... the only democratic national atheist organization in the United States ...
AAI 2008 Community Cooperation Award applications available - Deadline August 31!
Now Available! 2007 Convention DVDs - Convention Collectibles - Convention Photos
|
Streamside Myth by Scott G. from Highlands Ranch, CO, USA The start of it all was when our streamside conversation turned to religion. Raised as I was, this would usually be the time I'd find an excuse to be elsewhere, 'cause everybody knows it isn't polite to talk about how much money you make, politics, or religion. Our new found camping buddy, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet, was on a roll regarding his past and how he was raised. "He was an atheist," he said, referring to his adoptive dad. For whatever reason, I stayed. Likely, I was in silent hope that I'd finally found a skeptic, willing to swim upstream, willing to say he doubted, didn't know, or maybe even, really stretching the realm of probability, admit to "no belief". I wasn't wrong to hope, but it was short lived. What a revelation! As it turned out, I'd come across my first exposure to "ID". Intelligent design, if you don't already know, is the now increasingly popular "science based" idea that evolution happened, but only kinda sorta, and not like Darwin described. The involvement of god in the original design of humans, or some redirection of the course of development of humans ‚ I don't know ‚ seems to come from the idea that such complicated organisms could not possibly have developed by the process of evolution alone. Anyhow, at the time, I'd not heard of such a thing. He talked of how a great number of highly recognized scientists using the "most powerful computers in the world" and some sort of "design filter" determined that humans must have been designed and could not have come to where we are today without active design work. I gathered animal and plant designs are okay without design, I don't know. It appeared to be something he had studied in depth, however. As I was getting to know our new friend, I noticed this a lot about him. He seemed to have great retention and read a lot on a variety of topics. He was apparently intelligent, well spoken, and a computer guy to boot (sorry). I learned this day too, that he had spent much of his college time studying religion. Having not spent much time at all exploring my lack of belief, choosing to live instead in my own quiet closet for the last few decades not bothering anyone, this day would prove a turning point for me. The realization that I had nothing but shock to offer as a response to what seemed like such a wild claim from someone to whom I'd so easily related, was upsetting. All I could come up with for the question, "What about you, how were you raised?" was, to paraphrase; "Ah, no organized religion..." then, silence. Suddenly I was thinking that my kids had been and would continue to be exposed to this family, who I then assumed were all of similar make and model, and then realized all at once for some reason that my girls would be constantly pelted by the religiously "inspired". They are now old enough to look to people outside our family "circle" for answers, and while being more on their own they would also be further subject to the unsolicited offerings of the religiously zealous. It was time to act. It was time to study. I started at first trying to find out just how out numbered I was. How many had bought this particular bill of goods. Does it go along with the latest variety of one or another form of "new" Christianity? Has science found god and somebody forgot to put it in the papers? Hard to tell, but if I was uncomfortable before talking about religion for fear of conflict, I now found myself quite uncomfortable and conflicted with my own quiet internal conversations, most of which consisted of questions with no answers. This is where it started in earnest for me, and of course, when you want to start something in earnest and you want to do it fast, there's no where else to turn but the Internet, right? It didn't take long to determine that I wasn't alone, or that if support is what I wanted, it could be found, some more activist in nature than I'd usually seek. Actually, the numbers I found were encouraging. Some recent poll had shown that as many as 30 million Americans claimed no god beliefs. That population was bigger than the Jewish and several other small faithful creeds put together. "We" weren't even really the smallest minority. With that established, I moved on to my root question: were hundreds or thousands of the world's scientists busy determining that Darwin shouldn't have survived? I've always said, "show me the proof and I'll be the first in line to do the right thing by an evident creator" ‚ well, maybe not quite like that, but I haven't been carrying on with "no beliefs" just to be objectionable! It took some time to get Evolution and Darwinism straightened out for myself, and in the process, I found several references and more information on ID. I gathered, in summary, that as natural selection with variation had now lasted 150 years as a scientific theory, with no valid evidence from the natural record found able to tarnish its basis, some of the religious were "evolving" their beliefs to accommodate a little bit of this scientific premise to bring credibility to their scheme of things. This isn't the first time in history for this mode of operating. But more important to me than disposing of the fear that the world of science was in the process of converting over to the "other" side, was the wonderful journey I had begun, and one I know can last the rest of my life. Turning my attention back to my family, I wanted the kids to know of this reality I'd stumbled upon. Not so fast "bub"! There is more to it. It was not pretty, it was not happy, but necessary, I suppose. "It" started with a search for a book for the kids and me. I don't remember the topic of the specific book I found, but something related to Darwin. Not immediately finding anything apropos on that topic for one 9 and one 11 year old, I tried a couple different titles for them that I hoped would be good beginnings to conger some critical thinking in their young minds. Two of the books were good and were designed to help non-indoctrinated kids to deal with right and wrong, good and bad, true and false, and I read these with my girls and I think we all got something from them. The other title was a very different approach to religion for a young person. The book would best be described as a first step in "de-conversion" if you will or preventative action. It pulled few punches and shot at every myth in the book. No fairy was safe. Santa took a beating. You can guess that the "supernatural superintendent supreme" didn't escape either, as that was the point, after all. He was reduced to little more than a pagan leftover. Well, knowing from where I was starting and where my kids were standing, this was unnecessarily "aggressive". I chose not to present this book and put it aside. I was about to find out how offensive a believer might find this material, a book that even suggests the reader decide for themselves about the supernatural, especially when her children are involved. So, it was a Friday in January. I could refer to it as a cold, winter's day, but I don't think it was. It was morning, I think, when I got a call at work from my wife of 18 years and counting. Her very upset voice on the other end shook as she asked her question: "Are these the books you want to give the girls for a gift?" Some explanation here; I'd previously asked my wife if she thought books for a gift for an upcoming event, would be a good idea. I indicated I wanted something on Evolution for them. She said that was okay. I love her. She has been so selfless and supportive for 18 imperfect, ever trying, but generally rewarding years. However, I was about to learn that when I thought she understood my lack of belief, she didn't. When she said that it was okay by her if we showed our kids both sides of the "reality coin", it wasn't, really. She never really said she was tolerant of other beliefs, but she had acted like it, with a few little exceptions, until now. On the phone, she was crying, but trying to hold it together and she was mad, more so than I had ever sensed before. All the physiological reactions one can relate to fear and hurt were as strong in me as I'd ever felt too. All the worst possible outcomes flashed through my mind. She had found the books I'd decided were not for my kids. I told her. She didn't believe me, didn't hear me ‚ it didn't matter. We were done talking. In fact, that lock down lasted most of the weekend and actually didn't completely recover until the following week. There was a brief encounter on Sunday, however. Long enough for her to tell me how shallow I must be and how I should think twice about "all this" and how if anyone found out that I wasn't following along in the hymnal (not her words), I wouldn't have friends or family left to console me in my hopeless situation. I'll tell you, that hurt. I couldn't believe she meant what she was saying to me between my exclamations that: "I was still the same person I'd always been". She also didn't want to hear that I didn't want to stay quiet all the time about this because it was more convenient or less embarrassing. She couldn't imagine her girls growing up without god in their lives. Effectively she'd planted a big doubt in my mind about my friends, my family, and reminded me how alone I felt ‚ in a different way this time. She was irrational, and all emotion. She was once Catholic and maybe still is. I don't know the rules. Did you know that Catholics have officially accepted the Evolution theory? I don't think that matters to her, then or now. I don't think she knows. She's not "practicing" Catholicism any longer anyway, but I never had any doubt that she really believed. That was how I knew her. That is the person I loved. That's whom I had married, many years ago, when it didn't seem to matter to her that I was NOT and she was. Suddenly, it mattered. At this point, it was hard to recognize this person. She probably felt the same way. As she put it, she was like a lioness protecting her cubs. Not to give the wrong impression here, there have been many disappointments in our time together, for both of us. This wasn't the first tough spot. But for the first time, it really felt like it could be the last. Skipping ahead in the scheme of things a little, I'll say that there have been two additional significant "encounters" with this topic to date. More are likely still. Every time the storm passes between us, I think we've gained some new tolerance or level of understanding, but to date, I've been wrong about that, each time more so than the last. Perhaps it is totally selfish of me to stand up for this part of my life at this junction in my life, but I can't go back and don't want to even when it seems the price could be very high. Even with all the turmoil in this extremely important relationship, the weight that has been lifted from me, and the feeling of liberty that has replaced repressed feelings is remarkable. The strongest feeling I had now was that she was wrong, wrong entirely about how my friends and family would react to the "news" that I wasn't part of the big plan. Her emphatic reaction would be the exception, I was sure, even as she was saying it. Or would it? Firstly, I thought that most knew or assumed already. As mentioned, it wasn't a topic I favored on a regular basis, but knowing people a long time brings opportunity for "subtle knowledge". I could think of only one person who likely didn't have some idea, if the rest were paying any attention at all, they should have figured on the idea that I wasn't buying. The thought that knowledge of this would badly affect all my relationships ate at me for weeks. I wasn't sure enough. Carefully, I constructed a letter, mostly different for each person, but with the same elements to each. I chose key people in my life thinking if I knew where I stood with them, I'd be fine, or at least wiser. I was ready to mail several times, stopping just short of putting the paper in the envelopes. A couple of months went by and it still bothered me that I didn't know. Three months after originally writing the letters, I mailed them. Turns out, I had nothing to worry about. I now know that everybody that counts in my life knows this "horrible secret" and it doesn't seem to matter. It's true, I had no idea how many chapters in my life this thing, that I once considered secondary, had adversely affected. How denying this reality internally and hiding it from others had limited me and my ability to function. Now, my quest for more information and understanding came close to obsession by definition. While I still feel uncomfortable when visiting with my streamside, ID lovin' buddy on a beautiful Easter Sunday as the discussion of our small group turns to their faith, I at least have things clearer in my mind. Surprisingly, things that I'd heard before from that acquaintance in a different context and forgotten, like he "respects" a skeptic's viewpoint, were now gratefully heard again. There's a time for everything and this wasn't the time to blurt out that I don't believe during their spiritual conversation. It's respectful of the feelings of my wife or others present, but hope is renewed for at least tolerance in one or more new relationships. Labels are important to some folk. So, what am I now? What was I before? What is an atheist? How 'bout an agnostic; a skeptic; a free thinker? All non-believers, I think, but the last three are ways to avoid saying the first. If you're going to function in a world where at least 8 out of 10 might claim a religious label of some kind, and at least some fraction of those will gladly wear it like a badge and tell you all about it ‚ even when you DON"T ask, will there be times when it will be necessary or convenient to be able to sum your thinking in one or two words? Politicos do it all the time, but I never could side completely enough with either of the two big parties to allow an announcement like: "I'm a Demo-publican!" So, I register independent and vote every chance I get for a candidate or proposal. Maybe I should leave it up to those wanting to use the label to attach one to me. Do you think that any of those folks will care to really listen to my thinking on this subject? Not likely. A dictionary describes an atheist as a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. It doesn't say an atheist is "without theism", where the form of the word would lead us, like "asymmetrical" for example. It doesn't say that the atheist is the natural enemy of all religions or religious people. It doesn't say that they KNOW somehow this or any other idea is THE truth, it just says they don't believe in something. That something, in this case, is, to my knowledge, completely unfounded in observable, testable reality. The word doesn't describe very much of my philosophy at all, really. But I am painfully aware of what it says to the religious ‚ at least the Christians among them. An agnostic is a person, says this same dictionary, who would indicate that nothing can be known about the existence of god or anything except material things. Geez, at that point, some would say (and have said) that the world is full of agnostic people, including the religious. This label thing may be kinda tough. Bottom line is, if you're unwilling to submit every day and in every case to any one label, along with any dogma or paradigm associated with it, on your own, then it probably means you're a person who is pretty hard to label ‚ in other words, a real, thinking homo sapien. I'm all these things and then some, I'm sure. What would the world have been like without religion? Would humankind have snuffed itself out under the weight of its own evil and sin? I think not. What evil? What sin? These concepts are the worst of all and they are man made. Was there ever a time when religion was really needed? Did religion begin by stomping out the true human will to learn and do good things for goodness sake? Where would we be today had several leaders popped up at the right time and lead good people down the right road without the "help" of religion? Human knowledge (of material things) has been slow to develop. Frankly, religion is guilty of causing much of the lethargy. I wonder how much faster our human progress would have been if whenever a great question was asked (of material mysteries) the answer had not been "god did it!"? How will tomorrow's generations view our current times from their history books? You can bet that it will be little different than when we look back upon the first 2000 years of the Common Era unless the seeds of change are planted and tended. Perhaps with naivete, I fully believe that my standing up and deciding not to hide anymore, and giving my opinion when appropriate, and acknowledging that WE, none of us, have all the answers, and submitting that I don't believe the answers the religious offer are necessarily correct or helpful, will make a difference. Maybe, just by my writing it down, you or someone else will move ahead in your life, stop hiding, and make an even bigger difference. Maybe, someday, the rational and the reasonable will not be the minority. The Christians are very ready to say at this point that this excellent country we are so fortunate to have as our own was founded on "their" principles and is a "Christian" country. Humm. I wouldn't put it like that. In fact, the founding father's did not put it that way either. If you're interested, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and James Madison, to name just a few of those involved, were pretty outspoken on the subject. There was a lot of effort expended to establish the framework to build a wall of separation between our government and religious organizations, which have every right under the constitution of the USA to exist. One example of the sound reasoning that went into this concept is evident in this quote from James Madison in 1795: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of other sects?" You'd think that concept would speak very clearly to all Christians and they would fight to keep church and state apart. Separation should be the mindset of all religious groups, big and small, especially in the only country they may have in which to practice. While the Christian right continues to complain that they are persecuted and treated unfairly by government (even in light of the faith based initiatives now put in place by our current commander in faith, G. dubba U ‚ and I voted for him ‚ yikes!), they continue to infect the once pure, free and fair system, with lobbying, threats and guilt. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, if a religion cannot thrive with the support of its faithful and without the help of the government, then it is not a good thing and deserves to end. In the beginning, the system was fair and pure because it didn't help one over the other. If people wanted organized religion, they better get their wallets out and tithe 'till they drop, cause it costs money to run such a thing, to do the few good things they do, and to promote themselves, to survive. The system was fair and pure because it didn't say that the American people had to be Christian, Mormon, Jewish or Muslim, or anything at all, unlike the countries we came from may have. It was fair and pure because if you weren't part of the majority, your government wouldn't put you at a disadvantage. That's a significant part of the reason the good people, both religious and NOT, that acted 220 plus years ago decided to do what they did. The constructors of our Constitution decided not to make reference to the supernatural in that document, and fought to separate us from outside influences of the times with their theocracies and "official religions." Now, according to my particular conspiracy theory, our current leaders are willing to sell out and corrupt our once pure and unique foundation to get the vote. The vote they seek comes from this country's people, of course. Perhaps that public lacks information they really need. We are, possibly, the product of a somewhat misguided education system. A system, especially in years gone by, that has allowed reason, the only guard against absurdity, according to Thomas Jefferson, to escape from the educational experience of several generations. The teaching of Evolution was avoided, even though it's as real as gravity, because the vocal religious raised stink over it. Science in general took a backseat, hiding from controversy, helping to reverse our progress. The thin line that maintains the sanity that remains and put in place by the Constitution is found in the top courts where eventually, the deck could be stacked against reason too. Then, it will be many times more difficult to reverse the BACKWARDS course we find ourselves on with regard to science as a country at least, and maybe as a world. So, if it is the desire of the many, and not just a vocal minority as I suspect, to learn about "creation" in school, or pray in class, or spend time learning important lessons from the bible during social studies, shouldn't we be doing just that? This is a democracy, after all! Back to the dictionary for help here again. Democracy is a government by the whole people of a county. The public schools, for which everyone's taxes go to pay like it or not, shouldn't devote time to the "faith supported" opinions of one group, no matter how large, or vocal, in the place of, or along side, or in comparison to supportable, scientific theory. Remember the definition of a "scientific theory"? A scientific theory is a set of ideas formulated by reasoning from known facts to explain something and is tested again against each newfound fact. The answer is, then, we shouldn't teach religious ideas in public schools, even when it's dressed up and called "creation science", not if we want to be a country NOT based on religion or religious ideas. As it stands then, many of us didn't learn much about Evolution in school while those polices vary depending on where and when you were educated. And, so far, religion isn't a significant part of public schooling. A standoff of sorts exists, it appears. Kids that don't find the facts in school or aren't lucky enough to have informed parents to talk to, often find themselves looking to elsewhere for ideas. Clearly, the world's religions are full of untested (un-testable), but very emphatically stated "answers." Science clearly does not have all the answers. What it does offer is a system for continual testing that leads us rationally on a search for truth. Exactly how life on Earth began is unknown and likely can't be known as fact, although that shouldn't stop us from looking and postulating. How life "grew up" is well studied, and reflected very nearly completely in the facts we associate with Evolution. The theory, based on facts that we can all study, will continue to be tested. I am not the "savior" of reason, but I'm much more ready to be a soldier in the battle we all face this year than I was last. For this I owe a debt of gratitude to a very unwitting Christian, my streamside friend of the ID myth. Would I propose to deny the religious the comfort and community they find in their beliefs? No. Can the religious contain the effect their unfounded beliefs have on those of us who would like to progress in this lifetime with reason as our guide, knowing it's the only chance we'll get? Apparently not. I propose that it's not the worst virus ever afflicted upon the world, maybe, but only those that somehow evolve and survive will see the long-term effects will be the only ones able to count the real toll. What really happens when a child is indoctrinated when he or she is too young to understand what is happening? What knowledge will they fail to seek because someone teaches them; "god did that, you don't need to ask any more questions", or "god will take care of that, we just need more prayer.'? Will we, as a result, perhaps miss the discovery that allows us to balance world power so more have what they need? Is it the knowledge that will save us from natural demise, disease, asteroid or global warming that we will be without? Scientists and their rational counterparts have done amazing things that 25, 50 or 100 years ago could not have been conceived of. But that dollar that goes in the dish, that mind that studies the stories and "lessons" of the bible or the Koran, is not busy making the world better, with very few exceptions. Imagine the potential if the financial and mental power spent now on religion just in this country was instead focused on the problems we face today as a group. Instead, "we" spend much of our spare time contemplating something intangible, unfounded, unnecessary and extraordinary in the supernatural, when nature offers answers with much more intrigue and awe. We learn more each time we are willing to look. If you have the impression I feel threatened as a non-religious person, you are right. If you don't have the impression that I feel threatened as an American, kindly review the last few paragraphs. If you doubt that we as a country are on the wrong course, I encourage you to do your own analysis and draw your own conclusions ‚ sooner than later. If you missed somehow that I'd like you to stand up and speak out if you are not willing to follow any of the current day myths back into the darkness we as humans have come from, then you've wasted a lot of time with the last few pages of apparent rambling. If after all this, you wonder why it took decades for me to arrive at this beginning, then you and I are truly together on at least one point. From a personal perspective, I'll finish with a quote from Sir Francis Bacon. Speaking to the call to action, I'd like to use the words of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. From our countries perspective, I'll finish the reference I made earlier to words from Thomas Jefferson. Sir Francis Bacon: "If a man begins with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote: "I live..., for the cause that lacks assistance, for the wrong that needs resistance, for the future in the distance, and the good that I can do." And, Thomas Jefferson in 1822: "Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind." I encourage you to find your rudder. |
| Questions or Comments? Whether you want to get involved, or you found a broken link, write to: |
| COPYRIGHT © 2008 Atheist Alliance |