How Mystical Thinking interferes with Troubleshooting IT Issues

I work in the IT field. I won't go into too much detail about what I do because I want to preserve my anonymity as much as I can.

I've noticed that in Jesusland, many people have mystical thinking about computers. I did, too, before I became comfortable with troubleshooting computer problems.

People make comments that their computers have minds of their own. They only work when they want to. Problems only happen when tech support isn't around, but vanish when we finally show up to assess the problem.

E-mail just "disappears". Gremlins eat important files.

Computers just get tired and give out.

The computer just doesn't like that Ethernet cable you're using.

I know that most of these types of comments are just mild personifications that we give to all objects around us. Overall this is harmless and reduces the stress that comes from the frustration of a cantankerous, uncooperative PC.

But when the troubleshooters themselves actually buy into this sort of thinking, problems do not get resolved. They are just chalked up as mysteries as unnecessary work around's are often devised while the real problem fails to be properly addressed and corrected.

I've seen people wonder if a NIC card had it's own mind. Or wonder why a docking station for a laptop works with a store bought Ethernet cable, but not a hand made Ethernet cable.

Rather than admitting the hand made cable is bad, they rationalize that something mystical is happening with the docking station or NIC.

I've also seen people wonder if interference from a cell phone could keep a dial up modem from working.

I'm not talking about customers. I mean technicians that are helping customers.

And that's the problem we run into when we let mysticism guide us through troubleshooting technology. You explore a false premise and ignore the clues that lead you to the facts.

Nothing is wrong with pretending your PC has a personality. I felt sort of nostalgic recently when I had to decommission a few servers that got me through thick and thin. I sorta missed 'em for a few days. It was like saying bye-bye to a neighborhood friend that was moving away for good.

But, I know that I couldn't gently pat the server on the side of the chassis and magically make it work correctly again after it malfunctioned. I can't hold a CD or DVD in one hand while laying my other hand on the server to form some sort of mind meld that mystically uploads the software.

That just doesn't work in IT.

I wish I could lay hands on a server and manage it.

Remotely.

From home.

In bed while asleep.

Now, that would be the shiznits!

Man, if that sort of thing could really happen, I might reconsider the existence of God!

Or maybe the Force.

Know It All's

I've noticed that when doubters criticize a clam such as a yogi levitating or fasting for inordinate amounts of time, people come out of the woodworks and accuse the skeptical of being "know-it-all's" who need to humble themselves, open their minds, and realize that science is limited-- no, powerless-- to explain why a yogi can float or live off of air alone.

Admittedly, many doubters and skeptics can often come across sounding condescending and arrogant. OK . . . so that probably isn't very cool.

But the true skeptic knows he or she is not a "know-it-all". Quite the opposite-- a true skeptic knows he or she is limited in understanding. That's why we doubt. We're not sure until we get some solid evidence. And even then, we endeavor to keep our eyes open for new information that could change our perspective. At least . . . that's the goal. We don't always maintain that stance, but we try to consistently aim for that ideal.

So lets do some tests and see if we can find out if that yogi can really, honestly float.

We're not know-it-all's. We just want a bit more certainty. Until then, we maintain doubt towards unsubstantiated claims.

Occam's Razor

I present to you a YouTube video by Evid3nc3. Here, he explains his de-conversion experience within the context of Occam's Razor.

I can relate to his experience very much.




If you watch it, feel free to post your reactions to this video.

Theocracy + Nukes = Colorful Expletives

On Tuesday, January 12th, nuclear scientist Massoud Ali-Mohammadi was assassinated in Iran. Mainstream media reports from Iran claim that the U.S. and Israel instigated this tragic incident.

One could speculate that somebody within the Iranian leadership called for Ali-Mohammadi's assassination. After all, he openly supported the protests against the 2009 elections results where Mir Hossein Mousavi won lost against the current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Now officials of Iran claim that the (alleged) terrorist act by the U.S. and Israel will only hasten the goal of turning Iran into a nuclear power.

We can all rest assured that their nuclear goals are totally peaceful, right?

I don't like the idea of a theocratic society having nuclear weapons.* At any given moment, someone in leadership can become convinced that the end of the age has finally come. I fear that someone will one day decide that nuclear weapons are a wonderful way to usher in the ultimate punishment, retribution, wrath, and final victory blow of their god.

Can this happen to a secular society? Well, the urge to press the button might be there, but hopefully the leadership of a secular society will at least pause and consider that fact that we cannot obliterate our adversaries with nuclear weapons without ourselves facing grave consequences. If one leader says that god wants the missiles to fly, other leaders (even religious ones) will undoubtedly require more evidence than that-- even if the extra evidence they demand happens to be falsified!

Perhaps this is not simply about religion, but about all radical ideologies. The extreme views of any ideology can become very dangerous very quickly. To me, religion often fuels extremist views because religious leaders tend to discourage openness of ideas (heresy) and open inquiry (the challenging religious authority).

Should two nations decide to retaliate by exchanging nuclear weapons, the whole sky will eventually turn black and the earth will turn cold. We will all suffer.


Everywhere.


And our suffering will not come by the wrath of god, but by the wrath of our own stupidity as a human race.

When I consider the awesome, destructive power of nuclear weapons, I utter colorful expletives. When the wrong group of extremist leaders gain nuclear capabilities, all of our lives will be in their hands, not gods.


Holy expletive!


* Pakistan is not a theocracy to my understanding. But, that nation does seem quite unstable. One never knows what will happen there in the next few years. That alone is cause for colorful expletives!

Table Talk

While enjoying a slab of pizza with my kids, we chatted about the events of the evening.

My son proceeded to tell me about his afternoon:

"When Grandma picked me up from school today, she told me that I couldn't watch any TV at her house".

"Oh, really? Why? You get into some trouble?" (uh-oh)

"No", he replied. "Grandma said that she wasn't watching TV to prove her love to God (read: fasting from television). She said that she wasn't going to permit me to watch any TV since it's her house and her rules."

"Oh, I see. What did you think of that?"

-- I think I even stopped eating my pizza for a moment.

"I respect what she's trying to do and all, but I don't agree with it".

"Really?" I was astonished. What a mature answer for an eight year old!

"Well son, I'm curious now. Would you be willing to stop watching TV to get closer to God?"

"Nope. I like TV too much."

Ouch!

"But what if someone told you that sometimes it takes that sort of devotion to please God?" I tried to pick my son's brain.

"I dunno. I just don't agree with that idea. I respect it, but . . . . I mean, I don't even know if the Bible is real or not. I mean, who was there to write about the first man if nobody was around but the first man? That just doesn't seem to make sense to me."

Wow! Honest . . . I didn't tell him any of that beforehand. I don't even know where he got that specific idea from-- except that I've encouraged him to question ideas and to decide for himself what he thinks of God. I didn't think that anything I said would have caused him to respond quite like that.

He still seems to believe in God. That's fine with me. But he seems willing to question ideas-- even if the ideas come from an "authoritative source". That to me is most important.

He's thinking on his own.

I don't mind if he becomes (or remains) theist. I just want him to learn to think for himself, regardless. Many theists are quite capable of doing this.

And for that reason alone (that he's learning to think for himself), I am proud of my son.

(And I'm proud of my daughter, too. She's learning how to read!)

Pushed out of the Picture

Scientific discovery seems to widen the chasm between reason and faith. A scientific mind can remain religious. But, religion must start to make extra room for scientific observations. This often translates into gradually shedding unproven claims about how God governs our universe.

Copernicus and Galileo experienced their difficulties because of the prevailing understanding of nature. The understanding of nature was controlled by religious leaders of their day. As a result, Copernicus and Galileo nudged the hand of God upon publishing their discoveries; they both gently backed God's sovereign hand away from his own creation. And worse, these men also nudged at the self proclaimed infallibility of God's clergy. Why? Because their observations were in conflict with religious thought. These scientists became heretics.

Issac Newton was perhaps the glue that made the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo finally stick. Also, some historians argue that the true discipline of science wasn't born until Newton's papers on Optiks and the Laws of Motion were published. But when Newton introduced his discoveries, he seemed willing to give God credit for whatever he found. Newton mentions God's influence in his primary work, the Principia, and is quoted by sources saying things like:

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.

So, Newton did not fully abandon his religious mind in the face of great scientific discovery.

But as time went along, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and Psychology began to develop into their own stand-alone fields of study. And with more and more scientific discoveries from each filed, reason was making a regular habit of nudging the hand of God and his clergy a little further out of the picture of creation.

So, today, when we hear about a child being born with 12 fingers and 12 toes, should we wonder why God allowed this? Why did God let such a thing to happen? Yet, biology helps us understand better how this happened. Genetics shows us that this child was likely to inherit this physical anomaly because his decedents were known to have a higher incidence of extra fingers and toes. The newborn's father admitted this characteristic was prevalent in his family.

Personally, I don't blame God for this. Would you? Nor would I mock and ostracize this child for being different. All good natured people will accept his differences and hope that he has a relatively normal life.

But what do we say about God when he allows people to develop Multiple Sclerosis, now that scientists are discovering that vitamin D deficiency is correlated with this disease? Can we blame God for the way the MS gene behaves when vitamin D is deficient? MS can possibly be prevented or cured with a better understanding of how vitamin D works in pregnant mothers and in developing children. Did God deliberately keep us ignorant of this new found fact? And why didn't God also let us know that stem cell therapy could improve MS patients?

Or, do we simply start praising God for his benevolence, since he's given us these wonderful new discoveries?

Why praise? I admitted to not blaming God for these things, but not because I accept his "higher" and "mysterious" ways.

Instead, I don't blame God because I see his hand being pushed further out of the picture.

Therefore, I don't have much praise for God, either.

The Gossip Game

I love my son, but sometimes I just don't believe a word he says.

He comes home from school and tells me that kids are selling cocaine on his bus!

Yeah, cocaine.

While that is possible these days . . . keep in mind that my son is in second grade (at the time of this post).

Second grade.

C'mon.

C'mon now.

In a town that has virtually no major crime reported.

In the second grade!

C'mon, now.

So, naturally, I start asking questions.

• me: How do you know they were selling cocaine, son? (keeping a straight face)
• son: The bus driver said it. (remember that statement . . .)
• me: The bus driver?
• son: Yeah, the bus driver wrote them up and then suspended them from school.
• me: That's an extraordinary claim, son. Do you know what I mean when I say this?
• son: No . . . . . *shakes his head*
• me: What if I told you I saw a purple dog flying through the sky while wearing a cape? Would you believe me -- even if I really sounded serious about it?
• son: No . . .
• me: That's what I mean by an extraordinary claim, son. So, tell me what happened. Start from the beginning.
• son: Well, K stood up on the bus and shouted.
• me: Uh-huh . . . so, what did he say?
• son: K was talking loud about J. and said that J's name sounded like a girl's name -- but J. is a boy. The whole bus heard and everybody started laughing.
• me: OK. What next?
• son: J got mad at K.
• me: Why was K bothering J?
• son: K was just being mean. Making fun . . .
• me: So . . . . what next?
• son: The bus driver stopped the bus and went to the back. Then J got written up. I think he got suspended.
• me: Why did J get into trouble? He was being picked on . . .
• son: He put up his middle finger to K.
• me: Oh, I see . . . J threw the bird atK. (sounds like K asked for it . . .)
• son: Yeah . . .
• me: So, did K get into trouble?
• son: No.
• me: No? Hmmm . . . that's sounds unfair. OK, well . . . what next?
• son: The bus driver got back into his seat and started driving again . . .
• me: OK, then what?
• son: That's it.
• me: *incredulous silence*
• me, again: Where does cocaine fit into all of this?
• son: L said that they were selling something in the back of the bus.
• me: Was this during all the commotion between J and K?
• son: No . . . but a few days ago our bus driver said we shouldn't sell things to each other on the bus.
• me: I don't care about a few days ago. I mean, I'm not disputing that you shouldn't sell things. I'm not disputing what your bus drive said. But, I want to know about today and you're claim that someone sold cocaine.
• me, again: Did you even see anyone sell anything?
• son: No . . . I was sitting in the front of the bus.
• me: Son, do you even know what cocaine looks like?
• son: It looks like cigarettes.
• me: How do you know?
• son: Well . . . that's just my opinion.

Yeah, my son and I have had the "fact and opinion" talk.
He's slowly learning to call things his opinion if he knows he doesn't have any facts to back up what he's saying.

I guess he's still learning this lesson, huh?

• me: So far, only J is in trouble. Did anyone else get into trouble? Did anything else go on?
• son: K got in trouble for selling.
• me: You know this because?
• son: L said they were selling stuff.
• me: Who is L?
• son: The girl that was sitting with me on the bus. We were sitting up front together.
• me: How did L see what was going on and you couldn't? You were both in the front of the bus.
• me: Anyhow, did you stop to think that K got in trouble for taunting J, while J got in trouble for throwing the bird. After all, you said that K shouted loudly. The whole bus heard him. He didn't go unnoticed by the bus driver. It makes sense that they would both get into trouble. Wouldn't you agree?
• son: Yeah, I guess he would have gotten in trouble, too. They were both really mad at each other and causing a ruckus.
• me: So, where does the cocaine fit in all of this? Is this something you only heard from L? You said that the bus driver said this, too. Is that really true?
• son: The bus driver was really mad and told everybody on the bus to shut up because we were so loud.
• me: Are you trying to say that because he was so mad, they were selling cocaine?? Did youpersonally hear the bus drive say anything about cocaine?
• son: No . . .
• me: Son, I have one more question . . . why should you believe what L has to say? I didn't believe you because you gave sketchy information. If I L were here to make the same claims you originally made, I'd ask her the same sort of questions I just asked you. I wouldn't believe her, either -- especially if she gave me the same kind of answers you gave. So, why should you believe what she has to say about this?
• son: *sits quietly* (Imagine that!)
• me: I'm not fussing at you, son. I'm not even accusing you of lying. I just want you to think more about what people tell you, before you go spreading around potentially harmful rumors to everyone else. OK?
• son: Okay . . .

That discourse got me to thinking: Is fundamental Christianity a harmful rumor that everyone keeps spreading? Is Evangelical Christianity really the Gospel, or just a huge Gossip Game? Why believe the sketchy information of the Bible and the extraordinary claims of 2000 year old stories without at least some question?

If you do believe the stories, that's certainly your prerogative. But at the very least, check up on your facts from history, first. Otherwise, you're only playing the Gossip Game.

And remember . . . rumors can produce a lot of hurt.

Not Fair; You're Cheating!

When I was little, my big brother started teaching me how to play chess. I learned the moves, but my brother always stomped me when we played.

Big brother used a chess board to beat up on his poor little brother.

How shameful!

He left me wondering why I could never win. Why could he always make certain moves whenever he wanted, but I couldn't. The rules always seemed to work for him, but never for me.

I felt like he was always cheating.

But as I got older, I improved enough to see that my brother was simply a better chess player. After all, he was much older. He understood the game and knew how to use strategy within the rules and crush me. He know how to limit my movement on the chess board until he trapped my king -- which is the ultimate prize in chess.

I slowly learned to hold my own against him in chess. He remained the better player, but I could get him now and then.

However, when I tried to match wits against my big brother in religious discussions (back when I was a Christian), I would get that same felling I had when he was teaching me chess. I felt like the rules always worked in his favor -- hardly ever in mine.

"Not fair", I'd say to myself. "He's cheating".

Today, I know better. My brother was never cheating at all. He simply knew something that I didn't.

History Repeats Itself

Nicolaus Copernicus wrote a book entitled On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies which stated that the Earth revolved around the sun and was not the center of the universe.

His book was banned by the Catholic Church.

Galileo Galilei agreed with Copernicus and wrote a book entitled Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems which compared old views of the cosmos versus the Copernicus view. This book advocated and supported the Copernicus model of the world.

Galileo was taken before an inquisition and placed on house arrest for the last years of his life. He was forced to renounce his scientific findings and was labeled a heretic by the Catholic Church.

Today, various states have legislators who are trying to draft and legalize disclaimers on the flaps of public school text books that mention the theory of Evolution.

Again, someone wants to keep scientific findings quiet.

Opponents of Evolution claim that the science is bad. That's not really why they oppose evolution though.

Opponents against Copernicus and Galileo made the same claims.

But again, that's not really why they opposed these two great astronomers of the past.

Copernicus and Galileo had sound scientific observation on their side.

Their opponents -- the Bible.

Guess who finally give in and change their minds.

Hopefully, everything will come full circle and history will again, repeat itself.

Why do I say this? Because, like Copernicus and Galileo -- Darwin has sound science on his side, too.

Is the Vatican trying to rehabilitate Galileo, or the Image of the Church?

The Vatican wants to express to the world that their treatment of Galileo Galilei was in error. The Vatican also wants to create the image that they are not only tolerant of science and new ideas -- but that a bridge exists between reason and religion. The Church wants to express that the two concepts of faith and reason are compatible. The Vatican implies that Galileo Galilei embodies this compatibility because he was a man of faith and science.

In my opinion, the tribute that Pope Benedict XVI recently paid to Galileo doesn't prove the church is any more tolerant of reason than in the past. Nor does the Pope's extended hand to Galileo help bridge reason and religion.

Why not?

Galileo's discovery was observable and logical. However, because his findings defied the tenants of faith, Galileo was punished. The Vatican has taken 400 years to officially admit this mistake. Do you really think much has changed?

Also, think of all the modern day feats of science and logic that many religious faiths continue to reject because of religious tenants:

Contraception
Stem Cell Research
Secularization of Culture
Separation of Church and State
Acceptance of Homosexuality
And the most notable Theory of Evolution

Lets not even talk about the current exploration in the Big Bang, String Theory, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy!

These concepts I just mentioned above make up the modern day version of Galileo's expressing that the sun was the center of our solar system and that the earth was a round object caught in the sun's orbit. What he observed in nature opposed what the bible inferred and what Church tradition accepted by faith.

Many faiths remain intolerant of reason and the path to which free thinking leads.

Thus, the Pope's words change nothing.

This is why you won't find a true bridge between faith and reason. The paths of faith and reason do not lead into the direction of the each other.

Read the news story, here: Vatican rehabilitating Galileo

The Way of the Open Mind

Reason requires an open mind. An open mind considers facts, even if these facts are contradictory to what one wants to believe due to bias, prejudice, preconceived notions, or mindset.

A closed mind clings to intolerance, suppressing proper reasoning power. A closed mind has established an unwise resolve and will not consider crucial facts when such information does not already align itself with the current mindset.

Where then, is the key that opens the closed mind?

Find that key and a lot of closed minds can be freed.

This post was inspired by my current reading of the book Clear Thinking. Consider reading or recommending this title to a friend.

Passion Against the Christ

Now that I have labeled myself as an atheist, I'm beginning to see how colorful and amalgamated my new cohorts truly are.

I see many who have deep passion for action and change. Brimming with ideas on how to make society become more accepting of our non-belief, many atheists wield an unfettered openness and fearlessness. I see people anxious to go "head to head" against the status quo concerning the negative views theists generally have against atheists.

I believe these sentiments are noble and worthy; I privately watch such atheists with admiration and envy.

I also see many who are passive and quite. Change is desired, but prudence restricts their openness. A sensitivity is there amid a simmering passion for change. Caution is on the lips of such an atheist. This type of non-believer constantly reiterates the fact that we need to evaluate our activism before we try to change the world around us.

I am one of the latter types. I'm still in the closet, peeking through the crack I've made in the door frame. I want to come out, but too many people are watching me. I don't want to ruin important relationships that are too meaningful to me. I'm flexible enough to accept any changes they might make, but perhaps they wouldn't know what to do with me. We're simply not at the same level of tolerance.

I'm not referring to the casual acquaintance or even the stranger on the street. I don't mind if these people know about my non-belief. Rather, I refer to family members which I love deeply; loved ones that may only have a few precious years left in my life. Should I become open before such people, I would lose them long before necessary. I also have close friends that would perhaps feel betrayed should I ever come out in an open, fearless, and brazen fashion.

And then, there is my place of employment. One never knows how Christian employers my treat an apostate atheist.

Hey -- I gotta eat.

So, I keep quite -- except around a few select people and within the medium of this blog.

I think nearly all atheists can agree that we want more acceptance from the religious world. We want to know that we can be open and expressive about our non-belief without the backlash of possible discrimination.

We want others to realize that we atheists do not have horns on our heads and a pointy tail. We are not amoral by default. We're not imps of the devil.

In light of this, we must also be careful that we remember that religion in and of itself is not always the problem. Intolerance is the problem. Yes, religion easily fuels intolerance. In many cases, religion even creates intolerance.

But the religious have a right to enjoy and express their beliefs just as we as atheists desire the same rights to free expression of non-belief.

I've noticed that many people who possess high mental acumen in a particular subject matter -- or overall -- have a tendency to be impatient with those who do not share their mental gift.

Have you ever talked on the phone with a tech support representative who was gruff and terse? Usually this is because they do not want to spend time helping anyone with such elementary things as double-clicking. Geeks generally do not want to help someone figure out a problem which, in their minds, has such a painfully obvious solution. Either that or they were busy being geeks and didn't want to be bothered by your support call.

This seems to happen in any facet of life.

I think the same happens between many atheists and theists. The logic that convinces one to become an atheist becomes so apparent and obvious. At the very least, all the faiths of our time are mythological at best. So, should god truly exist and the atheist were mistaken, god would still probably be far more understanding at our mistake than his alleged followers would ever be. After all, shouldn't god actually transcend humanity? Isn't that the whole idea of being a deity?

So, I think many atheists become impatient with theists. Why can't the religious zealot open his or her eyes and see? Can't theists see the abuse? Why don't they see the hurt? Don't they see the obvious mythological elements to their beliefs?

No, they don't. Because they are brainwashed.

I was brainwashed, too. At my earliest memories, I was Christian. Family members have told me that I tried to witness to people when I was very young. My devotion to Christ spans beyond my own memories.

Can you imagine the difficulty in deprogramming this mindset? Impacting such a phenomena takes time -- and the results happen at a pace of one person at a time in many cases.

But, to imply that the religious are totally devoid of reasoning is dangerous. I wouldn't be writing this blog today if that statement were true for every religious person.

If atheists are to do much good in changing how the religious sees us, we will have to be tolerant, patient, and understanding. We can't simply reduce the theists and religious to "dummies" or "idiots" all the time. Name calling and being belligerent won't help -- even if many religious people are that way towards us. Theists need patient help over time before they can have any hope of overcoming the hurdles of their own bias concerning their faith and their misguided feelings towards the atheist. This change must come in small doses. A little here, a little there.

So be patient with anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you -- regardless of what you believe. Be patient with anyone who hasn't arrived to where you are yet.

Be mindful that your impatience may undermine your passion for activism and change. Your zeal for tolerance may produce the very intolerance you despise.

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!

What If?

Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.

That's logic.

-- Lewis Carroll

Someone asked me once, "What if you were not born in America? Do you really think you'd still be a Christian"?

I stuck my chest out, "Why, of course I would! I know God would lead me to this way".

My challenger pressed me a little harder, "So, you mean to tell me that if you were born in Saudi Arabia or in Africa, or anywhere that Christianity was not main stream -- you'd still magically be a Christian"?

The incredulous tone in his voice caused me to reconsider my previous reasoning.

"Well . . . I supposed not. But, I'd like to think God would reach out to me and show me the way". My response even sounded weak to my own ears.

"So then" he replied, "what of all those who never see the way? Why would God reach out to you if you were born into another religion and not do this regularly for everyone else?"

Hmmmm . . .

So, what would I be today if I were born in a non-Christian environment?

Why did I get this "privilege" while others who were born in non-Christian environments have an increased chance at being doomed to hell?

I was forced to realize that I grew up Christian only because my dear mother made me one; I didn't choose Jesus. Jesus didn't choose me.

Momma chose Jesus for me.

That day, I decided to become a Christian for myself by my own choosing.

That was also the day I (unwittingly) proceeded to unravel my ties to religious faith.

So then . . .

If I was born Jewish, I might still be; and if I were born Muslim, I would still be; but as it isn't, I grew up a Christian. And, now . . . I ain't.

Thanks to logic.

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?

Freemasonry and the American Revolution

The History Channel showed an interesting segment concerning the role Freemasonry played in the birth of the United States. From as early as the Boston Tea Party, Masons played a large role in the growth and establishment of the United States during the Revolution.

Interestingly, Freemasonry in the US fueled the Revolution through one of it's great ideals:

Free Thought based on Reason.

While God is acknowledged – reason – not faith – is the virtue of the Freemasons of the Revolution. This is why Muslims, Jews, and Christians all come together under a unified order. The lines of religion are blurred – making reason and action the choice stance against the challenges of life.

This rejected the religious tyranny prevalent in Europe at the time of the Revolution.

Many of the founding fathers were Masons. Masonic connections spanned across nations and this came in handy for keeping the US Revolution alive. Ben Franklin used his masonic connections to get desperately needed aid from France so that their lodge brother General Washington would not cave in during the war.

With Freemasonry so intertwined with the birth of our republic and with Freemasonry being so non-embracing and non-endorsing of any specific religion – how can we say the US is a Christian nation?

Freemasonry encouraged reason and open mindedness – the very ideals of freedom. Fundamentalist religions so often enforce closed mindedness because free thinking is quite incompatible with Fundamentalist theology.