A screed, hopefully not offensive Tonight I attended yet another in a seemingly interminable succession of prayer services. A group of ardent adherents assembles in a local United Methodist church at which the head of the ministry to whom I am indebted worships. There is much singing, praising and raising a ruckus. As I say, I am beholden to these folks so I do not intend even the appearance of the mildest disparagement.
When the joint is rocking along to Jesus at the karaoke bar (complete with overhead projections of music videos, replete with lyrics intended to inspire the flock to sing along), with the disciple’s hands raised in exultation it is difficult not to contemplate a modicum of mockery. Their hearts are certainly in the right place. One of these services does not go by without some devotee lobbying for the privilege of praying for my return to good health. It is seems absurd to denigrate them for their enthusiasm.
I grew up Catholic but have long since lapsed. Yet, listening to this reformist pastor rail against issues central to religious rift such as the efficacy of transubstantiation roused something deeply ingrained. I have little patience for (or knowledge of) the minutiae of these matters. I will leave it to religious scholars. It is unclear to me how the vilification of other competing faiths serves the faithful or furthers the cause of Christ for that matter.
The wellspring of compassion runs deep within these folks, though, deep enough to countenance the likes of me at any rate. Surely, I can abide these obligatory sessions without remonstration. I am not contemplating conversion anytime soon (although regaining my singing prowess might provide the requisite impetus). I freely admit the music has a poignancy that can set off one of my intermittent crying jags, which in turn draws the prayers; it seems too easy somehow. I am not overtly courting sympathy; at least, I am unaware of any such ulterior motive.
While discussing faith here, I mentioned my lapsed Catholicism. I find a lot of truth in the old Marx (or perhaps it was Engel) axiom “organized religion is the opiate of the masses.” Count me as me a non-believer. I use the descriptor agnostic in my title. I have always considered atheism a belief system. I stand firm in my non-belief. To my mind, the universe epitomizes the term infinity, both physically and in that time-honored definition of a deity: always was, always will be.
Some might call me a Darwinist or secular humanist. I abhor labels but I suppose I can abide humanist. As for Darwin, his theories seem sound enough, though there are those who claim the fossil record is, at best, inconsistent and it lacks corroborative examples; or at worst, it is illusory. While at this writing there may be some marginal validity to these claims, science continues to unearth finds substantiating Darwin’s work and in all probability will continue to do so.
All of which leads us to creationism, or its new pseudo-scientifically enhanced manifestation intelligent design. Pity the poor ostensibly college-bound students from places where local school boards have voted to award parity to this logic-defying curriculum alongside evolution. What a revelation they will be in for when they attend their core requirement science (e.g. biology) courses for the first time, a rude awakening is in store to be sure.
For that matter, is not intelligent design, by its lexicon definition, inherent to the theory of evolution? The fundamental crux of the theory postulates that higher life forms evolved from lower ones. Is that not miracle enough? What exactly offends these people? Does the progression from a perceived “lesser” organism somehow diminish the miracle? Why deny young minds, hungry for knowledge, the very thing they crave, only to supplant that yearning with some over-zealous, self-serving drivel that does not hold up under the most elemental intelligent inquiry?
© Copyright Stephen Alexander 2008|
Written by Abigail (29 comments posted) 3rd September 2008 | Some anti-evolutionists are fond of saying
"God made me in his image, I didn't come from a monkey." Its fair to respond 'your right, according to your religon, you came from dirt'.
It seems to me that that the point of the Genesis story was to say we shouldn't think too highly of ourselves, that we are part of the earth we came from, not above it. Christians have missed the point ever since. |
Written by Emmuttmax (203 comments posted) 3rd September 2008 | First, I'd like to comment on your writing; it's excellent. Technically sound, engaging, and it addresses a hot-button issue without bombast. I do think the piece could have been a little more focused.ou begin as the brown suit in the midst of a group of tuxedos, which you handle very nicely. However, towards the end, you wander into intelligent design versus evolution, which seems to me to be another subject altogether.
As far as the content goes, I agree with your stand, but I am an atheist and would disagree it is a believe system.
Peace,
Mike |
Written by Phil (6963 comments posted) 3rd September 2008 | A good piece of writing. I did find myself disagreeing with some of the small details contained,(particuarly about atheism being a belief system) but you delivered this in a deliberately neutral tone until the end - so differences in belief, or lack of them, were easy to live with.
I'll nail my colours to the mast. I'm also an 'unbeliever.' It did occur to me that this might be a completely different piece if when writing you were sure none of your Christian friends were going to read it. I only mention that as I felt this was a little too neutral and so difficult to engage with - either in agreement or disagreement. (Until the last paragraph)
It's an area that fascinates me - as I've been there - still am in some ways.
Phil |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 4th September 2008 | I think this was quite a balanced piece. Often people who change their beliefs into another (including athesism) seem to turn into fanatics.
Strangely enough the only groups where I found people on a conversion mission, busy twisting history, myth and theology were atheists and neo-pagans (the two groups that, ironically, like to accuse others of exactly those things), while it seemed that any Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims I know were quite content to accept that there were differences.
I personally think that organized religion is a powerful thing that could be used for both good and evil. In most cases though, it seems to be good though: Christians, Buddhists and Muslims alike provide guidelines (not rules!) for their followers to live by, they create a sort of stability both on an individual and a community level, care for the poor, and give people something to hold on to in times of difficulty. There may be a lot of theatre and ritual involved, but does that matter? As long as it makes people happy and they don't harm anyone...
I can already hear the two groups I mentioned above shout about crusades, religious war, violent cults and forced conversions, but let's see things in the right perspective: There are two billion Christians, one billion Muslims and perhaps also one billion Buddhists, hundreds of millions of Hindus and many other believers. The vast majority of them are good and peaceful people.
As for Darwin: I consider him in the same league as Freud (psychology) and Chomsky (linguistics): He started up something great, but his basic theories are now old-fashioned. But I do think that religion and science are incompatible and should remain separated. To combine the two is misunderstanding both. | On atheism
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 4th September 2008 | To continue and clarify above post: I do not say that ALL atheists are fanatics on a conversion mission, just that I never met any Christian (except for Jehova's witnesses), Muslim, Hindu etc... that talked negatively of another religion or tried to spread his own beliefs.
As for atheism being a belief system, I think Steven is correct:
To know is:
a. To believe that X is true.
b. To have good reasons to believe that X is true.
c. X is true.
Since c. cannot be checked for the (non-)existence of gods, any system that makes absolute claims about it is a belief system. Hence also why science shouldn't concern itself with gods and religions shouldn't concern themselves with science.
Again: It's a well written and balanced piece. I agree with Mike that you changed the subject in the end, but it wasn't bothersome. An enjoyable and thought provoking read. | Very good and very readable
Written by johniebg (553 comments posted) 5th September 2008 | An excellent and thought provoking essay that creates questions in our minds such as 'why were you there' but as I have only read this essay and none of its precursors I might have missed the detail.
I disagreed on several points which I started detailing a comment here but then subsequently took on a life of their own and resulted in a posting to this forum.
I really would like to know why you were there. Otherwise a good piece of writing. Although I still don't get the growing trend to copyright essays here. It was not that good. |
Written by Lizzy (828 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | Interesting and well written piece.
I tto was brought up as a Catholic and thank that for my present atheistic state.
Lots to think about here, I think your reasons for going to church meetings are probably the same as many others, the comfort rather than the 'belief'.
Lizzy | balanced
Written by fellpony (1718 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | | a good piece of thoughtful writing - though I have to agree with one or two minor criticisms mentioned above by others. Re Johnnie's comment about copyright - and this is not about the quality of your writing - there is really no need to add any copyright info. It's there at the bottom of every GW page: "Work submitted by members remains the copyright of the respective authors." Copyright subsists in a piece from the time of it existing in a copyable form - it's not a quality issue. If you are the author, it's "your" work. There is no legal requirement to state it or register it: the "right to copy it" is yours by right. Or by Write, if you prefer a bad pun. |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3567 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | No one could take offence at this. I think you skirted throught the minefield of religious discussion with a laudable open-mindedness. I,too, am a lapsed Catholic and am now an atheist.Strangely enough I think your reasons for going to Church are probably more honest than most and certainly more understandable
Well written
jane
And to Feldermaus who wrote:-
"I never met any Christian (except for Jehova's witnesses), Muslim, Hindu etc... that talked negatively of another religion or tried to spread his own beliefs" . Try going to Northern Ireland and then say that. You need to get out more
| Firestorm
Written by sahewitt (18 comments posted) 10th September 2008 | Wow! I wish all my work provoked this amount of commentary. That probably says more about the quality of the rest of my work than anything else. Still...
As for non-belief, isn't that by definition a belief system?
Re: the copyright, just a force of habit actually that started elsewhere and I continue to no real end. It's attached to the bottom of all my work in my word processor and comes copied along with the rest of it. Besides, "it's not that good" is hardly an erudite comment or constructive for that matter.
Best,
Stephen |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
