This article is in response to a question posed on August 17th by Troy Stouffer, who publishes regularly on Gather under the moniker, Cacoethes Scribendi. In an article dated Mr. Stouffer asked, “Why do evangelicals scare some people?” I think I can shed some light on that.
It is because evangelicals are truly subversive and advocate not only the violent overthrow of the US government, but also the violent and total destruction of planet Earth. Further, evangelical Christians advocate extreme prejudice when dealing with those of us who do not agree with their radical agenda. But first, since you've informed us as to your basic outlook, Mr. Stouffer, let me reciprocate.
I am a scientific naturalist. There is no need to capitalize these terms, because they make up a mere description, not a religion as such. But if your measuring stick is how much conviction I bring to the table, then hit 'caps lock' and tape it down, because I'm as sure as I can be, based on evidence to date, that my outlook carries water at least as well as yours.
What is a scientific naturalist? To my understanding, scientific naturalists believe that everything that happens is due to entirely natural, real-time interactions between naturally occurring phenomena of matter and energy, and that the scientific method is the best way to weigh the overwhelming amount of data we receive, in our continuing efforts to gain understanding. (Note: scientific naturalism does not require that all scientific naturalists strive for humility, nor are all efforts inadequate to the timeless power of the unexplained. Rather, it chips away at the unknown without fear or prejudice. I happen, as a poor piano player, to prefer a humble stance in light of all that I do not know and do not understand.)Scientific naturalism states that ancient texts of the biblical variety are inadequate to provide specific, verifiable answers to questions about the origin of the universe, because the claims contained in them cannot be verified by normal methods of inquiry and investigation. Nor do such texts give any help in the nuts and bolts of every-day life. This leaves wide open the door to further free inquiry, resulting in greater understanding and better effectiveness in day-to-day life. It also challenges many long-held assumptions handed down from early human history through lore, fable, and preserved texts.
The main reason, Mr. Stouffer, that some people do not accept the Bible as the direct, word of a living God is that such a claim cannot be verified by scientific examination, and indeed, the text referred to seems to contradict itself at almost every turn. I hold no special arrogance about the super-correctness of my position forever, as many religionists such as yourself do. Instead, I humble myself as I continue my personal quest for greater understanding. These answers, in order to qualify as good answers, must come from proper research procedures, and they do not yield eternal relief from further questioning, but are always subject to further debate. The scientific naturalist seems to prefer this state. Furthermore, scientific naturalism as I see it states that the present understanding is the best that can be achieved with the data available, and I eagerly await further modifications, scientifically derived, which will add to and advance the present state of understanding. Again, “Scientific Naturalism” doesn’t feel this way. It is not a god, nor a religion, merely an outlook. It is people like me, other scientific naturalists and others, who feel that scientific naturalism provides a more reliable course than having to take the whole body of universal understanding as is, lock, stock, and barrel, just as it was when first written, ignoring the vast amount of knowledge amassed during the five thousand years of recorded history, without ever raising a point of scrutiny or asking for verification of outlandish claims like the cohabitation of Earth by humans and dinosaurs or the existence of ‘angels’.
It is hard to count those who adhere to these views. It is even hard to say that there is a collective to refer to, as in “we believe”. There is no creed to scientific naturalism, only the quest for good data, from which to distill further understanding of the way the universe operates. Scientific naturalists have a tendency to hold at arms’ length claims of unity and oneness. In history, these claims have most often been followed by heinous acts in the name of such unity. My interpretation of history leads to a position strongly dedicated to nonviolent relations between humans and between nations. I wish to avoid and help to prevent us from having a future as barbaric and bloody as the past has been. Unfortunately, many conclusions can be drawn by interpreting the data in different ways. That’s why open discourse is so important. My ideas and opinions, once stated, must be laid open for debate. Some scientific naturalists do not advocate such a non-violent stance, and they are drawing from the same body of data as I.
Mr. Stouffer, your faith, especially the more literal interpretations of your main text, the Bible, seems not to wish to avoid such horrors, but to welcome them as the inevitable road to eternal salvation. To biblical fundamentalists, there is no way to avoid the coming destruction described in the final book of the Bible, that it is already “written in stone” that when Jesus returns to earth, the same Jesus that preached non-violence and meekness and love during his life on earth, he will return in a blaze of glory, coming not only to save the believers, but to punish, well, everybody else. Indeed, the biblical stance may easily be interpreted to mean that it is preferable to work to bring about such a load of violence on purpose, as if it would be the design, doings, and responsibility of God and the holy angels in heaven.
Now, as part of the “everybody else” (because I do not accept Jesus as the living heir to the throne of heaven, nor the existence of heaven, nor any god at all, nor do I ask for forgiveness for my sins) it concerns me to hear that so many people believe down deep in their hearts, that all the things in the Book of Revelations must come to pass, and that they are the will of the Lord God almighty. People who believe so may be very likely to work to bring the “end times” upon us, with its plagues and wars and final destruction of Earth, which, last I checked, is the only known habitable planet in the universe.
If you heard that there was a large group of people worldwide who believed that the world must come to a gory, violent, final end, and that many of these believed that this end was imminent, and that a certain percentage of those were actively working to bring about the final destruction of our only known habitable planet, as a normal, aware person, you might feel some concern towards these people. As a scientific naturalist, it occurs to me that such belief systems are at least undesirable and unhealthy, at worst subversive and massively destructive to mankind. And as a person aware of the potential of humans to follow like sheep the cruel and inhumane orders of a powerful leadership against perceived outsiders, and given the clear delineations between the “saved” and the rest of us, and given also the tendency these days, among evangelicals especially, to whip up a great big batch of xenophobia, and given the sometimes violent expressions of that xenophobia and the repeated references to the inevitability of these things and their ultimate righteousness…
If I was the Department of Homeland Security, or the CIA or the FBI or the Defense Department or the local police, I would definitely hold any group that fell under at least some of the above descriptions as certainly worthy of scrutiny. Fear? Sure. Fear is one of the great motivators of the vigilant. I do not fear death for myself, so much as I dread a life of torment living on Earth in the wake of your “rapture”. Most likely I would be caught in a nuclear crossfire, but I shudder to think of surviving the “end times”. The rapture promises to be a hell of a party, and to require quite a clean-up project afterward. And do you know who is going to be leading the effort to save what’s left of a ravaged planet? Not yourself, nor any of the so-called “saved”, because you will have done a very good job of leaving the Earth en masse, and taking down as many of those outside the “protection” of the Lord as you can on the way. No, instead it will be left to us, the rational, the sane, the wary, the non-committal, the skeptics, to find a way to survive such global madness and to clean up the mess left by all the “true believers”.
According to scientific naturalism, we cannot predict the future, but we can detect patterns of behavior by studying the past. And if the past is any indication, there is a probability, in light of recent events and evidence, that the barbaric and brutal side of human nature will be prominent in the coming years, even as it is today. This is merely a statement, and reveals no holy truth as provided in writings dating to before the modern world. Nor does this statement predetermine that all other courses are futile or impossible. There is at least a perceptible likelihood that such horrible events as those described in Revelations will happen. How much worse it will get is unknowable given current data. We shall see not only who leaves Earth in this manner, but also who survives. We may not be able to pinpoint the location, or even the existence of the souls of the saved. But the preponderance of evidence to date leads me to doubt that we will hear any heavenly choirs singing praise to the Lord in heaven, as we bend our backs to clean up your mess here on earth. Inevitable? No. Likely? Too early to say. Worthy of scrutiny and rebuttal? Undoubtedly. I would offer scientific naturalism as an outlook that is more likely than religious fundamentalism to interpret known data correctly, and have at heart the welfare of humanity altogether, believers and non-believers equally.
In this way, scientific naturalism also seems to uphold what we take as American ideals of equality and fairness under laws designed to protect everyone, not just those with certain beliefs. Religious fundamentalism seems to promote prejudice, religious enmity, and sheep-like dedication to ancient, prescribed notions which may or may not be in the best interests of humanity or planet Earth. Would that we could have the benefit of hindsight here and now. But from the scientific naturalist point of view, we must simply do what we do every day: to make our best conclusions given the evidence at hand, and live our lives on this planet in a way that enhances life for ourselves and others around us. We rely on no supernatural force to save us, but turn our attention to the task of living today, and we give our best efforts to the best ends we can determine in the here and now.
I hope that this paper serves to further conversation on a difficult and complex topic. Thanks, Troy, for asking a very good question.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 42
Ahh, Thos. Jefferson - quite a complex subject himself. Thanks for the tip, Steven S.
Also, to think that the Bible must be "interpreted literally," is at best silly and a bit oxymorish if you think about it. Most of the stories in the Bible are metaphor. Even the story about Abraham (actually there are two versions of this) is considered to be a composite of different stories. If you think of the stories as metaphor they are actually much richer.
What makes these people frightening figures for me is that they are absolutely "right," and there is no room for argument with them. This is the first indication that they are phonies. Any down to earth person of faith will have many doubts and would enjoy having an open discussion with most anyone.
Evangelical, Fundamintalists may be trying to hurry up the "end times" but if they are they are not reading their Book. It says that all thing will happen in their time. In other words the Book says God has his plan and He writes the schedule not a bunch of Bible thumping idiots. You don't hurry God.
he's been with all always,,, our lives are what we make it,,,given a brain to learn and live,,, when we die, who knows for sure that we don't return to fix a life we messed up??? WHO, really knows???
I've never understood why science and religion must always be mutually exclusive, and why people insist on a literal interpretaion of the bible.
The bible was written by hundreds of people, in many different languages, over thousands of years, with several revisions. It can't help but contradict itself.
Penny G., I haven't resolved this question, of the necessity of excluding science from religion or vice versa. Much can certainly be said. For example, we all accept that archaeology, geology, anthropology, history, math, physics, and other scientific study areas have been indispensable in our efforts to find out about the people in the Bible and the people who wrote it and life on earth in that ancient period. It's too bad then, that some people refuse to accept carbon dating, which is a well-used tool for verifying the age of ancient objects, either soil samples or fossils or artifacts found at archaeological dig sites. We have bible literalists telling us that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, but the carbon dating of dinosaur bones tells us that the religionist is off by about 65 million years. Who's right? Well the bible-thumper, of course. Not!
Thanks for the compliments.
Another reason that Evangelicals are suspect is that they seen hell-bent (sorry) on actively making our kids stupider. I refer, of course, to the whole Intelligent Design thing. Study after study shows that American schoolchildren lag behind the rest of the world's in science proficiency. Yet there are some very vocal forces that want to remove the foundation of all biological sciences.
I would like to recommend the book Why Darwin Matters, by Michael Shermer. Cribbing shamelessly from the article in Booklist, as quoted on Amazon, Shermer "was once an enthusiastic Evangelical Christian, but his ardent pursuit of a scientific education induced reconsideration. Now he staunchly advocates discriminating religion from science and in this book concisely defends evolutionary theory from the almost exclusively -Evangelical--Christian-backed concept of intelligent design (ID), aka creationism, aka creation science--the name changes whenever a suit over having public schools teach the idea as science gets shot down by a high U.S. court (the ID movement always appeals mere state-court decisions)."
Very interesting book from a very interesting point of view.
A simple example of Biblical contradiction is:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)

Job 1:1 There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. (Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:5-6)
Of course, Job is metaphor - a story that demonstrates that faith or uprightness and worldly blessings are not connected.
Others include the fact that there are two creation stories that do not agree and two flood stories that do not agree. These demonstrate that there were many creation and flood stories floating around that eventually got compiled into the Bible. These stories were never meant to be taken literally - but rather stories to make a point.
As many of us know, arguing is a hallmark of the Jewish tradition. The Bible is no exception. The third portion of Isaiah (there were actually three authors of the book of Isaiah - all writing in the tradition of Isaiah) was written as the Israelites were returning from exile. The third Isaiah is arguing that those Israelis that never left (many of whom married outside the tribe) should be incorporated into the returning nation. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah (which were written about the same time) argue that these people should be rejected (because they have been tainted). These rejected people are what were known as Samaritans during the time of Jesus. Isaiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah all claimed to be speaking for God - yet are arguing against each other.
None of these contradictions invalidate the Bible, but rater invalidate interpreting the Bible literally.
Case in point: Deuteronomy. In this book, the fifth in the Bible, we are given many specific procedures on what to do if different things occur. My problem is that the occurrences are very low probability these days. Not every day in the modern world do we encounter dead bodies as we travel. Well, Deuteronomy contains step by step instructions about what to do, including what to do with the body (forget the detective squad), where to wash up afterward and what kind of offering to bring next time you visit temple. It also describes several scenarios regarding when a man may divorce his wife and send her packing (I wonder if this is where the term "walking papers" comes from), and from which countries one must pick one's slaves. I guess we are not allowed to own slaves from a neighboring country, so you Americans better sell off your Canadians and Mexicans fast.
I kid, but this is the kind of problem you encounter in looking to the Bible for practical answers for everyday life. We just are so far removed from the lives people led in biblical times. Hopefully the next major "revised edition" of the Bible will contain some instructions on what sacrifice we can offer that will curtail our children's video-gaming or uttering statements containing racial stereotypes? Or whether I can disown my child if he flunks out of university? Do I get to keep his computer?
What say ye, biblical scholars?
I once stumbled upon an article posted online somewhere the chronicled a Fundie minister searching for evidence that dinosuars still existed (for some reason he thought this would prove that the idea of man and T-rex peacefully cohabitating was valid). He claimed he saw an apatosaurus and tried to photograph it before it got away. Alas, all he got was a picture of the foot, which looked amazingly similar to that of anelephant. It might have been funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
This is nutty, I believe those things, essentially, and I would consider it a grave breech of both the commandment of my Lord, and my faith in God. We are clearly told to keep "working in the field" the whole time. The End time cannot be altered by human intent, it is not a battle which the disciples of Christ are to fight. Our fight remains the very same; Tell the truth, do whatever good things are at hand to be done, and contemplate the Word.
Whoever is doing any "hurrying of the endtimes" knows little of the topic, I suspect this is more hype that substance. There's just no basis for such.
Thanks. Well, I'll be sure not to watch that channel. Sad, so many who listen to the words of men, and believe they hear God. It must be so, according to the Book. Most fall away by the end, it's not a good showing by the "flock". It's all coming so fast now, that it's difficult for those familiar with the real story, not to see it close now. One reason I don't speak of such here, is to avoid contributing to the fuel these folks are being burned with. Sad stuff.
But, it is a very happy ending overall, and shouldn't be seen as a thing Christians ought to fear or try to stall. It's just gonna happen.
Predicting the future is a slippery slope, even in the short term. The best way to make a good guess is in light of all evidence, and even then, it's very hard for most of us not to jump to conclusions, which is what one does when one takes a leap of faith, not to be confused with acting on probabilities.
If your faith gives you peace, so be it. But I cannot share in it, because a) your basis for such peace has not been proven to even exist, and b) Christian doctrine requires those who expect to be "saved" to take leaps of faith both large and numerous. I am not washed in the blood, to use one of your gory Christian metaphors. I have trusted too many and too often been proven a fool. For my life, I'm not about to trust anyone or anything to swoop down and rescue us from the cesspool we are making of earth. We all need to accept more responsibility for our stewardship of this planet. There's not enough evidence of divine intervention. It has never been proven to happen, I don't believe that it ever does happen, and if it does happen, according to your guiding text, those of us who insist upon scrutinizing and testing and being sure of what we're doing will not be included. So a happy outcome for you believers, but not for me and my ilk. We'll be the ones stuck here, cleaning up the mess from the rapture hoedown.
"Sad, so many who listen to the words of men, and believe they hear God."
Indeed.
The fact that you personally have not seen evidence which convinced you of this or that doctrine others treat as a reality, is certainly good rationale for not accepting those doctrines, but it is simply poor reasoning to assume others have not witnessed things which if you yourself did, would leave you in a position where not to believe, would be irrational.
Please do not speak to me of why I trust what I do. That is something you may ask of, but not something you can know by magical powers. Rejecting this or that foolishness you may observe in others, does not grant you the ability to know there is nothing real behind the things those foolish people happen to ascribe to. Just as pop-science does not invalidate real science, pop-religion, does not invalidate God, or any scripture associated with Him.
I believe what I do about the Book because I have witnessed things which left me no logical alternative. To discount what one personally experiences, is insanity itself. To ask others to do so, based on your doubts, is not wisdom, but egotism. You know what you know, not what you suspect. So it is with all reasonable people.
"according to your guiding text, those of us who insist upon scrutinizing and testing and being sure of what we're doing will not be included"
I know of no such precept in the Book, and doubt you do either.
I've studied up a bit over my life, having been raised in church and having continued on through many phases in my time.
I will take your last statement to mean that you would at least not be offended to find we were attending the same party. I try to be civil yet fun at parties. Serious discussion is for earlier, more sober hours. (I write this as I notice that it's 2:30 in the bleeping morning!)
John, I have friends who I consider thoroughly credible, who have recounted experiences upon which they base their beliefs. I find the idea of these events to be questionable, even though I accept that my friends believe they are telling me the truth, and that they are correctly interpreting what happened. Things like seeing glowing orbs floating around the house, or encounters with house ghosts. And I long to have such an experience, so that my powers of observation and interpretation can be tested while I try to fathom the apparent spirituality of what I'm experiencing. I don't know, maybe I just lack the god gene, or it has been damaged by heavy metal in the fish I eat, or something. I have asked the good lord to come into my life. He said, "I'd like to, but I'm really busy. I have to wash my hair." I have waited vigilantly. I have promised to be a good soldier for the lord if he would but let me know with my mind that he does in fact exist. No response that I am aware of. Yeah, sure, we all see angels in the faces of the little ones, and so on. Nothing in my experiences on this planet points to God, or else I'm totally blind. But I try the best I can. I stick with what works best for me, and I suppose that's what everybody does.
Bottom line: my getting it right is just for me, as yours is for you, and believe what you want, it doesn't mean you're right, nor I. That's why it must be godlike, in my view, to be tolerant of people's beliefs. I will try very hard to tolerate what I see as incorrect, as long as they don't get up in my grille about it. Don't even bother. I'm not a joiner, and I've heard most of it before. I'm an expert refuter of religious claims, if you will. I consider myself a man of faith, but in things I see evidence for, like my family's love for me, or the regularity of the sunrise. Lack of scientific proof of the non-existence of God, plus my friends heartfelt accounts of their experiences are the two things which keep my mind open to the spirit side at all. I will continue to use my filters to catch non-sequitirs and conclusions jumped to. If God is for real, he should be able to win that little chess match.
You have demonstrated no significant understanding of that Book or the God it speaks of. You can't seem to comprehend the idea of a "realistic" God at all, but only the blurry idea that some human beings somewhere represent or define the nature of, or truth of God's existence. This is patently absurd, and contrary to everything that Book speaks of God.
It appears that your exposure to the Word was extremely limited, and you believe all who comprehend what it says with careful reasoning, are basing their beliefs on what you imagine. You do not seem to realize what your imagination is, and are operating under the impression that it is a window on reality, rather than the associative image generating tool that it actually is. As they say, garbage in, garbage out. What you make of your own garbage is irrelevant to me, or any serious discussion of the Book, or it's author.
PS., I live in California, when it is 2:30 to you, it is not yet midnight, to me
As I got into my career, post high school, which was and remains playing rock and roll and classical music on the piano (and other kbds), I was exposed to what many believe was the influence of the devil, concepts like free love and free thought and free choice of association and rebellion against antiquated and unfair aspects of society. Sure, I experimented with drugs, lots of us did. I must say I didn't learn anything from drugs that I wouldn't have eventually learned anyway. It's like force feeding consciousness expansion, y'know? I was in a good space, still insecure, but in a popular local band. I had things to do, gigs, rehearsals, and opportunities to meet lots of people. Through this period, religion took a back seat as I lived life with relish and mustard. Later in my 20's I rekindled my interest in the bible and took a wilderness trip with a Christian friend. When we weren't paddling our canoe, we were reading the bible. I was curious about how early Christians lived and I searched for examples in the bible. I found some in Acts and also some guidelines in Romans. This is all well and good. And I didn't have any difficulty thinking of myself as a Christian.
Another aspect of my upbringing was the influence of my family members. My mom was raised Methodist, and being the dutiful woman of working class British heritage, she hopped over to the Presbyterian church of my Scottish-American father's heritage. We participated in church life, choir, youth choir, the second Boy Scout troop ever created met at our church, my dad was a scout leader, both parents sang in the choir, etc. We lived for church.
I'm the youngest of four. My sister and my younger older brother really didn't influence my outlook on God, other than that they participated the same way I did. (My sister has been a Methodist minister for about 10 years now) My eldest brother, David, who is no longer with us, is the one who planted the seed in my mind that the very existence or nature of God was even open for debate. After being brought up to fear the devil as much as the lord, I had learned that there were just some places you dare not let your mind wander, because the devil is always out there, lurking like a cheetah, waiting for the wayward, the sick, the old. I believed these things. David along with the questioning times in which I was reared, helped me realize that religious topics were certainly not exempt from simple questions such as, "How do you know?" This opened up many topics and many questions, yet I continued to believe. I think I wasn't ready to let go of all that I had grown up with, especially without anything to replace it. If God and Satan weren't real, were only notions of ancient writers and shamans, oh man. It was too much to handle. And so I believed.
But over time and many conversations with my brother, with whom I became closer during my teen angst, I discovered that you can believe what you believe, but if you can't prove it, if there is no evidence that it's really real, then it's just for you to believe in God. Indeed, doesn't the bible teach that each one of us must come to God of his/her own volition? Well, I went back to God, and I asked in prayer for God to give me a little sign, because I was a good boy my whole life, never did anybody harm, turned the other cheek several times, helped my fellow man, etc... I was just asking for a little reassurance. But you know, God doesn't work like that. Reference both old and new testaments. God doesn't converse, in the normal sense, with humans. He blazes the trail for us, and we just have to be able to pick up the trail markers. OK, I thought, but how do I know that it's God leaving those markers? It could be some other spirit, or it could be nature, or a figment of my imagination...
Once the cascade of doubt started, it was pretty much a new game.
Preconceived notions and unchallenged dogma went flying out the window as soon as I could recognize them. It wasn't any disappointment with God or hatred for his followers that made me turn away from religion. It was a number of negative aspects of religion that conflicted not only with the utopian world envisioned by my generation, but with the teachings of Jesus himself. The modern day Christian church hardly resembles anything Jesus preached about.
I took seven years between high school and college, and by the time I got done with four years at SUNY Buffalo, I had become well aware of the scientific method, and I used it not only to get good grades, but to further challenge assumptions left over from my religious childhood. I can't say if there was a particular event which was the separation of myself from the body of Christ, but more of a gradual coming into awareness of what was really real, and what was stories and myths which were at best apochryphal, and sometimes downright oppressive, especially when exploited by the minions of the church.
So if my story amounts to so much garbage, John, then, well, that's regrettable. You've made your judgment, despite what it says in the bible about that. If your mind is closed toward me, I can't feel as though I'm in a reciprocal relationship with you, and it's just going to sour for both of us. Is that the way you want it?
You speak of others susceptibility to illusions and disinformation, but don't seem to realize that means YOU are too. If what you "believed" in, was erroneous, or distorted truth, then all which you experienced in relation to that illusion is irrelevant. You speak of the superficiality of what some say and do, yet don't seem to understand that this is the world you have "tested" in life, not the reality of God.
So, what you think of others as doing in regard to "faith", is really a reflection of your own behaviour in these matters, and retaining the records of that behaviour, as if a record of all persons behaviour in this realm, is fallacy, and undeniably so.
What if you simply misunderstood some basic aspects of what that Book was saying, based on some concepts you adopted as truths, long ago, when you had no means of verifying or even imagining what had happened? What if what you rejected IS "wrong", but what you never saw clearly of the Book and it's author, remains waiting for your unbiased investigation?
If you KNOW people are led astray by the trappings and presumptions which invariably work their way into our lives through our culture and associations, why not simply assume you haven't looked without these trappings clouding your mind? Rather than assume everyone is operating within those trappings you came to reject?
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
"I for one, honor your search for truth, that is what it is all about"
Nope, it's about finding the truth. Without that, the searching is moot.
John, When I read your latest in our back and forth, I smiled, because you showed me that you're still interested in carrying this discussion forward, and also because there are some very potent statements and questions for me to ponder, reflect, and respond. Thanks for being the first here on Gather to make me notice that my machete needs sharpening.
What you speak of as the truth is different in several ways from my position. I do not seek any major truth, because it's too exclusive, all questions answered, no more digging to do. I like the digging, and talk about imagination, I can't imagine being in a state where I wasn't the least bit curious, or where I was totally satisfied with the answers gotten. "It appears to me" is one type of phrase I use, to note that I'm drawing my conclusions based on my best interpretation of data at hand. It appears to me that you are in a state that rests assured that you're not alone on this remote speck of a galaxy, further that there is someone or something out there whose gentle finger spins our globe at a rate that's just right for your health and enjoyment. I have many questions about this, as you might know.
I appreciate your views, and look forward to further exchanges. I'm behind schedule today, after a day-long battle with a waterbed yesterday. I'm determined to subdue the renegade bed in time to sleep in it tonight! I'll check in with you later.
I can certainly appreciate your approach to questions and truth and such, but would really like you to consider that things are no different for me. It's not like everything shuts down or becomes invalid when one realizes there is a God. It's not all that alien of a conceptual framework, or an answer to all questions, or the end of searching itself. It's something one had whatever level of confidence in, that turns out to have been wrong.
It's what opens up in front of one which is so amazing, not what one loses or gives up. Virtually nothing is given up . . . other than a certain comfort level with one view of our-self, which is easily replaced by new ways of feeling comfortable about oneself. I can assure you, it does NOT get one accepted by "Cristians" automatically, or lead to a comfort buzz in that regard. I am far more an "outsider" among my fellows now, than I was as a strong agnostic. I went from a "rebel" sort of self image, to an "outcast" sort of self image, in that department. The world is not a happy place for devout followers of that man.
The searching changes focus, but gets even more intense.
So with Jerry as our moderator, we continue.
"The world is not a happy place for devout followers of that man."
This statement is thick with meaning. It seems to me that most who profess to be Christian are among the priests and pharasees and rich men. The Christian church...well, there doesn't seem to be anything that's farther from what Jesus says we should do. All the gilded temples, all the trappings and established veins of power, all the barbaric acts and non-actions through history, the blind eyes toward priveleged sinners - the church is just too far gone, in my view, and obviously a creation of man. Even today, warriors pray to God for strength in battle, and for victory, which means death to a hated and feared enemy. And priests bless the troops, telling them that God must be on their side and will smite the infidels with the sword of "truth". Imagine the paradox of being a soldier on either side of the American civil war...
I think that if one wants to adhere to the true meaning of Jesus' life and teachings, one has to almost cast ones self out, out of the group mentality, the comfort zone, the mighty fortress, and into the personal search. Jesus used to hang with the outcasts and shun the priests and the oh-so-righteous, and he used to point to the least among us and say that they are children of God, all the same. And I don't recall that he ever waved his hand over a whole flock of people and declared, "You all are saved. I've just saved you all, and those other people over there, well, they're not." What one decides about God, Jesus and the rest is, of necessity, a personal thing.
So you see, John, that I do have an inkling of the bible's contents. I say that I try to be like Jesus, even though I'm an atheist. The bible says that Jesus was god and man. I accept him as man, and do not dispute his having actually lived on earth. And day to day, I try to give, to help, to enrich the souls, if you will, of the people I encounter. It just makes a lot of sense to me. I don't believe in karma, but I do believe the old saying, "What goes around comes around." Creating positive, healing energy is how I might describe what happens when a healer is at work. It doesn't bother me that I don't yet understand how it all happens or what it is at its core. I have faith that our abilities to observe, and the method of inquiry with its cold rejection of things not testable, will continue to provide deeper understanding of all that there is. Does that make me a priest of the church of science? I think not, for there is no creed, no penance, no ritual, there is just the research. I hope for the next Jonas Salk to come along, and I have faith that s/he will. There is plenty of room for faith and hope and their sister, charity, in my version of naturalism. But for subjects like God there is only scrutiny, and questions, because for all that I've seen that has been called God, there is also another explanation. (Remember I wasn't there when my credible friends had their unexplained experiences.)
It's interesting, in pondering my daily life and yours, that I conclude that we have much more in common than what separates us. It is this upon which I focus whenever I interact with other beings on a sincere level. I get the feeling you're like that as well.