I sit here with my coffee and laptop in my parents basement on a cheery Sunday morning in Wichita, Kansas. The family is gone to church and I have the urge to write – to get out so many thoughts that I otherwise cannot genuinely share.
Oddly, though, my attitude toward my family is changing. No longer do I feel the urge to defend my every position or to make my point clear that I no longer believe. Somehow, that all seems so reactionary and futile. And somehow – I think my parents might be figuring some things out.
Is it just my imagination or am I seeing chinks in the armor? We celebrated my mom’s birthday last night. My dad gave my mom a card and it contained absolutely nothing religious. That was one of the first things I noticed. Coincidence? Possibly. My dad still got up this morning and had his devotions, but I honestly – honestly – didn’t mind. Somehow seeing him there was comforting and I realized that morning meditation may be a very healthy thing – even if the ideas upon which one is meditating are not fundamentally based in facts or reality. So, in a way, I am starting to see my parent’s religion as somewhat healthy. This has surprised me.
Last night I noticed my parents had out all their Creation magazines (from Answers in Genesis). I started reading them and was – shocked. One of the articles just blew my mind.
The article was about chameleons and how God had designed them so well: they fit their function so perfectly. I felt the old headache begin to creep back into my mind as the cognitive dissonance kicked back in. The thought popped into my head: why did God design chameleons to be so good at killing and at hiding from predators (which sums almost the entirety of their existence) if there was no death before the fall? If there was no death before the fall, almost everything that makes a chameleon a chameleon would be – useless. No need to hide. No need for a long, fast, sticky tongue to catch insects and birds. Hmmm…
My sister was sitting there and I decided to just pop the question to her as I was reading. “I just don’t get it, how is it that the chameleon is so perfectly designed to avoid death and kill if there was no death before the fall?” My question visibly caught her off guard and her response was classic – though innocent – “We can’t know what things were like before the fall.” More cognitive dissonance. “We know, but we don’t know.” “We know there was the fall, but we can’t know why the world looks a lot like it never happened.” I pressed a little further and pointed out how the entire human body seems completely designed to avoid death. But how in the world can our body be designed to avoid death if it was designed for a world where death was not possible? “Well God knew that death would enter the world.” More cognitive dissonance. The entirety of the Christian foundation of faith deftly removed from beneath a Christian by one swift question. But it did nothing. Why? Because faith is nothing but a comforting belief: it needs no genuine foundation in reality to exist. So no question or argument can counter it.
How in the world can a person say a chameleon’s camouflage (whose only purpose is to protect it from death or allow it to sneak up on animals to kill them) is an example of good design, when things were only “good” when there was no possibility for death? It doesn’t matter: the belief that it was designed and that a person intimately knows the designer is so comforting that reason seems cold and dead compared to it.
Everything that looks amazing is an example of God’s handiwork. Everything that looks messed up is an example of the fall. We can just shift things into these two categories all day long if need be. Why not just say some things are – by nature – contrary to human wishes and some things are beneficial to humans by nature? Because that is too easy and removes the comforting aspect of an animistic perspective on the universe from the believer.
My brothers built a mountain bike pump track in the backyard and because I don’t get to work outside much in the concrete jungle of Chicago, I decided to help out in leveling the hills they had built. As I was pushing dirt around I churned up a rather large ant hill. As I stood silently, watching those ants run around in terror, trying to hide their eggs, it occurred to me that people really are not much more than ants. We like to think we are something special, but whether we like it or not – we cannot run from our nature. When disaster strikes – which it inevitably does – we run around like that too. I can only imagine all the ants writing books, discussing the possibility of the rare – quite rare – chance that a human digs up their hill and what this “means”. Are the gods mad at the ants because they did not position their eggs properly? Why was that ant hill chosen – of all the hundreds of ant hills in the backyard – to be destroyed by the humans shovel? Are the humans angry at the ants?
Maybe stuff just happens and there was no “master plan” for that ant hill or “purpose” behind why that particular ant hill was dug up. Does God care about the ants? Not too much. But the ants care about the ants, and isn’t that all they need?
And I think this is something free thinkers should probably take note of: as much as we enjoy science and reason and the good things it has done for mankind, it cannot – as much as we want it to – change the fundamental nature of man. We can change our environment all we want, but we cannot change human nature. We need other humans, we need families, we need strong cultures – and whether we like it or not, our culture could some day be dug up by the shovel of Mother Nature and leave us scrambling around in terror too.
I’m not really sure what I am trying to say. I think I am just trying to communicate that maybe – maybe – religion is just normal. With all its associated pains, religion is normal. The human tendency to invent self-protecting, culture-forming myths and ideologies is normal. Can the bird fight its desire to build a nest or a spider its desire to build a web? Can a human fight his desire to invent ideas, myths, or doctrines that help build strong societies?
Should we fight it? If we do, are we not just potentially inventing a new myth?
It has occurred to me that people do not believe things because they make sense: people believe whatever it takes to make them feel safe and protected. Even free thinkers feel safe and protected in believing there is no afterlife. I don’t think we are ever going to escape this tendency – ever.
And in many ways, the religions of people are their protective shelters in their mind. Should we not expect them to react with a form of irrational rage when the houses in their mind are torn down – just as we would expect them to react with rage if we were to tear down their real house?
My little sister used to suck her thumb quite extensively. Does she need to suck her thumb? Of course not. But I am starting to think that trying to get religious people to abandon their religion is about as foolish as trying to convince a child that it does not need to suck its thumb. It is comforting. Sucking a thumb can cause problems with a child’s teeth, and adherence to a religion can cause problems in society or create potential nutjobs… but it’s normal. It’s human. Having nutjobs and problems in society is normal too. There is no such thing as a genuine paradise where human nature exists.
But those who know that a myth is not “real” should have the brains to realize that that completely misses the point.
And fighting is human too. So, in a way, the culture war will always be raging between religion and secularism, just as kids will always be teasing the kid with the blanket. Ironically, the two will never understand each other. A kid who has never sucked his thumb, had an imaginary friend, or had a favorite blanket will never, ever understand the type of comfort that provides. Is it real protection? No, but that misses the point.
It feels real so it is real to the feeler.
Life seems to me to be little more than drifting from comfort to comfort – addiction to addiction. Each one providing the solace and peace that is needed at the time. But isn’t that a depressing thought? Not at all, at least to me. To me it is comforting, because it means that nothing has changed at all since I left the faith. All will go on as it always has, driven forward by the cycle of life and time and the nature of man. Humanity never truly advances, per se, we only change. And that too, is comforting. To know that I cannot ever truly experience – or miss – anything new “under the sun”. The basic principles that drive human nature will not change in my lifetime.
And now that I have that figured out, I find myself musing more and more about the type of world and ideas I want to build up around me as I grow older. Maybe – maybe! – human nature is stronger than the religions they choose. And that gives me hope.
I like my family. I like their way of life. I even like the culture. I shocked myself this morning by actually wanting to go to church. And honestly, I didn’t care whether any of it was true or not – it is a way of life. My little sister came down and sat next to me and asked me if I would go to church. I said that I think that some people at church don’t like me very much. She understood. She said she wished she could stay at home with me.
And that made me happy.
- Josh
Seeing religion as healthy, as inevitable, as part of human nature…. good man, really good. A lot of really good thoughts here Josh.
Have you been to church at all, with the fam or otherwise, in while? One thing I notice there is that I can put up with the liturgy OK (don’t recite the creed or confessions, but otherwise fine), but I really don’t like the sermons. Just listening to them I can’t help but see how utterly absurd and frankly stupid they are. Even if I try to think within the framework of belief what gets said is stupid, absurd, contradictory, and delusory.
Do you, or anyone else have any experience like this? What do you do with it, besides try to let your mind wander off to thinking about recipes and sports?
It is an odd thought going to church after one has lost their faith. I haven’t been to church in over 6 months. I did visit a Catholic church with family, but it still seems different- it’s not so intrusive. Friends have asked me to voluteer at some type of yard sale at their church b/c I speak spanish and can interpret. They also want me to attend 2 services with them. They don’t know where I stand with the faith. The hardest for me is the thought of sitting through all of the music- worshiping “god” had been the biggest thing to me over the years, now I don’t know what I’d do- it would be so awkward to just stand around while others are so engrossed in their “personal relationships”. I still don’t know if I’ll go to help my friend or not- I’m leaning towards “not”.
I guess it boils down to acceptance maybe…maybe?
But I sure wish my relatives would accept that I’m atheist and stop sending me god this or god that, e-mails. :)
P.S. You seem to be a little more relaxed now. :)
Bonita:
I could see going to help with a garage sale as an interpreter. I could not see going to a Protestant service for any reason at all. BARF CITY! A Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican liturgy I can deal with. A Protestant “service” though??!!
I haven’t gone back to my parents’ church – primarily because several individuals there acted like I was probably possessed or something when I came out publicly last year. I figured walking into the church would either scare them to death, or incite a bunch of righteous anger / witnessing attempts / or awkward spiritual moments. Trying to avoid that and keep the peace…
P.S. You seem to be a little more relaxed now. :)
I am. So much so. I had not realized just how much stress in life was caused by my relationship with my family members. Going back was helpful.
I could not see going to a Protestant service for any reason at all. BARF CITY!
I think the sermons would be amusing. I would spend most of the time jotting down witty questions to casually plop into the conversation after the sermon. That might be fun. Although our pastor would probably ask to debate on the meaning of some Hebrew word and then say because I could not that I did not have the proper training to understand these things. Then I would say that I thought the Protestant church split form the Roman Catholic church to eliminate elitist interpretation, and then he would reply that I obviously don’t understand the Protestant Reformation, and then I would point out that if I have to understand the Protestant Reformation to understand his faith, then doesn’t that mean he has a different faith than the Apostles? Then he would say that the Protestant Reformation was a return to the true faith, and I would point out that if Christ let the church wander that much, how in the world can I trust that he is keeping pastors on the right track. Then pastor would probably say something about how they have been praying for me and I am so lost, I just don’t see it. Then I would say that if a person can be so lost and cannot see it, how does my pastor know that he is not lost? And he would say something about faith and belief and the inner testimony of the holy spirit, and I would probably just smugly – with a light smile – say “oh, that’s nice”. Then the conversation would be really awkward.
I don’t want that.
So I’ll avoid it.
Yeah, BARF CITY is about right.
Leo-
What is it about a lituragy or Evangelican or Catholic service that you find more “appealing” (if that’s a good term) than a protestant one? Just curious if it’s similar to my reason. Also are you atheist? Agnostic? or unclassified? Just curious- I can see you aren’t religious from other comments and debates.
If there was no death before the fall, how do You explain Genesis 3:22, or even Genesis 2:17 for that matter?
Josh,
I said this before: what I like about, or what draws me to Christianity (which is not to be confounded with “why” I believe it: for that I have [or had] no reason whatsoever: I simply did) is the sacrifice on Golgotha, … and the whole baggage of … dignity, love, manliness, virtue, courage, sadness, tearfulness, humanity, godliness, transcendence, truthfulness, sacrifice, sublime, endurance, steadfastness that came along with it. I don’t know, maybe it’s because I’m a man (male), or because I’m merely human, I don’t know why… In ANY case, it’s NOT about “comfort”: I was born and raised in communist Romania, and they didn’t do pretty things to believers then. I actually expected to be martyred eversince I was a toddler. I was a “sucker” for martyrs and that whole thing about standing up for what is right (not out of pride or arrogance or wanting to be a show-off either) … anyway, I can’t really explain it; … but it was definitely NOT comfort, ok? (I guess it’s ultimately about meaning, I don’t know).
P.S.: You might probably also want to add tragedy, innocence, righteousness, holiness, sanctity; deep admiration, sobering awe and profound respect, into the list from the previous comment… I mean, it’s just indescribable. (Guess I was and still am an impressionable young mind — but, hey, who ISN’T impressed by such things, right?)
I like my family. I like their way of life. I even like the culture. I shocked myself this morning by actually wanting to go to church. And honestly, I didn’t care whether any of it was true or not – it is a way of life.
Your words echo perfectly those of this post:
This, I believe, is the great witness of Christianity in the modern world. The challenge will not likely be between Christianity and atheism – but between Christianity-as-true-belief-in-God and Christianity-as-a-religious-option-for-secularists. The latter makes no difference for it is little more than a lifestyle option. It has no point.
Bonita:
I’m most familiar with the Divine Liturgy (and other services) of the EOC. Have also been to a fair number of Catholic liturgies and other services. They are well designed to be peaceful and contemplative. The regularity, the traditionalism, the flow, the general quietude, and more, all combine to make the experience more “soulful”.
By contrast, most Protestant services (and worst of all, the evangelical, nondenominational, etc type) are not even designed or ordered much at all. They are simply ra-ra sessions designed to pump you up, to appeal to emotionalism, to dull the mind, to avoid anything like depth or connectedness to something other than yourself. In short they are self-centered.
Probably one of the best summaries I’ve ever heard of it came from a cradle Orthodox lady who went to a P service years ago. About 45 minutes into it she asked her friend she’d come with, “When does the worship service start?” Her summary afterward was, “It was like going to a concert.”
The latter makes no difference for it is little more than a lifestyle option. It has no point.
Not to be offensive, but this makes no sense and has no point to me.
What good is it to tell someone “your lifestyle option is just a lifestyle option and lifestyle options have no point”.
It sounds like you are trying to convince me that Christianity is completely worthless unless it is based in truth.
Hmmmm…
Whether I want to bicycle for fun or go boating for fun has “no point”, but I’ll be damned if someone tries to convince me that it is meaningless because it is “just a lifestyle option and does not have a foundation in absolute truth”.
If there was no death before the fall, how do You explain Genesis 3:22, or even Genesis 2:17 for that matter?
If the story does not match reality, accept reality and not the story.
Genesis 3:22 and 2:17 are mistaken.
Or God caused the chameleon to evolve new information to give it a camouflaged skin after the fall. But if that is true, then chameleon’s do not always reproduce after their kind and macro-evolution is possible and… gah! The headache!
As a side note, I’ve almost thought – in a Homeresque fashion – that inventing some myths today, just to create a lifestyle, would be damn fun.
I mean, how cool would that be? You could create traditions, stories, regular meetings, websites, books, etc. None of it would be based in truth, but completely for the fun factor of organizing a social system around what is commonly known to be a myth.
I think that would be fun. We invent everything else in life that is fun, why not myths?
The only rule in the book would be “a person must believe these are myths. If anyone accepts them as truth, they will be anathema.” Hell is for anyone who actually believes the myths. So if you believe in hell, you are going there.
Wouldn’t want any nutjobs actually believing the crap, of course.
Although, the amount of power and influence that would bring would be really, really tempting. I wouldn’t even have to get paid or laid. Founding a religion would be its own reward.
Hmmm… that’s probably how all religious founders get their start. They can die penniless but happy because they – after all – had the last laugh!
“a person must believe these are myths. If anyone accepts them as truth, they will be anathema.”
Beautiful. You must be a heretic or you’re out.
I know, right? Our first contradiction! In order to join, you have to believe the claims of the religion. But, if you actually believe the claims of the religion, you are a heretic.
Let the denominations begin!
Leo- I can relate to what the woman said- when I would go to church my mom would say sometimes how the church I was going to wasn’t like going to catholic church- for her catholic church was going to church and protestant churches were like going to an auditorium.
I agree it is more contemplative. I’m not a full atheist yet, more like an agnostic- I think? I have gone with my aunt to mass here and their, it is more relaxed- they don’t pressure you to commit to their religion and regardless if it’s real or not the spiritual side- the traditions are beautiful.
That’s great. I think I want my denomination to be the one where we find new mythes that no one has heard of and add them to our belief system- like the Mormons.
>Our first contradiction! … Let the denominations begin!
LMAO
Hi Joshua :) -
“It has occurred to me that people do not believe things because they make sense: people believe whatever it takes to make them feel safe and protected.”
I think I agree with you for the most part.
Even free thinkers feel safe and protected in believing there is no afterlife. I don’t think we are ever going to escape this tendency – ever.”
This is where it gets a bit complicated. Religions usually don’t allow people to choose individual beliefs (like afterlife) on what makes them feel safe and protected. People have to choose a system, and each system has beliefs that will feel safe and beliefs that will not. I think people stay in a system as long as the net safety they feel is positive. So they may not like certain doctrines, but as long as they are feeling an overall benefit, there they stay.
People like me leave when the net safety or protection is no longer positive. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that believing Christianity was actively causing me mental and emotional pain. So I left…but I did not “come to agnosticism/atheism” because it is safe or protecting. I just ended up here because I do not want to be harmed.
Of course, a lot of people “come to Jesus” because they feel that the world and sin are harming them. So they are coming to avoid harm as well…and hoping that Jesus will add the protecting factor. When we “come to atheism” there is no extra protecting factor from life’s ups and downs. Maybe science/logic becomes that extra protecting factor for atheists.
I love the tone of this post…seeing things from a sociological perspective, learning from nature. It is a refreshing tone that has compassion, wisdom and truth in it. You make such sense – I wish dogmatic believers could see the truth in what you are saying – not as a criticism, just as the way that we work. Whether they ever accept this or not, if WE accept it, understanding human behavior in this light can help us relate to all kinds of people…and not take things so seriously. :)
My very logical husband likes our line of reasoning here but points out that there is a danger that it would lead to “everything is relative.” I think he makes a good point and I would respond that there are obviously definite truths in the world, but that worldviews are all relative – depending on our personalities, how we were raised, etc. So that whether we value those truths and how we see them is relative.
Of course, those of certain faiths would say that ONLY their worldview is correct and all others are wrong. *sigh*
And a good question then arises about which worldviews will advance humanity the farthest. Without science and critical thinking, where will we be in the future? Without caring for those in need, where will we be? Obviously we need social systems that concern themselves with human needs and systems that concern themselves with science and reason if we are to conquer the many problems we face.
That is my average person’s ramblings about things that I am sure have filled tomes already.
“My very logical husband likes our line of reasoning here but points out that there is a danger that it would lead to “everything is relative.””
I would just respond, wittily, that “Yes, I agree. It is an absolute that everyone’s understanding is relative.”
Hopefully that would settle things!
Haha, thanks for your comments!
“Obviously we need social systems that concern themselves with human needs and systems that concern themselves with science and reason if we are to conquer the many problems we face.”
We do. Completely agreed. I don’t have time to get into all the details of how I view this right now… but needless to say, I think every society recognizes this – they just implement different solutions.