I did lose myself. And all of my friends. And respect from most of my family. And part of my mind, all because of a fundamentalist religion. "Now that I've left religion I can see things so clearly," I said.

I bring up this story for three reasons. First, because I don't want to be silent about my mental health issues. We need to talk about these things. We need to be honest and open. People need to know that they are not alone, and telling your story is the best way to accomplish that.

Secondly, I want to draw attention to the fact that suddenly finding yourself without a soul, or an afterlife, or a big eye in the sky watching your every move can be frightening. It can make one feel lost and alone. And quite frankly, it is difficult to deal with the idea that one will just cease to exist when the time comes, as opposed to what one was misled to believe for decades. But there are lots of us out there -- those who have had to come to terms with this dilemma. I can personally tell you that there is no shame in seeking professional help, or even just someone to talk to. You are not alone, and you do not have to be.

Finally, I want to point out the barbaric attitude that seems to permeate religion with regards to the field of mental health. I certainly cannot speak for everyone, but for myself, all throughout parochial school -- high school, in particular -- I was told that psychologists and psychiatrists are agents of the devil (except, of course for the Christian ones because they adhere to biblical principles). In church they had a filthy reputation of catering to the mind instead of the soul, of telling one what one wants to hear, of not falling in line with the idea that god's ways are concrete and everyone should just serve and obey. This is all invented nonsense in an attempt, I truly believe, to keep Christians under subjection to their religion. If one starts visiting a secular counsellor, one may start using one's brain and start thinking for one's self.

Meanwhile, in the church, I was told that all I had to do was pray to god for the healing of my mind and my past and my emotions. God would provide. And since god's ways are higher, I should just be patient and wait for a response. God will do it in his own time. Maybe I should just pray harder and have more faith.

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothes the grass, which today is in the field and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith? And do not seek what you should eat or what you should drink, nor have an anxious mind. For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and your Father knows that you need these things. (Luke 12:27-30 NKJV)

When looked at on the surface, this hopeful scripture demonstrates the beauty of god caring for creation. To me, it certainly illustrates Jesus' free-loading hippy attitude. But dig deeper, flower child, and you will find a very nefarious concept: that you should rely on god for everything. Why do I say nefarious? Because where do you draw the line? How far do you let yourself be reliant on something which may not even be there?

We are told to call upon god for help. And when that help doesn't arrive? Naturally, it adds to the issue. Sometimes the pastor or other church member will offer counsel. But is this counsel grounded in psychology or in theology? In the former, then there is hope. But in the latter there is nothing but more hardship.

I look back with pity on my Lutheran high school experience. How many nights did I cry myself to sleep; the mental anguish of a gay teenager who is told by his religion that god hates gay people, who would cry out to his god for succor, whose recompense was nothing but silence? The sideways remarks from the faculty and staff of the school. The public outing by someone I stupidly took into my confidence. The scriptures read, the verses quoted, the videos and books telling us that homosexuals are hell-bound. And so that 17-year-old took a bottle of pills and laid down one night with a note beside his bed consisting of a single line: "I apologize for the inconvenience."

Thankfully, I was not the brightest bulb in the chandelier when it came to pharmaceuticals, and suffered no worse than a night's deep sleep.

I am the first to admit that my memory is not the best, but it seems like every single time I have had an issue and brought it to someone in a position of authority in the church (or Lutheran school), they tried to affect change within me to bring me in line with biblical concepts or interpretation. Instead of, you know, trying to help me deal with the issue I would instead be presented with the miracle cure of... god's word. And always the promise of hellfire looming in the distance if I didn't repent of my sinner ways and snap to.

Perhaps that is why I have such fond memories of Susie and such horrid memories of church figures when it comes to counselling. When I asked her if she thought she could help, she told me, "I want to give you hope."

That's a hell of a lot more than I ever got from my religion -- the very institution which prides itself on how much it helps the downtrodden. And that is sad.

Until next Monday,

Frank

The Grand Architect

At the beginning of July, I subscribed to The Humanist -- an online magazine and resource for people interested in secular humanism (a life philosophy which embraces ethics and morals without religion), and noticed that they have a weekly advice column called "The Ethical Dilemma." Well, as it turns out, I did have such a dilemma and decided to submit it; whereupon I was told by the columnist, Joan Reisman-Brill, that she was excited to have such a question and that it would appear sometime in the near future.

And so I waited, with baited breath. And finally, this past Friday, it was featured! And so now I am finally able to discuss the issue. Here is the question:

I find myself in a precarious position. I began joining the Freemasons before I de-converted from Christianity. I find myself teetering between whether I am an atheist or an agnostic theist (one who believes that there may be a god, but that's about it). The Freemasons, while respectful of other religious beliefs, are overtly Judeo-Christian and do not tolerate atheists.

Now that I am a full-on member, I really am enjoying my time with this fraternal organization, its members, history, and structure. But part of me feels like I am "in the closet" and so I'm not quite sure how I feel. Have you any good advice for someone in such an odd spot?

The response I received was very well thought out and provided some good insight:

I really don't know much about the mostly-male and secretive Freemasons, but the Freemason website says, "You believe in a Supreme Being--no atheist can become a Mason--but we are not concerned with theological distinctions or your particular religious beliefs." You were still a believer when you declared your belief in a supreme being, and even now, as you waver between atheist and agnostic theist, you retain a sliver of belief. So it sounds like you're good, with or without god. (For readers not familiar with Freemasonry, check out the segment about it on CBS Sunday Morning.)

Could you discreetly probe what your group's policy is toward members who (hypothetically, of course) lose their belief sometime after they are already members? Would such a person be honor-bound to leave the group, or would the group be compelled to eject such a person, even if he is in every other respect in good standing?

Regardless of the answer, if you are enjoying the organization, why not keep enjoying it and keep your doubts to yourself? The website states that Freemasons do not discuss religion, so now that you are long past the pledge stage, questions about your current state of belief shouldn't even arise.

This may be naive, but perhaps after you've been a member for some time, even if you were to fully embrace atheism, there might not be any repercussions if your non-belief became known.

And probably even more naive, perhaps one day you might lead a movement to alter the by-laws to include atheists. After all, it is called "Free" masons.

I take the advice to heart, and believe that it will help me in my journey with the Masons. And something else which will help me: the overwhelming response received to the article by readers on the website and on Facebook!

True, there were many negative remarks, many off topic, many discussing and debating the details and conspiracies of Masonry. I was expecting those. I was, however, not expecting the number of Masons who expressed that atheists / agnostics should not be excluded or disfellowshipped. And what really floored me is that several Masons responded who are, themselves, atheist / agnostic!

"I am a Mason. I would note that Masons do not require a belief in a specific definition of Supreme Being. That leaves a lot of room. Most physicists hold that something preceded creation; they call it the laws of physics. You say the laws of physics; I say Supreme Being."

"...realize that while you may be the only atheist in your Lodge, you are not the only one in Freemasonry. We just don't discuss it."

"The earliest Masons were pretty much all freethinkers and deists."

"I am a 32 degree Mason and see no problem with atheists in the Lodge."

Just a small sampling of the more positive comments made.

To those not in the know, the Free and Accepted Masons are an overtly religious organization (as are the higher levels of York and Scottish rites). I fully anticipate that one day I will most likely be excommunicated because of my increasing outspokenness against organized religion and the ignorance it propagates -- especially as I continue to work toward providing resources and help for questioning Christians and recent deconverts.

My own lodge's Worshipful Master took me aside the other day (knowing that I am teetering with religious belief) and told me that he knows of at least one atheist in a sister lodge, and that some people know and others don't. He survives by keeping his mouth shut around the brethren -- a hint given me not as a warning but as a survival tactic. My WM knows me, and knows that my heart is in it (even if my soul is not). And for that I am truly grateful.

Of all the positive comments posted on Facebook, this one was by far the most important to me:

"I'm a Freemason and I don't believe in anything supernatural. I don't believe in a personal god, but I also don't have a problem with using the term 'god' to refer to the totality of the laws of the universe, which govern all things."

Please indulge me as I contemplate this for a moment.

In the Masons, we talk about the "Grand Architect of the Universe" -- hyperbole for "god." And this is where it gets uncomfortable for me, because I'm not even sure that there is such a being. We are asked, when we take oaths, "in whom do you put your trust?" Naturally, the correct response is "god."

What if "god" is a man-made concept? Then we are putting our trust in an invention, and then invoking that invention. There is no evidence for god, for a supernatural creator of the universe, for a spiritual being who interacts with humanity.

But there is evidence for science.

In fact, science itself is based upon reason, logic, theories, and evidence. It is based upon everything that makes up the universe. It is based upon how the universe functions. Human ingenuity and spirit drive science. And science drives human ingenuity and spirit. It is a beautiful cycle, made even more majestic and potent by the fact that science will continue on, even without human interaction.

I can completely get behind that. In whom do I put my trust? In physics, math, biology, history, evolution, atoms, quarks, relativity, stars, planets, space, oceans, mountains, rain, hydrogen, sunsets, gravity, air, moon dust, spacecraft, black holes, bacteria, reason, and on and on. In science. In god.

Until next Monday,

Frank

PS: I am not expressing a belief in pantheism -- that everything is god and god is everything. Nor am I proffering that science is, itself, a deity. I am simply expounding on "using the term 'god' to refer to the totality of the laws of the universe."

Evolution

Yesterday I finished reading a fun little book called "Then Why Do I have Toenails", written by Thom Phelps. Originally started as a letter to a fanatical Christian friend (an interesting story in and of itself), it proved to be an interesting and amusing foray into the mind of an atheist.

True, it wasn't the best-written book I've read this year (though I have certainly read worse), but it did make its point, and made it well. Plus it gave me a new phrase for my repertoire: "C&E Christian" – a Christian who attends church only twice a year, on Christmas and Easter. I believe he used this in a similar way to my own "CINO" (Christian In Name Only).

The question of toenails really only plays a very small role in the book. I believe the title was chosen specifically to cause inquiry and curiosity; on that particular level, it worked. Why, the reader is forced to ask, do people believe in creationism when animals and plants and humans have vestigial organs?

I spent a few minutes Googling today, to see what bits and pieces may be left over from the evolutionary process. As it turns out, there is a broad spectrum of vestigial organs across this planet, far too many to be conveniently explained away by creationism.

In humans alone, there are male nipples, toenails, wisdom teeth, ear muscles, sinuses, the appendix, the coccyx, part of the large intestine, and apparently a little bit of a third eyelid. We also have vestigial reflexes like goosebumps and babies grasping anything placed in their palms.

In the animal kingdom, you can find flightless birds, fish with feet, snakes with pelvises, blind species who still have eyes, or my personal favorite: whales with leg bones.

Before my deconversion from Christianity, I was a die-hard creationist. I believed in the literal six-day creation as outlined in Genesis, I believed that evolution was a lie, and I believed that schools teaching evolution should also be required to teach Intelligent Design as an acceptable alternative.

But now that I've removed the filters of religion and have started to question the motives of evolutionary scientists versus religious pundits (I realize now that science is not trying to hide truth, but discover it; whereas religion is trying to hide discovery under the guise of truth), I see and understand that we are all part of a huge, growing, changing system. It is awesome, and amazing, and beautiful, and deadly, and scary – all at the same time!

Why are so many fundamentalist Christians diametrically opposed to the idea of evolution?

For starters, they just don't have the correct information. One of the many problems with church hierarchy is that one person (or a small group of select people) are in charge of dictating the information their parishioners and parochial-school students receive. In most cases, those parishioners and students simply accept the information given to them without much, if any, further research because they trust the supplier of the information is telling the truth or is knowledgeable (this is called the Argument from Authority). The problem here is obvious: if incorrect information is being disseminated, and no one is fact-checking, then the cycle of ignorance continues.

But the major reason why fundie Christians reject evolution is because they are literalists, which means they absolutely believe the creation myth (in other words, they are die-hard creationists), and since creation and evolution are mutually exclusive and contradictory viewpoints, and they are fundamentalist, they choose religion over science.

From the fundamentalist point of view, evolution brings death into the world before sin; but the bible indicates death is the punishment for sin, so no death could have existed before Adam and Eve ate the fruit. And anyway, if the bible is lying about this, at the very beginning of the book, then what else could it be lying about? No, creationism must be true because otherwise the entire book is suspect and we cannot have our faith called into question, science and reason be damned.

The fact of the matter is this: science is continuously giving answers based upon evidence. If the evidence contradicts what is known, science is smart enough to try to figure out why and flexible enough to change its precepts. It isn't afraid to say "I don't know" because it always follows up with "but I will try to find out."

Religion, on the other hand, cannot give answers based upon evidence: only faith. If evidence contradicts faith, it is usually the evidence which is the first to be chucked out. Christianity rarely changes its precepts, which is why there are so many denominations: if one does not agree, one leaves and starts one's own church. Well at least the religious are not above admitting lack of knowledge, but there is almost always the caveat: "we cannot know the mind of god" or something similar. 

Given these things, science will always triumph over religion. On the topic of this post, science can nearly perfectly explain vestigial organs by evolution, creationism cannot. In fact, here are the two most common responses used by religion on this topic:

1. The organs (and reflexes) in question initially had an important function, but have lost that functionality over time.

2. Science has not yet discovered the function or purpose of those organs (and reflexes).

Please indulge me for a moment as I point out the hypocrisy of these two responses. The first is using evolution to disprove evolution. The second is using the scientific process to disprove the scientific process. It is becoming increasingly the case that Christians are abandoning the literalist interpretation of Genesis and embracing the scientific understanding of evolution.

I hope the trend continues. People need to wake up and come to terms with how the universe actually works, god or no. And when they do? Who knows... perhaps one day religion itself will also be vestigial.

Until next Monday,

Frank