So . . . How Do You Feel About God?

So . . . if you happened to have read my recent post A Storm is Brewing, then you might consider this post to be part two.

My mother-in-law and wife have a mother-daughter talk over the phone. I can only hear my wife's side of the conversation. And I hear something like:

I just don't like going to church . . . I dunno . . . I just don't feel comfortable there. I mean, I give you Mother's day, Christmas, Easter . . . I just can't come every Sunday. I just don't feel comfortable there . . . . No, no . . . it's nothing that anybody has done . . . No, I don't want to go to that church either . . . I know this is important to you and this is an important part of your life but I'm just not like you in that way . . .

Uh-oh.

Later, my wife told me what prompted her end of the conversation. Her mother asked her, "So, how do you feel about God?"

My wife totally went into politician mode on her and evaded the question by discussing a slightly different, but related topic. She just talked about not liking church.

So . . . the MIL is making her rounds. She asked her grandson . . . then next she's asked her own daughter. Now, I think my daughter and I are next on her list.

I guess I had better plan what I'm going to say. And I better hope my daughter doesn't out us from the closet.

The Least of Us

With the First Amendment, the Framers of the Constitution bridled Congress from making legislation which gives preferential treatment to any religious establishment; Likewise, Congress shall make no law which prohibits the free exercise of a religious faith or establishment-- for free exercise of one faith demands on some level the rejection of another.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

From the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

For if Congress introduces legislation that gives any religious establishment power over the people, then Congress by default places prohibitions upon any other group which differs from the religious establishment in question.

What better barometer do we have for measuring the true level of our freedom as a nation than to investigate how minority groups are treated? Often the minority is the least popular, least powerful group whose rights are rarely realized to the same, full extent as the majority.

On that premise, I submit the idea that the treatment of the agnostic and the atheist in the United States is a gauge of our true state of liberty concerning matters of religious freedom. If the non-religious don't have freedom from religion in the same way that believers may embrace their faith, then I dare say only the members of the most popular religions truly have the right to enjoy their own religious beliefs to the fullest.

Whenever society decides that liberty and justice is not for all, the treatment that befalls the least of us will eventually become everyone's lot in the end.

Maybe the Nones Will Help Us

The March 12, 2012 edition of Time Magazine presented an interesting cover story entitled Ten Ideas That are Changing Your Life. This story was broken up into ten sub-articles each written by different authors. I found all of the articles highly interesting. But, due to the theme of this blog, I wanted to focus on only one particular article here-- The Rise of the Nones, by Amy Sullivan. She shares how the population of non-religious people is growing to an all time high in the United States (about 16% of the US population). But, this group isn't referencing mainly atheists or agnostics. The majority of this group seems to be made up of church-goers who have become tired of dogmatism; theists who are still seeking spirituality and fellowship with other believers-- but they refuse to be described by or bound by any particular denominational or sectarian label within Christianity.

So when filling out surveys, these people mark their religious preferences as "none".

Thus the title of the Time Magazine article: The Rise of the Nones.

This trend causes me to wonder if the Nones will help us atheists to be better accepted by the rest of the religious world. Have the Nones let go of dogmatism in exchange for tolerance and acceptance of non-believers? Will the Nones regard us atheists and agnostics as actual contributers to society rather than the cause of God's wrath upon America?

I wonder if this trend concerning the Nones is a sign that more and more people of religious faith are becoming flexible enough to believe without imposing upon others. Can the Nones fully appreciate and accept both sides of the coin concerning freedom of religion?

Can the Nones help us?

Maybe they can. Or, perhaps it's all wishful thinking on my part.

Time will tell. And when the results finally come in, I really hope the news is good.

Oh My God . . .

I thought the word holiday was akin to the word vacation.

Somehow the words holiday and vacation seem to only mean busy and work.

Anyhow, I have finally found a moment to post.

Why do theists generally believe in certain gods while excluding other gods from belief?

Christians tend to only believe in Christ.
Muslims generally only believe in Allah.
Jews tend to only believe in YHWH -- minus Jesus.
Cult followers tend to only believe in their wonderful leaders.

Consider the ancients of long ago. They tended to believe in the respective gods of their time -- Thor, Oden, Isis, Dionysus, Zeus, Ra, and so on and so on. Even the polytheistic worshipers had to sort out the rivalry within any given pantheon.

But reason and logic seem well equipped to explain why Jesus, Allah, Thor, Oden, Isis, and the other gods of history are nothing more than characters of mythology. Flawed religious texts and doubtful "eye witness" accounts are all that proclaim the divinity of these mythological beings. Archeology, science, and astronomy sorely contradict the so called truths of scripture and human experience. The earth, solar system, and universe could not have been created in the manner that ancient scripture texts have claimed in the past based on current scientific discoveries.

And just like that -- the weak and flimsy notion that any of the previously mentioned deities serve as Governor of the universe is easily cut down by Reason's razor.

Upon considering this, I've realized that discussing God and his existence becomes murky if we do not pin down a definition for exactly what or who God is.

I've often heard that the idea of God can neither be proven nor disproved. Reason and logic alone may not have enough facts to totally explain why God cannot possibly exist. Nor, can reason and logic seem to explain why God must exist.

I can feel quite sure that none of the mythological figures of the past are true manifestations of God, should he possibly exist. After all, if God should exist -- he wouldn't be a myth, now would he?

And should God exist, what definition might God offer of himself that we might know who he (or she) is? (Remember, we have already discounted the Bible and other religious text for the reasons mentioned above).

Well . . . unless God comes down from the sky and convinces all of us of his (or her) nature, I'm afraid we will only end up with a new myth on our hands.

Perhaps God is frustrated that he (or she) cannot communicate with all of us. Perhaps God is like a tesseract -- a four dimensioned object which can only be expressed as a shadow in our world. In such an event, God would be ill-equipped to communicate with us.

That idea is starting to sound like deism to me.

Agnosticism, anyone?

By the way, why should I bother with being a devout deist if God doesn't even interact with us?

Why hold to theism if we must all conjure the definitions of God and worship him (or her) in those very terms which we create. I might as well make an idol with my own hands and worship it.

So, here I am . . . staring at atheism.

Oh my God! Maybe you can prove God doesn't exist!

Religion, Spirituality, and Atheism

Time for an English lesson:

Religion: noun

1. a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

   b A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship

2. The life of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teaching of a spiritual leader

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

Antonyms: (That means opposite, by the way . . . .)

agnosticism, atheism, disbelief

Spiritual: adjective

1. of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material

2. of, concerned with, or affecting the soul

3. of, from, or related to God; characterized by divine or godlike nature

4. of, or belonging to a church or religion; sacred

5. relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural

Now . . . . lets start our e-musings in light of these defined terms.

Religion is a set of beliefs or practices. I assure you that the beliefs and practices within the same religion don't always match. For instance . . . Resurrection Sunday doesn't always fall in the same month with Passover – which was essential to the crucification and resurrection of Christ. Tradition trumps beliefs and has caused Easter to follow it's own schedule which only matches Passover most of the time.

Spirituality deals with matters of spirit – the immaterial, metaphysical, or supernatural. But, not necessarily with any specific religious rules or dogma. Many times, yes, but sometimes, no.

Fundamentalism is considered to be strict adherence to a belief set within a religion. The belief is often taken literally and accepted unquestioningly. Usually a religious text and spiritual leader give the layout for the religious rules of the fundamentalist group. Fundamentalism usually involves spirituality.

Fundamentalist believers of religion have no room for opposing viewpoints within or from outside of their sect. As a result, such religious groups often splinter due to disagreement over doctrine. These disagreements often turn into power struggles for authority. This, in my opinion, is to be expected; Imagine the difficulty of turning metaphysical things into rigorous rules upon which everyone must agree!

Try getting a group of people to gaze at a cloud and insist they all perceive the exact same image. Everyone is entitled to an opinion – especially with finding shapes in clouds, wouldn't you say?

Spirituality minus religion allows people to acknowledge the metaphysical and experience the metaphysical without strictness of any sort. Everyone can see whatever image they desire from the cloud in the sky. Why not? After all . . . it's just a cloud. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?

Of the three great religions – Judaism, Islam, and Christianity – fundamentalist belief is most exuberant and (I dare say) most dangerous. All three fundamentalist variations of these faiths lean towards the expectation of a cataclysmic series of events. These events will herald the act of God taking back control of the earth (Taking back? What happened to his omnipotence?) War and conflicts are almost welcomed – at the very least, expected. Thus, invasions, suicide bombings, terrorism, and military retaliation are viewed as necessary to fervent, radical fundamentalist believers. Some even think that these events can accelerate the advent of the Apocalypse.

Am I saying that the world would enjoy total peace if all the Jews, Muslims, and Christians disappeared?

No, absolutely not. I am saying, however, that fundamentalism needs to largely disappear. Spirituality is welcomed to stay – regardless of the religious faith.

Oh, and as final note – I really wish people would stop buying into the idea that atheism is a religion. Atheism can only be considered a religion to the degree that someone is devout or zealous over a concept or idea. Concerning the true definition of the word “religion”, atheism is no more a religion that my devotion to keeping myself caffeinated with fresh brewed, organic, 100% Arabica coffee made from fresh ground whole beans.

No instant, pre-ground, or stale coffee – please.

Religious? YES!

A religion?

NO!

Religion requires a deity as the object of worship and often has a leader who is the object of leadership towards the rules and acts of worship and adoration to the deity in question.

Atheism is the opposite of religion. A-theism. No belief in a deity or god. No object to worship or adore or serve. No religion to follow, as a result.

If you are one that says atheism is a religion, then what is the opposite of religion?

Agnosticism?

Spirituality?

Science?

Reason?