How to Write People of Faith when you're an Atheist

The Injustice Gamer saw a tweet of my post "Fisking "How to Write Protagonists of Colour When You're White," and suggested, well, this topic.  At first I thought of how to reduce my brain to that of a "standard" atheist -- well, the public face of one, like an insult-spewing twat like Dawkins, or a snide, sneering Brit like Hitchens. And I figured it wasn't worth it. One of the reasons I am religious is that it's quite obvious to me that there must be a Deity out there (it's called the law of Causality, people, come now), and anything short of the Judeo-Christian God is just too damn small. Any argument I've seen by Hawkins et al to circumvent the existence of God to create the universe just sounds like bat Star Trek fan fiction (Temporal loops? Multiverses? Really, Steve? Really?). To pretend to be so closed minded so as to completely exclude the possibility is beyond my ability.

And, no, for the record, I have never completely excluded the possibility that there isn't a God. It's just that every time I've chewed over that concept, it really turns out to be inedible.

Now, obviously, the presentation of atheists as seen above is unfair. What is above is truly more representative of a species known as the "anti-theist." Not only do they not believe in God, they believe that those who do believe are dangerous. The Oslo bomber who used "Christianity" to mean "Western Culture," and thought that religion was for the weak? Yeah, one of them. I expected him to cry out "Dawkins-hu akbar."

I have found reasonable, truly libertarian atheists to be closer to agnostics -- "I don't care what you believe, can we go on?" I count some of those folks as friends.

But anyway, for those of the anti-theist persuasion who have no idea what a religious person believes, or how they think, let me enlighten you.

Step 1: Unlearn What You Have Learned

Remember the film Inherit the Wind? That was a fictionalized version of the Scopes Monkey Trial? It's usually what anti-theists like to hold up when they like to say that Religious folk are anti-evolution. After all, they put someone on trial for evolution!

Total bullcrap. Any connection between that and reality is purely miraculous. Besides, the textbooks Scopes was using in real life also had some wonderful thoughts on eugenics. I wouldn't try defending those, were I you.

In the long run, take all those generalizations and just forget them. You might want to brace yourself.

This includes obligatory Psycho Preacher #55, Deranged Pederast #09, and of course, foaming at the mouth nut job #69.

Other cliche?

• Don't make them see miracles everywhere. Read Chesterton's Father Brown mysteries for a model of the theistic skeptic. Or, read The Exorcist and how many tests are required for an exorcism to happen.
• Don't make them see symbols in everything. Sometimes toast is just toast. 
• The religious person isn't constantly talking about JESUS!!! or IT'S THE DEVIL!!! 
• Know the precepts of the denomination or religion you're writing about. A Catholic thinks he's eating Christ; a Baptist thinks he's eating bread.

Step 2: Not Everything Is About Evolution

I don't know what the anti-theist obsession is with evolution. Last time I checked, it was still called "the theory of," not the "certifiable fact of" evolution. Doesn't matter. I'm relatively certain it's right, or near right enough, for the purposes of general scientific inquiry.

But by God, the few anti-theists I've interacted with have a hard on for Darwin, and Lord knows why. One friend of mine insisted that he had hope for me because I believed in evolution, and it was a short trip from there to being a good atheist.

Except here's the thing: The Catholic Church has declared that evolution is not antithetical to Church teaching since the 1920s. Even Pope Pius XII said nice things about it. So did Pope Francis most recently. So, using that same criteria, the Popes of the last 100 years have been close to embracing atheism, because they, too, either believed in evolution, or saw nothing threatening in it.

Here's the thing, atheists, for Christians who believe in evolution, it is merely the mechanics by which God has created the Earth. That's it. Pretty much the same for the big bang. For an eternal being (ie: one that is outside of time) "a day" can be a really, really long time. Which leads into...

Step 3: Not Everyone is a Literalist

Chesterton once noted that there were people out there who spend so much time arguing over the historicity of Adam and Eve that they miss the entire point of the story, which is Original Sin.

My point? It is the same as Cardinal Bellarmine when he said that the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go. Which is a line I think he stole from Augustine a thousand years before him. I could be mistaken.

However, the point is simple: NO, NOT EVERYONE THINKS THAT THE BOOK OF GENESIS WAS NECESSARILY LITERAL HISTORY.

Thank you.

Come to think of it, the Catholic Church, I believe, has long ago decreed that literalism is a heresy.

What's literalism, you ask? I'll try to explain. A literalist reading of Scripture is one usually found among fundamentalists. EG: the Bible says the world was created in six days, therefore, it was created in 144 hours. Also, eg, if the Bible says  humans were present at the very beginning of Creation, humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

See also Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Fides et Ratio, using the First Vatican Council's Dei Filius:

Even if faith is superior to reason there can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth.

Just because we believe something is true and real doesn't necessarily mean that we believe that it's a minute by minute account.

Which leads to...

Step 4: Christians are Not All The Same.

Looking at some anti-theists, you would swear that every Christian worships under a large tent and handles venomous snakes every Sunday. We have no philosophy, philosophers, no body of real thought, nor believe in the mechanics of the general universe.

It sure is confusing when you recall that Gregor Mendel, who discovered heredity, was a Catholic monk who founded modern genetics. Or that half the craters on the moon are named after the Jesuits who founded them. Or all of the Catholic scientist priests, listed in alphabetical order.

So, a word to the wise, if you say that, for example, Catholics don't do science, check the above list, and then remember we have a blessing for a seismograph.

And I know we started with not all Christians are the same, but not even all religious people are the same.

If you want to bitch that all religious people are uneducated, please look at the history of Jewish intellectuals. Then lock yourself in a room with Simon Schama so he can snark you to death.

In fact, every time you even start to think, "Well, all religious people believe...." just stop. Why? Because, unless the thought is "all religious people believe in something more powerful than themselves, and there is a proper way to worship It," then you're probably wrong.

There is a heavy theme of monotheism kicking around -- there were / are some strains of thought among Greek / Indian believers that the pantheon merely represented many faces of one Being. But even that isn't even consistently represented within Greek and Indian theology.

Yes, while we're at it, please recall that Christianity isn't the only game in town. Because, let's face it, by anti-theists having their attitudes against belief, they also include everyone from Jews to Druids, they just seem to like to pretend that everyone is an evangelical Christian and ignore the rest, or assume the rest will follow if that one falls. Sorry, not happening.

Step 5: Belief Isn't Irrational

Seriously, if you're just going to assume that any believer isn't rational, I suggest you look up Maimonides. Or Thomas Aquinas. Or Heisenberg. Or Pasteur. What do all these philosophers and scientists have in common? They all believe.

Heck, remember the Big Bang? Starting point of the universe? I wonder if Stephen Hawking is so against the idea because it suggests a starting point to the universe, and thus a "who started it" question, but it was also proposed by a Catholic priest scientist. Again.

Step 6: Sex. Religious People have it

Fun fact, if you're new here, a lot of religions encourage sex. Catholic marriage is a contract to have sex.

In fact, studies show that not only do religious folk have more sex within marriage than other people, they enjoy it more. Funny that, isn't it?

Let's just expand it to religious people are also human.

Step 7: Do Your Research

So, how do you write a believable believer? Simple, JUST DO YOUR DAMN RESEARCH. Seriously, if you want Catholic theology, read Thomas Aquinas or his imitators, like Chesterton or Peter Kreeft.

Hell, if you want basic Christianity, CS Lewis' Mere Christianity is a good primer before you research a specific subsection of a belief system.

Ditch your preconceived notions, your stereotypes, and pretend for a few minutes that a believer might not be a horrid human being. Thank you.

Suggested Reading.

Michael Z. Williamson's A Long Time Until Now has an atheist writing a believer. Try it. Take notes. Also, Babylon 5, Passing Through Gethsemane. by a former Catholic, now atheist. 

Christian Cliches

Yes, you can get this on a shirt.

Well, THAT was ... typical.

A writing group that I hang out with posted an article by an atheist, and ... I guess it could have been worse.

The article talks about dismissing Islamic terrorism by talking about "Christian  violence."  Of course, it brings up the crusades. And the myth of atheists who are perfectly harmless.

It ALSO points out that Christian "violence" in the past hundred years is virtually non-existent.  He even notes that the abortionists killed since Roe vs Wade is in the single digits -- like I did.

Half-right is better than nothing.

Sigh.  Some of these are so old I want to bash my brains out.

If we're talking about "violent" examples, then the examples of militant / violent behavior are:

• Islam: ISIS / jihad.
• Atheism: The Soviets.
• Christianity: The Crusades.

... the Crusades? Hmm.  Funny, weren't there witch trials? Wasn't there the evil Inquisition?

Problem: if witch trials were started under a religious mandate, the authority was from a secular, government, figure, not religious (like a church). It's no coincidence that the big witch scares only happened in areas where religion was considered subordinate to the state. Oh, you didn't know that? Funny thing.

Then there are the big bad Crusades.  Oooooo.... Yes, it was religious... And a little practical.  Very little. Remember, the nobles of Europe bankrupted themselves in an effort to retake the Holy Lands, so it wasn't about profit.  The mandate was to clear out the Holy Lands. Period. Sacking Constantinople, et al, were the people who slipped the leash. 

Also, those who sacked Constantinople were excommunicated from the Church.  Didn't know that, either, didja?

Don't worry, I didn't even know that last part until now either.

Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks.

In previous articles having to do with politics, I have described myself as apathetic, or left or right depending on where the jury is from. I hate all politics, so I could be summed up as fair and mentally unbalanced.

What about religion? The same rules apply.

If anyone is familiar with the George Carlin routine [link rated R for language] about religion, it involves him talking about the Invisible Man in the Sky, and He Wants MONEY. When I first saw it, I thought it was hilarious. A nice little parody of the Catholic church when he was growing up.

Then I discovered that it's what he believed. Him, Bill Maher, and a whole bunch of other people.

Now, it could be that I'm a snob. My BA in philosophy might as well have been in Catholic philosophy. My father with the PhD in catholic Philosophy taught me more about the faith than my Catholic schools ever did. I get the impression that if my education mirrored George Carlin's, I'd turn out much like him. I would like to think that I could do my own research to learn what was going on, but who knows.

Atheists do not annoy me. Seriously. Two of my friends are atheists. One was my best friend before she went crazy with extremist politics—I was going crazy with PhD studies at the time, so that didn't help either.

My other atheist acquaintance is the primary artist for this website, Matt. He says he's a militant atheist. I disagree. If only because I've met militant atheists, and they have hated my guts for no other reason than I am religious. They couldn't do something reasonable like get to know me and my personality quirks before they hated me.

And I love those hate-filled nutjobs. Truly I do. They're amusing. If only because they spend a lot of them telling me what I think. It's sort of like my political article. I try to tell people what I believe politically, and from one sentence (usually a half sentence) they leap to amazing conclusions about what I think, what I believe, and why I believe it. They're funny as heck.

Then again, I may have a strange sense of humor.

Looking back on 9/11, ten years later.

[A more clinical and objective view can be found here.]

When I first walked into English class at St. John's University, it was a little before 9am. The professor was one Dr. Robert Forman.  He was always entertaining, and there's something about him that tells you he cares that you learn something in his class.

The first person I saw was my classmate Tony.  I said hello, and he asked, "Did you hear something about a plane running into the World Trade Center?"

And I laughed.  All I could think is what idiot could have missed noticing that there were two rather large buttersticks in the sky right in front of him?

I explained that to Tony.  He agreed, and I gave it no thought at all for the rest of the 90-minute class.

I went from one class to another -- Christian Spirituality and Mysticism, 10:40am, taught by a priest whose name I can't recall right this moment.  He was not only pleasant, but happy.  He was also very Italian, and joked about it often.

When I arrived, the professor wasn't there, and someone came into class saying that classes were canceled.

Huh.  That's odd.

I went to the nearest inter-university phone and called my father -- who was an Assistant Dean at SJU.  I called, told him my class was cancelled, and how are you doing?

"Come to the office."

Ok .... click.

Walking from one building to the other required that I cross from Marillac Hall, past Council and Newman Halls -- a narrow corridor outside that was as well directed as any sidewalk intersection without a traffic stop.

Ironically, it was afforded the best view of the Manhattan skyline that the University had to offer, without going into the university library --- SJU is, for the record, the highest point in Queens.

But, I didn't stop for a second. My pace was quick and even, mainly because there were so few people in my way -- for once.

Though there was one odd bit of business going on at the time, something I found odd even before I made it to my father's office: there were clusters of people with their cell phones out.  After the third such group, I felt like I was in a scene from Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds.

I walked into my father's office at the other side of the library, and before I could even open my mouth, my father said, "Planes have crashed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.  The twin towers are gone, and the Pentagon is burning."

And I remember this quite clearly, because I had a little red notebook with me at the time ... my first thought was "Didn't Tom Clancy already write this novel?"

My father suggested I go to the library, and observe the skyline.  by the time I got there, the library was locked.  So I walked back to the terrace I had just gone over.

Instead of a skyline, there were ground based storm clouds running from south to north.  I stood there for an unknown length of time, completely focused on it.  I didn't even notice my acquaintance Andy walk up next to me.

"I can't wrap my mind around it," he said.  "I can't believe they're gone."

 If I replied to him, I don't remember.

Week in Review: 8-4-2011: Oslo, Abdo, Ringo. Can I buy a different vowel?

This week was just strange.

Over at Examiner.com, I have three articles that apparently went over very well with the editors. One is on DSK and Rape, another on an upsurge of "stranger danger"  and finally, Oslo, Abdo, a tale of two terrorists, and why looks can be deceiving. 

In yet another moment of being pissed off, I discussed how the Oslo bomber has more in common with Richard Dawkins than Pat Robertson .... this will be the only time I may make a complimentary statement about Pat Robertson.

And then I turned around and decided to beat Pfc Nasser Abdo soundly around the head and shoulders.  If you don't know him, he tried to blow up Ft. Hood .... again.

And, due to all of the political crap going on this week, I posted a blog I wrote in January, but never got around to publishing, mainly because I wanted to avoid the garbage at the time.  But I held onto it, because I don't throw anything out.  The Topic?  The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, and "political civility."  How's that working out for everyone?

My music blog on Tuesday was the return of Tom Smith, with a smidgen of Tom Lehrer. If you don't know who Lehrer is, you should.

I had an entire post dedicated to the books of John Ringo .... untrue, actually. I have a review of one of his novels.  However, that post does have a link to a whole bunch of free e-books, so knock yourself out.

Index: Atheists, Lent, and Evil Religions

Throughout Easter and a Lent, I did a lot of what my friend Jason called "High Intellectual" articles.

I'm never making that mistake ever again.

However, since it did have some interesting fan support.... if "fans" could be people screaming for your blood ... I figured I'd put it into a nice, compact little section on the blog. Think of it as a season in review that, with luck, I'll never inflict on anyone ever again.

The Snarky Theology series. My way of translating dogmatic theology into something that human beings can understand.

Snarky Theology 1: Catholic Cannibals. Looking at the theology of Swallow the leader. Eating your deity.

Snarky Theology 2: FAQs about Lent. Some fun facts about Lent that turned into a minor war.


The Flame war is postponed While I was busy having a flame war with an idiot on the blog, someone did soething stupid online. I fought back in the name of all sane people everywhere.

Snarky theology 3: Evolution, Creationists, and other Irritants. Evolution, what is it good for? My answer: who cares?

Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays Pretty much what it says.

GOD H8TS JAPAN; Twitting with Phelps & Co.  Hint, it was published on 4-1-11


Snarky Theology 5: The Passion, Jews, and Good Friday. 


Snarky Theolgy 6: Easter: HE IS RISEN



The Guest Blog Index -- "Catholic fiction"

-- I had two weeks off from Snarky theology for two virtual book tours. One was a bit of Sherlock Holmes with Murder in the Vatican, and some Catholic science fiction from Karina Fabian's Infinite Space, Infinite God II

Murder in the Vatican Author Margaret Ann Lewis.

Guest blog (on writing historical figures in fiction) and Interview (on writing a book on Sherlock Holmes and Pope Leo XIII), and a Review of Murder in the Vatican, which can be found at Amazon.com


I did the same for Karina Fabian.

The Guest blog: where she talks about writing religion and science fiction

The interview, where I unleash my inner nerdom ...

And a review.


I think that was the most fun I had had that Lent. They were both a joy and a pleasure to have.

Evil religion / Atheist: Conclusion.

This is the very last post of anything remotely "High-intellectual." I'm tired, and I want to take a nap now. If you've been tracking the blogs of the last day, you don't need the disclaimer. If you haven't, this blog will make no sense to you.

However, if you've been paying attention, you probably already know where I've been going with all of the Evil religion and Atheist blogs.

My Conclusion: Culture makes people stupid, not religion.

Anthropology has whole bookcases dedicated to how society treats “the other.” The other can look different (xenotype), or act different (behavioral traits), but it's just plain different.

I was the worst of all possible worlds in grammar school. I was a nerd, and I was the fat kid, and I was beaten up a few times—I went from passive to aggressive, and things toned down. In high school, I was the loner, and I read, and I wrote song parodies (more on that much, much later), and I was the nerdy fat kid. I played psycho, and things toned down … up until it bit my in the ass.

In college, when I explained to one sociology professor who wanted to listen to “The stereotypes inherent in upper middle class white society,” the professor was shocked when I told her that I was a candidate to be a future serial killer. She was still in shocked after a classmate explained “Well, no offense, but he seems really smart, and he's really quiet. So....”

So, three levels of education, and I managed to be the outsider every time. Nothing to do with religion. You can beat up on three groups of people in New York: Catholics, smokers, and fat people, and I'm 2/3.

Atheists say that religion causes all of the bigotry and hatred in the world. I say that people in general suck, religion or no religion. That's called culture.

Look at the "Blood libel": it's in no one's religion. Check the Koran, Haditha, the Vatican, the Bible, it's not there. It's not anyone's doctrine. Yet it's all over the middle east, and it's out of medieval Europe, dispite Popes pulling their hair out over it for centuries (the Wikipedia article only mentions two: look up Rabbi David Dalin for a full list of Popes who have ulcers over Blood Libel morons)

Since the majority of people on the planet have not been atheists, there is no control group to prove your theory one way or another that an atheist society would be perfect, or in any way better.

Most of the professional atheists out there claim to be smarter, better, and more educated than anyone else. Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris say “We're scientists, we know what we're talking about.”

I say: You might be scientists, but you're practicing lousy science. You're making statements of fact out of theories. You can't prove it, you don't have a big enough control group for study. You're not anthropologists, and you wouldn't know a culture if you had yogurt tossed at you (microbiology joke, sorry).

Also, saying that “all atheists are smarter than you” also has issues. I mean, hell, there is a survey out there that says that most atheists have aspergers syndrome.

Should I take that study as gospel and say that Dawkins is an idiot savant? No.

Besides, Aspergers usually result in someone very intelligent, and very asocial; in the case of Matt, he's more socially well-adjusted than I am.
 
Although in the case of Dawkins, it would explain a few things as to the manner of his disputes … or he could be merely British, it's hard to tell.

In my evil religion post on Islam: the problems of the middle east turned out to be a culture that hasn't changed much since 300, and Nazis.

In my post on pederast priests, the problem also turned out to be cultural: the culture of any bureaucracy to not move its butt to adapt to a different solution to its problems....

As for the rest ... I'm not going to reiterate every argument I've made. I think I've bored you all quite enough.

Anyway .... be well, all.  I'm going to take a long, long nap.

****
Beat me up. Slander me. Whatever. However, use foul or abusive language, or anything that wouldn't get onto network tv, I will delete your comment ... after I wake up, certainly. If you dedicate one of your blogs to shredding me, feel free to post a link below, just spell my URL right.

Atheist complaint: Conform!

Disclaimer [ Blah Blah, Atheist problems with religion ... blah blah ... "high-intellectual" blog posts .... I'm borderline brain damaged at this point, so please check out previous blogs (literally, the one rght before this one, for the full disclaimer). Short version: this is a long-winded, overwritten blog post for theology nerds and egg heads. If you have no interest in that sort of thing, run -- Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes.]

-How religion encourages conformity and non-doubt

You mean how like every culture encourages conformity?

Yes, because non-coformity is so encouraged by governments. Deviancy has always been rewarded everywhere at all times …

Atheist complaints: Random beliefs

{A while back, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.

I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....]

-The randomization of beliefs (i.e. stone gays to death, but adultery no longer means execution)

How very dogmatic. I don't know if this is an argument for one world religion (in which case, come to Rome,) or how everything is so darned regional / pastoral.

With the examples given, no one stones gays to death anymore, unless the rock throwers are in the back end of nowhere, and even in those cases …. Does anyone remember the last, most famous example? I believe it was Texas, in the late 1990s? Two idiots tied a young gay male to a tree and threw rocks at him. No one remembers that the motives in that case were not religious: it involved two psychos who were on a week-long, meth-fueled rampage, who capped their week off with a murder.

And stoning had ceased to be an issue in the Christian faith five seconds after the line “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Anti-theist complaints: Superiority complexes

[DISCLAIMER ...  I know, it's getting tiresome. Think about how I feel.

When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few. I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....]

-Each Faith's intrinsic superiority complex over all others

Oh, you mean like every other -ism on the face of the planet? Communism? Socialism? Leftism? Liberalism (by Francis Fukuyama)? Capitalism? Catholicism? Evangelicalism? Fundamentalism? Racism? Imperialism? Nationalism? Imperialism? Protestantism? Fascism? Radicalism? Totalitarianism? Atheism? Anti-theism?

Seriously, which one of the above says that they are not superior to everything and everyone?

Yes, atheism claims a superiority. It claims superiority over every religion. Atheism is so superior, Dawkins insists that religion is a form of child abuse. The only religion I've ever seen exercise that kind of superiority is in the Sudan, and that's more of a civil war than anything else.

If you are an atheist that does not believe it is superior to everyone else, please send a letter to Mr. Dawkins at your earliest convenience, and tell him he's a moron. Thanks.

I'm Catholic. While there are aspects of “superiority,” I'll going to refer you to my “You're going to Hell” blog post.

As for the rest … you don't need religion to have an intrinsic superiority complex. That's what nationalism is for. Or racism. Or evolutionary racism. Or phrenology..... long story, it was part of the whole Darwin / racism / imperialism trifecta.

Everyone's going to claim being superior over everyone else at some point or another. As the French. Or the British. Or any Generalismo in Latin America. Or Michael Moore. Or Christopher Hitchens.

Anti-theist complaints: Doctrine

[Disclaimer: When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.

I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....]

Problem: The picking and choosing of doctrine from texts while ignoring others.

Without specific doctrine, that's going to be tough. Picking and choosing of doctrine …

Keep in mind that context applies a LOT. Not to mention culture plays a part....This is gonna take a while.

I think the best argument / example I can use are atheist Jews.

Anti-theist complaints: Indoctrination of children

[Disclaimer: When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.

I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....]

Indoctrination of children

I'm half with atheists on this one. Evangelicals run Jesus camps, which are really freaking creepy. I think “Children of the Corn.”

However, I know someone who went to a Jesus camp, skipped out on all of the camp stuff, and is a believer despite those particular schmucks.

Anti-theist complaints: Mormons, gays

When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, anti-theist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.

I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....

-Mormon (and other sects) mistreatment of homosexuals

Mormons, I hate these guys … I've been to Utah, and the Stepford Wives effect is creey as all hell.
However, I think that religion has nothing to do with the overall question...

Bear with me.

I'm going to define "mistreatment" rather loosely. I've heard mistreatment as being everything from stoning to simply not being married in a Catholic church. I'm going to go with the lightest definition of mistreatment, where you can define it as simply being considered "other."

Let's start by removing religion from the equation, shall we?

Anti-theist complaints: Literal Interpretations

When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, atheist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.

I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....

-The fostering of extremism through literal interpretations of religious texts

To start with, I have a problem with this argument. Consider for a moment that a small minority of any religion has extremists in it. However, in Islam, when 10% of the population isn't that large … there are about a billion Muslims on the planet, so that gets blown out of proportion. Also, see the article.

I can't paint everyone with this brush. In the Catholic church, literalism was a heresy that was stamped out within a few hundred years. By the time St. Augustine, one of the earliest Church Fathers, came on the scene, it was already dead. It got resurrected later on.

So, I should probably jettison it now and move on. The Vatican already did. But I never knew when to leave well enough alone.

Evil Religions: Atheism

[As I said in the preface, not everything here is as is appears to be. Read the damn blog first, thanks.]

Let's talk about atheists for a moment.

Some really militant atheists like to talk about how evil religion is.... They are generally referred to as anti-theists: not only is there a God, but anyone who believes in God is someone to be wary of / someone who is a danger to the human race. Religion for them is the source of all evil, makes people believe in fairy tales, goes after homosexuals, etc. We've covered a lot of these in prior articles.

How would things look in an atheist society? Better? Worse?

Let me start by being totally, utterly, and completely unfair. Let's look at how large bodies of atheists treat some of the same topics. We have four, count 'em, four large nations that have completely and totally eschewed religion.

Ten Commandments of Atheism

If you look at the group of professional atheists, who I will generally refer to as the Dawkins-Hitchens crowd, they like to say that they're better than everyone else, because they're moral for no good reason, other than the fact that “it's what's right.” They aren't beholden to any sky daddy, they don't need no stinking afterlife, they're just plain good.

At the other extreme, atheists have been called ethical parasites. They can't come up with their own ethical code, so they leach off of the customs established by religious codification of morality and ethics. They can't come up with a standard of right and wrong, so, therefore, they mindlessly ape those around them and call themselves perfect.

… I'm not with either of them.

Rapture: Hawking says there is no Heaven. Good.

Last week, high priest of atheism Stephen Hawking said there was no Heaven. He couldn't find it, and couldn't prove it was there. Therefore, there isn't any.

Good.

Why good? Well, before I answer that, I should point out that Hawking also said that he couldn't prove Heaven wasn't there, which is honest of him. Considering that Heaven, should it exist, is a metaphysical location, should Dr. Hawking find anything resembling Heaven, I would be seriously worried.

It's sort of like if someone could point to a box and say "There's God."

I'm sorry, but for something to claim to be my deity, it would have to be unlimited in scope... ie: God doesn't fit in a box.

Besides, Hawking is not in the religion business, no matter how many ways he tries to interject himself into the matter. Were he to fall back on a supernatural explanation for anything, that would be bad science. God doesn't fit into an equation, can't be experimented on, tested, retested, or submitted to any version of any scientific method.

For example, there's the Big Bang. There is evidence for such an explosion to kick-start the universe. Communications satellites have picked up signals that are, in essence, "echoes" of the Big Bang. However, the amount of things that we know about the big bang aren't accurate; most of what we know about it is supposition. People have theorized about what happened based on the results: as in "in order for X to have happened, Y must have occured at Z seconds within the event itself."

If any scientist says "We think there's a God, because we can't figure it out otherwise," that is a cheat. That isn't science. The best a scientist can get away with is "It looks like a bloody miracle, but give us time, we'll figure it out." Using God as a placeholder in a theory is cheating.

However, in the case of Hawking, I object when he injects his atheism into his science.

Hawking has come up with several theories on how the universe started; from what I can recall, all of them throw out the Big Bang. I think the simplest way for me to explain it would be to say that the universe is a self-sustaining temporal loop where the Universe simply goes and starts itself repeatedly...

I think I heard that theory on Star Trek once, only they made it sound more believable.

Coming soon to A Pius Man: Catholic FAQs, Feedback, etc.

Since I have the next few weeks of blogs scheduled, and the blogs written, I thought I would give you a preview of what's to come.

February 22: "But what is he when he's at Home? Other Novel Ideas" -- Basically, for anyone who loses track of all the various and sundry projects I'm working on, this is a comprehensive list.  No, it's not just A Pius Man.

March 7: Catholic Cannibals: Snarky Theology -- Lent starts the week of March 7th, so I thought I would start by kicking the explanations into full gear.  I'm starting with WHY I have no intention of trying to actively convert anyone.  Why?  Because in my Church, we eat people.  Involves CS Lewis and Lewis Carroll.

March 14: Snarky Theology: FAQs about Lent.  Pretty much everything it says.  If Catholics shouldn't eat meat on Fridays of Lent, what about fish? Do fish grow on trees now?  Why do we fast?  I am taking questions as of now.  So if you have them, now's the time to ask them.

March 21: Snarky Theology: Evolution, Who knows and Who cares... Some people believe creationism.  Some believe in evolution uber alles.  I believe that it really doesn't matter.

March 28: Jesus Freaks Scare Me -- They do, they really do.

April 4:  This entire week will be dedicated to  Murder at the Vatican, the Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes.We will have a guest blog from the author, a brief Q&A session, and my review.



April 11: This week shall appear much the same as April 4th, only the book is Infinite Space, Infinite God II.

April 18: Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks-- being fair and mentally unbalanced, I want to play whack-a-mole with a few anti-theists.   Paging Mr. Dawkins ...

This last project may or may not happen.  For Easter week (April 25), I have considered a week of "Evil religions, From Islam to Christianity" .... as usual, it's not what you think it is.  These blogs I have yet to write up, but I would like to the "Evil Religions" posts the whole week.  We'll see.  There's Islam, Christianity, Judaism.... though I may be able to break it down regionally.  We'll see.  Why everything you know about the evils of religion is wrong.

Keep in mind, these blogs may be interrupted by stupid news from the Vatican, or by breaking news by a publishing industry outpost.  If I get a contract with a publisher, this schedule might be a little thrown off, due to my dancing in the streets.

However, I would like to ask, once again, for any questions you may have.  Or, since I'm currently taking suggestions, does anyone have any articles you would like me to write up?  Anything you'd like me to comment on, or make fun of, or get my utterly sideways viewpoint on it.  There's no pressure, I have enough blogs to last me a while, but input is always appreciated.