Religious Ignorance Bliss?

This recent survey indicates something that I have found to be true in my dealings with people. Most religious people (which in my world is mostly made up of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians) don't seem to thoroughly understand their religion.

What might be surprising to some is that unbelievers seem to be most knowledgeable about religion:

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.

Personally speaking, the loss of my childhood faith was a gradual thing. It didn't go easily. For many years I read as many books as I could get my hands on that were attempts to reconcile the faith with science. That was the biggest bugaboo for me. My childhood faith was so out of sync with the world I lived in Monday through Saturday. In the end I chose reality.

However, I think this general ignorance about one's faith has a positive side. It seems to make coexistence with believers of another ilk easier. The old saw "we're all going to the same place, just traveling different roads" seems more reasonable if you are ignorant of your own religion's truth claims.

Again, just speaking from my personal experience, it seems more people are religious than they are religiously literate.

Moonshine Kills. But Not In The Way I First Thought.

The moon is awesome this time of year. Actually, as a moon lover, I always enjoying watching it in its various phases throughout the year. Looking out at the moon this morning reminded me of a silly period of my childhood.

Back in the mid 1960s, when I was a young child, there was a big public service ad push warning people of the dangers of moonshine. The slogan, simple and to the point, was: Moonshine Kills.

Our local television stations contributed to the cause with ten-second spots featuring a placard of a nighttime car accident and a somber voice-over stating that "Moonshine Kills." (At the same time we had those little spots: "It's eleven p.m. - do you know where your children are?")

Somehow in my childish mind, not having the foggiest notion that moonshine is actually an alcoholic beverage, I tended to take all this as a warning about the dangers of extended exposure to moonlight. It made sense. My bedtime then was very early. All of the family was safe inside after dark, except on church nights. But we didn't suffer too much exposure on those occasions, going straight home and straight inside.

The car accident placard only gave me to understand that some fool had been out too late frolicking in the night and became unable to drive his car. He had it coming for staying up and out so late!

I think some of this moon fear of mine was also connected to having seen Lon Chaney Jr.'s The Wolf Man. The moon could obviously do strange things to you!

Thankfully, that period in my life didn't last too long. And moon lover I have been ever since.

It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Halloween

Finally it seems summer's grip is loosening. Autumn is here, and with it is coming one of our more popular traditions, Halloween.

I see that Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, is returning with her Movie Macabre. That's cool. I always got a kick out of her. Well, that's just a personal observation. Lots of folks could probably care less. But Cassandra Peterson has been doing this Elvira thing for three decades and is pushing 60 herself. What can I say? The older I get the more attractive older women seem to become (I think she's hot out of character too).

Enough of that nonsense!

On a more serious note, I see that Halloween spending is expected to reach 5.8 billion bucks this season. Our ailing economy needs any shot in the arm it can get. Even here in the God-intoxicated Bible Belt Halloween is popular. A lot of Christians find creative ways of taking the "Devil's holiday" away from him. Usually this means a party with fun, games and lots of good food without any of the spooky elements.

Personally, I'm waiting for It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown to make it's annual appearance. Not a bad way at all to burn half an hour.

Speaking of killing time in front of the tube, last summer I got a great price on the History Channel's Haunted History mega set on dvd. I will celebrate the season by watching these ghostly documentaries. I especially look forward to seeing again their excellent A Haunted History of Halloween.

Oh, and I plan on doing what I did last year here at my blog. Posting some of the spooky and unusual stories I've collected from people I know, and maybe a few of my own. Hey, it wouldn't be Halloween without ghost stories!

And My Curiosity Takes Me Far

My curiosity leads me to constantly challenge my current ideas. If you were to examine my library you would find more books on theology than science. As I've mentioned here before, every Saturday night finds me reveling in the supernatural with horror movies or horror/fantasy/sci-fi themed television shows like Twilight Zone, Ray Bradbury Theater, Night Gallery, Tales From The Darkside, etc.

Right now on my bedside table is a book I'm reading, an old one I found recently at a used book store. It is Martin Ebon's They Knew The Unknown, about notable individuals "who explored the reality beyond our senses." Also on that table you would find non-mainstream scientists with unusual ideas such as Ruppert Sheldrake. He is one of my favorites. Plus there is Christianity and the Nature of Science by Christian philosopher and apologist J. P. Moreland. I've little more than glanced through it. I think it might be interesting, but I'm finding it somewhat dry and tedious. But I'll press on ... eventually.

The truth is, my world is filled with those who embrace the supernatural and/or paranormal. I was raised in a tongues speaking, faith healing, demon warfaring Pentecostal church. All these things were part of my world from the start. Horrifying tales of demons were a staple of my childhood. No wonder I had such a problem with nightmares as a youth!

It is a something of a hobby of mine to collect personal stories about the supernatural and paranormal events in people's lives, especially those I know well enough to be able to eliminate outright lying from the equation.

Yes, of course, as you guys know, I attempt to find ways to fit all these unknown phenomena into a modern, scientific worldview. But that doesn't mean I have the matter forever settled in my head. Quantum physics is weird and spooky in its own right. How far that will takes us, who can tell? I believe it would be wrong to take the "will to believe" to ridiculous extremes. Some are so eager to embrace strangeness that they toss good sense to the winds. Yet there is that other extreme to be avoided as well.

This I know: personal experience is very subjective. We tend to read very personal meanings into some things that others would find insignificant. We haven't gotten nearly to the end of understanding the human mind. I hold open the real possibility that some type of sixth sense exists. There is something to be said about intuition. However, I'm more impressed with scientific efforts to understand this, such as efforts by thinkers like the above mentioned Sheldrake and Dean Radin, than personal anecdotes alone.

It seems that the universe is mysterious and uncanny, probably all the way down to the core. Yet to say we don't know it all doesn't imply we know little at all. My conviction is that strange phenomena can be understood via the scientific method. If that means revising some of our theories, fine. As someone observed, science is a method, not a position.

Color Me Curious

By my teenage years my curiosity about the world around me grew to the point that I started haunting libraries, both at my school and our nice public facility. Then I discovered the library at our local university. Awesome.

This opportunity to explore ideas beyond those presented in the sixty-six books that was supposed to contain all the knowledge necessary for a happy life (the Bible, I mean) became addictive.

Mom always fretted about that. She felt reading so many things, so many vastly divergent viewpoints, only served to - as she put it - "torment the mind." To study history was to cast doubt on the Bible's versions of how things got be as they are. To study science was to cast doubt on the Bible's version of how things got started in the first place. To study comparative religion was to cast doubt on the Bible's version of what truth is. And on it went.

To this day it astounds me that so many people willingly put limits on the scope of their knowledge. No less a religious authority than John Paul ll recognized that "truth cannot contradict truth." Although, truth be told, he placed firm limits on how open the mind should be. That to me is the Achilles' heel of religious faith.

If given the opportunity, I would rather know than believe. Honest investigation at least will get us closer to the truth than closed-minded traditionalism. If that conflicts with emotionally nourishing beliefs, so be it. I'm not into denial. I don't want it said of me, "You can't handle the truth." I quit playing pretend games long, long ago.

For me it comes down to acceptance. To not spending my energy swimming against the tide. I want to understand as much about this life as I can, and use that knowledge to live in harmony with the way things are. I was always better helped by Laura Ingalls Wilder's little observation "that which can't be cured must be endured," than I was by the teaching that faith can move mountains.

Once the door of honest investigation was opened to me I could never go back. Many people think of my lack of faith as a character fault. "Without faith it is impossible to please God," I'm told that the Bible says. And it does say that. So our honest curiosity should end in faith?

I can't be happy with that.

Finally! A Chance To Write My Annual Autumn Post

Always I look forward to the end of a long summer's heat and those first days with that hint of autumn in the air. It got hot here in May and has continued hot until now. We set a record high the other day and tied one yesterday. But starting Sunday and into early next week, we finally will get down to normal - and maybe a few degrees below normal - high temperatures.

While most of the folks around here seem to be global warming skeptics, they all agree that spring and fall hardly exist anymore. It gets warm, stays warm, and then gets cold quickly, then back to hot.

But there is a popular theory around here that explains it. I had two people explain it to me just this week. The explanation is: The Bible says (they say!) that we won't be able to tell the seasons apart during the last days before Jesus' return!

Whatever!

I don't know if it's just that wistful reminiscing that seems to be common as I get older or what, but at this time of year I always relive in my mind those russet autumns of my youth. Back in those carefree days it didn't mean to me what it does now. I didn't "gather nuts for the winter" as I do now that I'm an adult, with winterizing the old auto, and doing things around the house to prepare for the coming cold. No, back then it meant playing outside in the leaves with my new friends from school, taking part in the Halloween festivities, looking forward to Charlie Brown's Thanksgiving special, licking my chops at the thought of the coming Thanksgiving feasts. But mostly it was about enjoying those last days of outside fun before old man winter for the most part imprisoned us inside our homes. Believe me, I look at all those leaves that will soon be on the ground a lot differently now!

At any rate, summer has grown old to me and I look forward to the coming of a new season.

What Afterlife?

Journalist and New Atheist Christopher Hitchens is battling throat cancer. If you ask many of the Christians who have posted comments to the various stories about his cancer, this is God's punishment for his years of blasphemy. This even though Hitchens has pointed out that this is just the type of cancer his lifestyle of heavy drinking and smoking flirted with. Also, his father died of the same disease. Many believers have pledged to pray for his conversion. Ye old death bed conversion.

But Hitchens remains defiant and firm in his atheism and lack of belief in an afterlife. Vanity Fair reports here on a debate on the afterlife he recently took part in. It doesn't look as if it was much of a debate. As Hitchen's said at one point: “For this, I got on the shuttle?”

It seems to be the case that a debate against an afterlife is unwinnable. Immortality is an almost universally honored traditional belief that cuts across most systems of faith. From a naturalistic viewpoint the idea is absurd. The only "evidence" in favor of post mortem existence is anecdotal. And these anecdotes vary so wildly from person to person, they seem worthless in my opinion. But fear of death and hope keeps the belief alive and thriving.

I like hope. I can't say I know what if anything happens to us after we die. It just seems to me to be one of those subjects that makes more sense if you don't really think about it. Does impending death make belief in an afterlife more attractive?

What, Me Think?

Life here in the Bible Belt can be lonely sometimes if you are a freethinker. Here's a case in point. Yesterday, I and several of my coworkers were in our break area relaxing and cooling off when another worker came in to ask our opinion about a debate he was having with several of his coworkers.

Here's what he asked: Is it possible to believe in God and not believe in angels? Of course I was the odd man out as around the table everyone gave the same answer: "I believe in both. Because the Bible says so." That was also the position of our questioner. As he put it: "You can't take the first chapter of Genesis and then ignore the rest."

I thought to myself, "what next ... shall we go on to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

I pointed out that I thought the answer to the question is, yes. Aristotle's unmoved mover God does not require a belief in angels. Deism doesn't require it. That's just two examples. In other words, God and angels are not necessarily linked.

But down here the main source of knowledge is the Bible.

Biological science is especially distrusted here because of the Genesis account of creation. Ask a question about morals and you most likely will receive a Bible verse for an answer. You don't really need to think hard about whom to vote for in an election: just check how the candidate feels about God and the Bible. Wanna get married? The Bible will tell you what to look for in a mate. You just don't need to think about things at all because the Bible has the answer.

When I brought up Aristotle and Deism the room grew quiet and faces went blank. You would have thought I suddenly started speaking in a foreign language. After my observation the conversation went right back to the Bible. And these people aren't high school dropouts. Most of my coworkers did graduate, and many have at least some college.

It just blows my mind that it never occurs to so many people to look beyond the narrow confines of their own worldview. It absolutely amazes me that so many prefer accepting pat answers and cliches over forming their own opinions with an intellectual basis. Do they not know how? How is it that people can be exposed to so much learning in our educational facilities and so little of it stick?

A Course In Miracles

This past week my girlfriend's mother began experiencing problems with her good eye. She had lost sight in the other eye ten or so years ago. It's hereditary. Her mother went totally blind in her later years. And my gal pal's mom has for years feared losing her sight completely.

It began with her color perception being off. A trip to her eye doctor found the pressure in her eye extremely high, so a procedure was scheduled for yesterday. He tried a laser procedure twice and was unsuccessful. He had one more trick up his sleeve that he wanted to try. That didn't work either. And the diagnosis: one day she would wake up in darkness.

My girlfriend's mom is 69, still works full time, and all-round is a very active person. But now the family is making plans about how to handle this crisis. My girlfriend is going to have to move back in with her mom to help out. Her mom is going to have to come to terms with and adjust to being blind. Right now she is quite upset and depressed about her worst fear coming true.

Yesterday when I got home from work I called my Mom as I always do to check on her and talk for a bit. I told her about my girlfriend and her mom's situation, and then it happened. Having such differing world views - mine a naturalistic, hers a fundamentalist Christian - we rarely talk in depth about religion. But for some reason she began with, "Now I know you probably don't want to hear this, but...."

Then followed a long monologue about God's ability to perform miracles. This, she said, is who she is and what she is about. Blah, blah, blah. No disrespect intended. But I've seen the "miracles" in her own life, and they weren't miraculous. Down through the years I've watched as she struggled to make sense of her many unanswered prayers in crisis situations.

The anecdotes she continued to rave about were based largely on one thing: the doctor's inability to predict exactly the course of an illness. One example was a preacher friend of hers who had had a stroke and a heart attack and whose family was told to make arrangements for his recovery in a rehabilitation center. But, as sometimes is the case, things went much better than at first expected and the man recovered quickly and went straight home instead. Admittedly, she said, his health has been poor ever since, but it was a "miracle" that he avoided the nursing home.

On and on this went for some time, and she then told me that God could heal my girlfriend's mom or at least allow her to keep her sight for longer than expected, whether GF's mom realized that or not. And she told me she would be praying.

That is fine. And I just listened and said absolutely nothing. Mom is nearly 78 now, and her faith and her church work are among the things that keep her going. As it is with a a lot of people, I suppose. She's fresh off a weekend revival at her church, so she's really energized. As I said, usually we just don't discuss these things at all.

Contrary to what you might gather from the tone my blog takes sometimes, I don't go around pissing on people's parade. I don't spend my time trying to deconvert people. I have serious discussions with serious people who engage in them with me. I answer people's questions about my worldview. I fend off their attempts to convert me and do it by using reason.

My personal experiences - years of my own unanswered prayers and inability to reconcile the world I live in with one supposedly administered by a loving heavenly Father - led me to search for something more helpful and understandable. I found that by embracing a scientific outlook.

Does that do away with hope? Not at all. I find it more useful to just hope for positive outcomes rather than grappling with prayers to persuade God to altar things. If things don't turn as well as I hoped, at least there is none of the incessant questioning, "why God, why?"

My girlfriend's mother is nominally a Catholic, but not devout. She rarely attends church. Hasn't been to confession in years. I'm sure she wouldn't deny that her God could heal the sick. But some people, even some people of faith, just accept that God's providence looks more or less like my naturalistic worldview. The family is accepting the doctor's prognosis and making plans for how to help make her transition from sight to blindness as easy as possible. That is wise, I think.

I've seen too many people disappointed when their "expect a miracle" slogans fail them. The only thing worse than no hope, in my opinion, is false hope. There is, after all, something to be said for acceptance; for doing the best you can with what you have to work with. If things turn out better than expected, so much the better.

A Witch At The Tea Party

Gee, I thought witch hunts were just an ugly closed chapter in America's past, but I guess not. Tea Party politician Christine O'Donnell, fresh from her upset victory in Delaware's GOP Senate primary, is now ducking and dodging because of a past dalliance with "witchcraft."

I put witchcraft in quotes, because, judging from her comments in the now popular video clip, it was Satanism instead. Of course, I know that in the minds of conservative Christians they are one and the same.

Political strategist Karl Rove weighed in with:

In southern Delaware, where there are a lot of church-going people, they're probably going to want to know what was that all about.

Shucks, this isn't the first time we've dealt with New Agey politicians. Who can forget about the psychic world of President Reagan and his wife Nancy? Supposedly one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, "dabbled" in spiritualism.

Our nation is steeped in supernaturalism, paranormalism, and superstition, but it draws the line at anything with supposed "evil" connotations.

Of course I find the O'Donnell story hilarious, but sad at the same time. While most intelligent people can put this matter into perspective and look at the issues that matter, there are many who will make this THE issue.

Yes, I know Rove, an atheist, is simply exploiting this story for political gain. But he has a history of playing people of faith in his political machinations.

Will we ever grow up as a nation and put aside such nonsense?

Sarah Palin Talks Of God, Country

And people listen.

She spoke this past week at the National Quartet Convention up in Kentucky. Her message was one of urging the nation to "turn back to God," whatever that means.

The coverage here reports:

Palin drew a standing ovation for describing the country as a nation of patriots "all bound together by our Constitution, united under God. ... That is why we are an exceptional nation, and that's nothing to apologize for."

And:

Palin mixed politics in with lighter banter. She told of hunting caribou in Alaska and sharing a love of hunting and other values with many Kentuckians, whom she said were "proudly clinging to your guns and religion and our Constitution."

And again:

Palin disputed the idea that religion is divisive. "It doesn't have to be that way," she said. "Belief in God is unifying." Palin didn't talk about her own political plans, but the event resembled a campaign rally.

Sure it doesn't, Sarah. The truth is, religion and the Constitution mix like oil and water. No matter how much these politicians talk about God and the Constitution, when you listen to what they have to say, it really boils down to God and then the Constitution.

Look, I would be delighted to spend less time blogging about religion. But it is the religious who are always in everyone's face with their beliefs. Okay, I have a little something to say back.

Another Miracle That Wasn't

I'm referring to that bizarre Bethany Storro story. Obviously in need of mental evaluation and help, Ms. Storro garnered worldwide attention with her claim of having been attacked by an acid wielding assailant, only to later admit that she made the whole thing up.

Storro, a Christian, face almost totally bandaged, told her story to the press (here is a pre-confession report from which I took some of the info for this post) and proclaimed how she had felt led to go and buy a pair sunglasses some twenty minutes before the acid attack, and that it was these very glasses which saved her eyes. “For some reason, I had this feeling I needed to buy sunglasses - that’s Jesus, for sure,” she said.

When I heard that particular detail when the story first broke I thought, "hmmmmmmm." I didn't think much more about it, but others did. My feeling is that life is full of interesting coincidences, some meaningful, some not. However, investigators zeroed in on the inconsistencies in Storro's story and soon came to doubt it.

Her "miracle" had a very earthy explanation as opposed to a heavenly one it turns out.

The parents of Bethany Storro, Joe and Nancy Neuwelt, now have apologized on behalf of their daughter and are promising to return the money that has poured in to help the family. "There was no reason to doubt her at all," said her father. Of course, the parents can be excused for not thinking critically about this. Dealing with their daughter's ordeal understandably took up much of their mental strength.

But there is a lesson to be learned from miracle stories such as this one. It is that careful scrutiny can render understandable things that seem to go counter to the norm. However, this is usually easier for the unattached observer.

When the skepticism regarding this hoax began to be voiced, those closest to Storro didn't waver in their support. Storro, who knew the truth all along, kept it in until she could withstand the pressure no longer. Those of us of a skeptical mindset and not emotionally attached could only say in the end, "but of course."

Is Hope Enough?

I was reading the New York Time's recent interview with Woody Allen. It covered a number of interesting things, including his latest movie. If you missed it: Faith, Fortune Tellers and New York.

In response to a question about which he found more plausible, reincarnation or God, Allen responded, "Neither seems plausible to me. I have a grim, scientific assessment of it. I just feel, what you see is what you get."

I feel him there.

A bit later he adds:

I was interested in the concept of faith in something. This sounds so bleak when I say it, but we need some delusions to keep us going. And the people who successfully delude themselves seem happier than the people who can’t....

Is that true?

Over the years I've carefully weighed all the arguments for and against the existence of a personal God and immortality. As much as I would dearly love to believe in those concepts, and of other related things such as the efficacy of payer, there just doesn't seem to be any compelling reasons to so believe. Just hoping and wishing they were so, isn't enough for me.

Some people are able to pull off this belief thing, and perhaps that brings them the happiness Allen refers to. But that always reminds me of the George Bernard Shaw quote:

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.

And I think that is so. Life is no less valuable if it does not continue throughout eternity. Even if there is no Heavenly Father watching over us, we need not ever feel alone in a world full of fellow travelers. "What you see is what you get," as Allen put it, doesn't seem to me to be such a bad deal.

The old Stoic attitude works better for me than the credulous attitude that was instilled in me during my childhood. At least it spares me the mental anguish I used to experience when I constantly asked why life had to be so unfair. It just is. Don't blame God. Don't blame Satan. Don't blame humanity's fallen nature. Life is a mixed bag of pleasantries and unpleasantries. Life just is.

I'm not sold on the idea that we need hopeful delusions in order to make it. Such delusions often break down under the strain of life's storms and unending struggles. That life comes with no guarantees seems all too obvious to the skeptics. The questions of why bad things happen to good people and why bad people so often are blessed has never been satisfactorily answered by religion. I fear they cannot be.

Faith And Reason: What About Those With A Foot In Each Camp?

A coworker has been discussing with me my recent rant about people of faith. She considers herself "a believer" in God. Her basic worldview is Christian, which is the only religious tradition she is really familiar with. However, she falls into what I would call the nominal Christian category. In other words, while she considers herself a person of faith, a person within the Christian tradition, she rarely attends church, admits to being a regular breaker of several of the Ten Commandments, and freely admits she doesn't do a very good job of living her religion. But she really likes the idea that there is a God who looks out for her, who hears and at least occasionally answers her prayers, but most importantly, she likes the idea that God will grant her eternal life in Heaven.

In short, she likes the good things religion usually promises, but finds all the "thou shalt nots" a bit of a drag.

Her biggest complaint about my faith post was my sentence: "People of faith don't impress me an iota." And she felt it was unfair for me to divide people into only two categories: those of faith versus those of reason. Some people believe in both.

Admittedly that sentence above sounded more harsh than I meant it to. It isn't the faithful as people who bother me. It is their position. It is divisive. I tried in my post to be specific about this. I specifically spoke of those "who are willing to believe things concerning God and his supposed governance of the universe in the absence of compelling evidence." Those who - rather than have a meaningful discussion - will short circuit all attempts to discuss with "that's a matter of faith." In other words, those who "can't admit to being wrong. They can't change their minds. They can't agree to disagree. They aren't even searching for truth, because they believe they already have it." All are quotes from my post.

It so happens that I have immense respect for the faithful who attempt to use reason in defense of their belief system. C. S. Lewis is a favorite Christian philosopher. While I find myself in overall disagreement with him, I love his writing style and attempt to be reasonable. I enjoy the writing of Alvin Plantinga, who endeared himself to me all the more when he confessed that sometimes he has asked himself if what he believes might yet be wrong. Liberal theologians like Harry Fosdick, Leslie Weatherhead, John A. T. Robinson, and John Shelby Spong, ( to name just a handful of many I like) are very enjoyable to read and are really thought-provoking, too. Catholicism has produced some formidable philosophers and scientists. And scientists who are religious and attempt to reconcile science and faith, people such as John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins, deserve praise for their efforts to bring people of faith into the modern world.

If all people of faith were as liberal in their outlook, as reasonable in their arguments, as committed to peace and harmony, I would have little to complain about. These are people who truly are people of faith AND reason.

But unlike the people I was ranting about in my post, they are bridge builders. They at least make an attempt to hear those of us who are on the other side of the great gulf that separates belief and unbelief. They are neither holy warriors nor culture warriors, but serious thinkers.

So why have they not yet persuaded me to become a believer? One reason only. I believe they place their faith above reason. By that, I mean that I find they don't follow reason to its logical conclusion, but instead stop at their desired destination. They would no doubt feel I have mischaracterized their position; they would probably contend that they take reason to a point that makes a "leap of faith," well, reasonable.

And about that reasonable people can respectfully disagree.

Go To Hell

Christians consider it a duty to share their faith with everyone and, if possible, to win everyone to their version of the truth:

Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh (Jude 1:22,23).

Then the master told his servant, '"go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full" (Luke 14:23).

And he said unto them, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).

I once worked with a fellow who had a very central location in our factory and who took his divine duty very seriously. He would speak to everyone he came in contact with, sometimes even with visitors to our establishment.

This sometimes led to humorous exchanges, as with the time one of our customers, a representative of a Japanese firm, came through. This fellow started his spiel and quickly discovered the lady he was speaking to was a Buddhist. The results were hilarious as, coming from the culture and background she did, it was obvious she had absolutely no idea what the man was talking about. Her English, while broken, was quite good. The barrier was the concept involved. Finally she gathered he was telling her that her religious path was just no damn good. And she then excused herself graciously but expeditiously.

Another time this fellow was trying to "convert" a Catholic coworker. Fundamentalist Christians have a tendency to view Catholicism as a completely false religion rather than as a variation of the faith. These two did understand each other perfectly. When my ex-coworker could not convince our Catholic coworker that he was in error, he calmly and without seeming malice uttered "okay then ... go ahead and go to Hell."

Today, as an adult, I can look on spectacles such as these and laugh. However, my childhood was somewhat blighted by the constant (usually four or more times per week) reinforcements of the terrors of Hell in church sermons and Bible lessons. I vividly remember having nightmares of finding myself in Hell and then experiencing the sickening realization that I would be there for the rest of eternity, with no possibility of parole - just the way grownups had warned me.

Even as a child I hated the doctrine of eternal punishment and wondered how a God of love could have come up with it. I now recognize it as a human invention, one we can quite well do without.

Debate Tactics That Annoy The Hell Out Of Me

Of course I encourage meaningful debate here at my blog. Of course I do. I have no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with me about the things I write. In fact, I've made commenting on GTE as simple as I know how. But how about doing ol' Doug a favor? In order to keep our discussions meaningful, can we dispense with certain annoying debating tactics?

First - and I put this one first because it "gets my goat" most of all - is something I not only think is bad tactics, I consider it rude. This is spouting out the cliche "you're comparing apples and oranges."

This is usually dragged out when an analogy or illustration is used for the purpose of making a point. When someone cries "apples and oranges" to me it makes me feel they either aren't listening or they are just being evasive.

The truth is, apples and oranges can be compared with good effect. Which isn't to say there are ways in which they aren't comparable. And, no, they aren't exactly the same thing.

But if you tell me an illustration I'm using is "apples and oranges," you can't just leave it there with that. It is your responsibility to explain why the illustrations fails and in what way it violates the principle of similarity. Even if you feel the illustration is weak, you should explain why and how it is weak.

So yes, feel free to tell me you think I'm comparing apples and oranges, that is, making an unreasonable comparison. But be a pal and good debating opponent and explain why you feel this is so.

Okay, here is another oldie but goody, and while I find it annoying I must confess I find it so funny it almost causes me to wet my pants when I hear it. I'm writing about when someone asks me concerning a point in dispute: can you prove it didn't happen?

Let's get this straight. It is the responsibility of the person making a claim to justify that claim. It is silly to challenge someone to prove that something isn't the way you claim it to be. That isn't good debating. It isn't debating at all.

If I question your theory or proposition, it will hardly do to respond, "can you prove it's not that way?" Maybe, maybe not. That's not the point. It just so happens you are the one making the claim; so prove it.

I love my comments section. I love to hear from you guys, agree or disagree. But if we are going to debate things, let's - as they say - keep it real.

That Faith Thing Again!

Wow! This isn't the post I had planned to write. I had so many comments on yesterday's post about people of faith that it seems to me it would be better to expand on it here in a new post rather than bury my thoughts in an already lengthy comments section.

My friend Rainlillie and I discussed the merits faith first. Then my other favorite blogger friend Diane got into the act. Their comments are well worth looking at.

First, it's worth noting that my post wasn't about the thorny question of God's existence in the first place. It is about the deference paid to people of faith. There should be no gainsaying that religion is ripping apart the country right now. An overwhelming majority of Americans are against the mosque near Ground Zero. This is for the simple reason that most just can't separate in their minds the radical Muslims from those who are not radical. The feeling is that such a mosque would be a slap in our faces or would serve as a symbol of Islamic victory over America. In other words, there is a widespread belief that Islam is somehow inconsistent with our country's basic tenets.

I point out that the exact thing could be said about Christianity and Judaism. Whereas our Constitution spells out that the authority for our government arises from the consent of the governed, the Bible teaches our absolute submission (the Bible even uses the slave motif) to the supreme monarch, God.

The truth is, the freedom of thought and expression we hold to be the American ideal is contrary to any religion that teaches we should submit totally to a supreme deity. This is why we have so much social divisiveness over issues like euthanasia, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, gay marriage, the teaching of evolution in public schools to the exclusion of creationism, etc. These are thought to be against our moral values, that is, against the Judeo/Christian tradition. Which may be so, but should be beside the point in a truly secular government.

Then comes a nut down in Florida who wants to hold a public Koran burning, for no good reason other than to inflame anti-Islam passions. Our government feared the ramifications of this so greatly that it immediately started pressuring the man to cease and desist for fear of further religious retaliation.

And my post yesterday zeroed in on President Obama trying to gloss over the differences between all the different religions Americans espouse. We all worship the same God, said he, even if we call him by different names. Any religious scholar - for that matter, anyone well versed in the teachings of their own religion - can tell you that is simply bosh.

So, no Diane, Rainlillie's or anyone else's faith doesn't hurt me ... unless that faith creates unnecessary tensions in our world, creates wars, and costs me tax dollars to fund these wars and the emotional distress of losing friends and family members in those wars.

Do I exaggerate? Let's not for get that 9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum. If you read Osama Bin Laden's rationale for the attacks (which were a retaliation for the United States' desecration of what some Muslim's feel are their sacred spaces, you realize that people of faith do often create problems.

When you look around the world, you see the problem is the same everywhere. Another example would be the Israeli/Palestinian problem. There also is this faith idea that God gave a certain piece of earth to a certain people. There is quite a division in our country between those who don't understand our tippy-toeing around Israel - even when they commit atrocities - and those who believe we should support Israel because they are God's people and the Bible supposedly pronounces a blessing on those who bless her.

My problem - as I've stated on my blog many times - is that people of faith use God as the ultimate trump card. We can't have a reasonable discussion about abortion, gay rights, embryonic stem cell research, and the other culture warrior's hot-button issues because IT UNDERMINES THE FAITH OF BELIEVERS and threatens civilization. Yes, that is the claim they make.

I just don't believe that "because God says so in the Bible (or Koran or Torah or whatever)" is a reasonable argument. Others may disagree and they have that right in our free country.

Those People Of Faith

More and more often I hear the phrase people of faith. That describes that mass of humanity who are willing to believe things concerning God and his supposed governance of the universe in the absence of compelling evidence.

Any time you press hard on a religious person of whatever faith tradition, you will eventually be shut down with "that's a matter of faith." End of discussion. That's what a person of faith is about.

This past week our president did the expedient thing and scratched behind the ears of the people of faith at a press conference:

We have to make sure we don’t start turning on each other, and I will do everything I can as president of the United States to remind the American people that we are one nation under God, and we may call that God by different names, but we remain one nation.

For the nominally religious that probably works fine. For those who take seriously their Holy Books and traditions, it makes no sense at all. Think about it. Can you bundle together the various contradictory religious claims concerning the Almighty's will under the generic label of faith and make any sense at all?

People of faith aren't united, except in the fact that they choose faith over reason. But the God of Christians is hardly the God of Muslims, when all is said and done. The God of the Jews is not a trinity. The God of the Hindus bears little resemblance to the Gods of the religions I've just mentioned. And so on. It's idiocy (or perhaps just good politics) to pretend as President Obama did, that all the faithful worship the same God but just call him by different names. That is the most vacuous statement that can be made about the subject.

If there were hardly any difference there would hardly be a problem.

But in our country religion has a supposed deference. Faith (religion generically speaking) is good. Unbelief is bad. Good. Bad. Good versus evil. Light versus darkness. Holy versus profane. I'm getting nauseous.

Nonsense!

If we want to talk about something sacred, how about the space between our ears? If a person wants to take an opinion and accept it uncritically, so be it. I think it's a sin to misuse your intelligence that way, but hey, it's a free country and all. Some of us just choose to think, and think hard.

People of faith don't impress me an iota. They can't admit to being wrong. They can't change their minds. They can't agree to disagree. They aren't even searching for truth, because they believe they already have it.

It seems to me that such people of faith are the problem.

Do You Believe?

Let me tell you a story from my childhood which took place in the tiny Pentecostal church my family attended. I was either ten or eleven years old when I heard it during one of our prayer meetings. Prayer meetings, for those who aren't aware, were midweek meetings of our church people, where they would exchange prayer requests, testify of miraculous answers to previous prayers, and then all pray together for more miraculous answers. Of course, there was singing and preaching too, but the emphasis was on petitioning God to intervene in our lives.

One lady whom we had known as long as we were members stood up in such a meeting and told the following story.

Her name was Monte - a name which she told us she had always hated.

For some reason (which she might have expressed, but if so I have forgotten) she one day sent off to the Department of Vital Records for a certified copy of her birth certificate.

Now here comes the miracle. When the birth certificate arrived in the mail, she promptly opened it and noticed the name on the certificate was Monteen, and not Monte.

Too much applause she declared this was an example of the mysterious way in which God can work. She said her name had always been Monte, she had gone through her life as Monte (and at the time she was well into middle-age), and now God had "fixed" this for her and given her a new name. And it was all legal!

This tale obviously made a big impression on my mind because I can recall it vividly to this day. And I can still see Monte, adorned in a black dress, and with tears running down her cheeks, as she told it. Sadly she died many years back. She feared she was having a heart attack and called the pastor to request prayer. A more sensible thing - at least to my mind - would have been to call for an ambulance. But instead she called the pastor, explained the situation, and then promptly dropped dead. There wasn't even time for the pastor to pray. The request was made and the next thing heard was the sound of the phone dropping to the floor. When the ambulance did arrive after the pastor's call, it was too late.

Today I am no longer the church kid who blindly accepts the supernatural. Over the years, long thought and much study led me to abandon my former worldview in favor of the scientific, naturalistic view. It didn't happen overnight, but was a gradual process.

What then do I make of her tale now?

The most obvious solution is that she made up the tale out of whole cloth, as they say. But that lady was a fixture of my childhood. A sweet and funny lady who sang and played her guitar in church and lived a good life. I would argue against this theory based on my personal knowledge of her character. But I can't prove she didn't lie.

Another possibility suggests itself to me. What if her name always was Monteen - just as is on her birth certificate? What if her family always called her Monte for short and she just never realized this?

Or perhaps her parents did indeed name her Monte and the person recording the information misheard it and entered the wrong name. Again, Monte might not have known this. In fact, I've known people whose name was misspelled on their birth certificate. This doesn't seem an unreasonable conclusion.

Okay, if you believe in the supernatural perhaps you can believe God did change this lady's birth certificate. I can't prove it didn't happen that way. It just doesn't coincide with the worldview I've embraced, that we live in a natural universe of cause and effect.

Even granting for the sake of argument that God did change the birth certificate, this does seem a trifling matter for him to be concerned with. After all, if you don't like your name, it isn't a very difficult thing to change it.

To my knowledge Monte never doubted her belief about the matter. And I suppose one could even embrace supernaturalism and still think this is just a corny misunderstanding. Those who have no problem believing that God spoke through Moses and Jesus, still doubt Mohammed and Joseph Smith had the same experience.

That's why I think Carl Sagan got it right: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

A Modest But Sure To Be Rejected Proposal

Pastor Jones believes Islam of the Devil. In fact, according to this report he has even written a book titled Islam Is Of The Devil. He believes - just what the New Testament itself teaches - that Jesus is the only way to God, that everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior will burn eternally in Hell.

He is scheduled to fly to New York to meet with Imam Rauf on Saturday after calling off his planned Koran burning. But why? What could these two possibly have to say to each other?

Here we have a proposed meeting between a man who believes the Shahada, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" and another who believes the New Testament and what it bluntly says about Jesus, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

There just doesn't seem to be much room for compromise here.

How much better is humanist thought. We humanists would say: Whoa! Let's filter this whole thing through the lens of common sense and human reason. And if everyone did that - because, after all, we are all first and foremost human beings - the concept of religious truth would pass away into obsolescence and we could make an honest effort towards peace on earth and good will towards all.

Got Faith?

The Reverend Terry Jones (snicker). Gee, this was the top story on NBC's evening news program yesterday. This small pastor (intellectually speaking) of a small church (around 50 members) is taking his dramatic stand against Islam, a religion Pastor Jones considers the Devil's religion. The eyes of the world are watching.

Now I'm a different sort of bird in that I believe reason is the most efficient tool we can employ. Unfortunately, religious people have already jettisoned reason in favor of faith. There's the rub. There can be no logical discussion of the merits of Christianity over Islam, in fact, of any one religion over another.

All religious zealots have one trait in common: they believe they are acting in accordance with God's will. That's the case whether we're talking about burning witches or burning books.

Jones said: "It's hard for people to believe, but we actually feel this is a message that we have been called to bring forth. And because of that, we do not feel like we can back down."

Faith. Ain't it wonderful?

The Language Of Love

I'm a saver of things sentimental. At this point in my life I have started the long process of sorting through a lifetime of personal effects (along with assorted other junk I've accumulated over the years). The things I have the most problem with are the things I keep for emotional reasons. For example, for some reason I have kept all these years the collar of my first dog - the first dog I ever owned personally. I was eleven at the time and still recall quite vividly my love for this dog and the pain I felt when I lost her.

Then there are all the keepsakes and love notes of a lifetime of romantic entanglements. I've whittled this down somewhat. I still have the stuff from the more significant relationships. Love notes, ticket stubs, holiday cards, pictures, and so forth.

Here's something I find interesting and a bit telling. From my four most serious relationships, I have love notes where each of these young women wrote - in exact words, as if taken down from some instruction book - the words, " I will love you forever." I hadn't realized this until going back through some of this stuff.

Three of those four women cheated on me in the relationship. Wow. Eternal love like that I can do without!

The other lady, my high school sweetheart and first "real" love, and incidentally my first wife, exited my life for over twenty years before she came back and expressed interest in rekindling our lost love. But by then I had changed so much, I couldn't find my way back.

I've never gone back to a broken love affair. I never saw the point. I always pushed forward. My thinking being: if it didn't work the first time, what would be different about the second time? I know there are countless examples out there that run counter to this logic, but that is how I feel. I never wanted to take the chance and, after all, there are plenty of example of those who tried again and failed again.

As for the cheaters in my life, their love notes to me were warm, mushy, feeling-laced, and totally untrue. Oh, perhaps at the time those feelings they were expressing seemed real to them ... but time proved all the promises shallow and false. Damn, they sound good at the time though!

I should be fair and admit I wrote my share of ridiculous love notes in my time, expressing unrealistic feelings. Is it even reasonable for a young person to promise how they will feel many years in the future? I mean, a whole lot can happen in a lifetime.

Still, it just isn't very romantic to tell someone: Hey, for right now, you ARE the one!

Looking back over some of these sappy epistles makes me want to gag now. And if a former lover were to produce some of my old love notes to them I would no doubt hang my head in shame and embarrassment.

Ah, love has a language all its own - and it is most often highly inflated.

I've read many love notes down through the years, some from nobodies like myself, some from the rich and famous. For the most part they all seem more a testament to the author's writing skills and poetic gift than anything else.

Such lofty expressions of affection, both written and spoken, are an essential part of any romantic relationship. Let's be honest: some of the main purposes of these relationships are the feelings of well-being and fulfillment they bring us. And these overblown expressions nourish all that.

For what it's worth, I'm still on friendly terms with all of the women who were once in serious relationships with me. Which isn't to say we hang out and talk regularly. I've forgiven those who wronged me and have apologized for my shortcomings towards them. And I know I could pick up the phone and call them and they me without any problem whatsoever.

I've resigned myself to overlook their romantic hyperbole and have asked them to overlook my like indiscretions.

After all, it's part of the game.

Every Silver Lining Has Its Dark Cloud

The old joke: The needle on the gas gauge is halfway; I can't tell if it's half-full or half-empty.

Actually both are true. Ditto the old saw about dark clouds and silver linings. It's all in how you are thinking about the matter.

But consider rape or the final stages of terminal cancer. Where's the bright side of either of those? Other things could be alluded to here, migraine headaches, being the person with a knife to your throat in a hostage situation involving a deranged psychopath, etc.

Some things in life seem not to be a matter of perspective, but are simply bad in and of themselves.

What's the advantage of pretending life is always good or that things always happen for the best?

Don't misunderstood me. I'm not a pessimist. I don't believe that this is the worst of possible worlds. I'm not arguing that everything is bad.

I'm just asking what is wrong with taking a good, hard, long, realistic look at things?

I'm vehemently opposed to unrealistic expectations.

Life isn't fair, justice isn't always served, good doesn't always win out over evil, things can and often do get worse, death comes to everyone (no miraculous Rapture to take out the cowards before things get really bad...), pain is as big a part of life as is pleasure, and all this is just the way things are.

My philosophy: Go ahead and hope for the best, but realize you are just as likely to encounter less than the best (sometimes much less than the best).

One more observation: all the bad around us should cause us to appreciate the good all the more.

And Then Came The Crash

This weekend a good friend of mine spoke to me about a problem she was having with her son. He called her long distance Thursday night, where he was out of town working, to ask that she tell him she loves him one more time before he killed himself. How gut-wrenching such a thing must be for a mother to go through. It seems his live-in lover had told him over the phone that she wanted out of the relationship. And just after my friend got off the phone with her son - who, thankfully calmed down and did not choose to end his life right then - her son's girlfriend pulled into her yard to return his bags of belongings.

My friend's son told her - and this is an exact, if unoriginal, quote - "I can't live without her." Odd, but just a few weeks before the breakup the son had told his mother not to worry about him getting hurt (which she had been, having suspected the two were very mismatched): "Mom, girls are everywhere!" But now his tune has changed to that familiar refrain: "But I'll never find anyone else like her."

True, so true, but as time will reveal to this young man, it is not so devastating a fact as is first imagined.

Though it isn't a popular idea, my suggestion for those who want to play the romance game is not to get too carried away by the inflated rhetoric of love and not to lose one's sense of independent self in the endeavor. For if you do, you will surely fall to the ground hard should the illusion shatter (as it most often does).

This is a story I hear constantly. Heck, I even went through it myself a few times when I was younger and less wise.

The words of a person intoxicated with romance can't be taken seriously, no more than the common alcoholic's words while on a binge. And any successful partnership should be a means to an end and not an end in itself. But this is logical thinking and apparently not applicable to affairs of the heart.

Perhaps few things are sweeter than the nectar of romance. Likewise, few things are more bitter than the tears of a broken heart. All because of the mistaken belief that we can find true happiness in another person rather than ourselves.

Every time I write one of these posts or talk about this subject with others, I end up being misunderstood. People are always telling me how mistaken I am, or how sad it is that I will never find true happiness because of this supposed wall I have up. Blah, blah, blah ... if you think that, you've got it exactly wrong, I assure you. I respect your right to disagree and to propound the theory that the romantic illusion is the best thing in life. For my part, I just refuse to close a blind eye to all the heart break and emotional devastation that is around me. And I don't feel that saying "just wait until next time" is very comforting to those who are hurting, or that it offers a solution to avoid it happening again.

What does help, I feel, is having a sense of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Those are things that can't be taken away in a lover's breakup. At the same time, having this healthy sense of self-sufficiency and finding another who has such a sense (if you do choose to pair off) will assure that the relationship is on a sound footing. The alternative is some form of dependency, which can and usually does lead to problems down the road.

The more controversial observation is that marriage (between one man and one woman, as the conservative culture warriors put it) and monogamy are cultural norms. It's hard for me to understand why loners or polyamorists should be thought of as odd just because they buck tradition. Heck, what, pray tell, could be more off the wall than this esoteric concept of "soulmates" around which so much of the romantic insanity swirls?

In the meantime, my friend's son has rediscovered his friends who were put somewhat on the back burner when he got into his ill-fated relationship. He has spent the weekend playing sports, video games, hanging out and having fun with them.

Hopefully, he'll be okay - until the next time.

It Just Makes Me Feel Better

Sometimes I ask myself why I bother with my blog. Or for that matter, why do I engage people who come to me to expound their silly ideas?

This much I have learned over the years, most people - not all, I admit, but nevertheless the overwhelming majority - for the most part believe what they want to believe. In other words, they have a large emotional investment in their ideas and ideals. So they look for confirmation for their ideas rather than challenges.

My big thing is human stupidity. The world would be such a better place without so much of it. I'm not speaking of the occasional lapses of good sense and judgment we all indulge in from time to time. I'm speaking about the majority of folks who never bothered to learn how to think clearly.

The older I get the more I realize I have to adjust myself to the fact that most of my fellow travelers on life's journey are going to travel by emotion rather than logic. This is going to make for a contentious and often annoying ride.

Oh, I would love to see world peace in my time. But that would take the destruction of humankind to achieve. The ideal of humans living side by side in perfect peace and harmony is just an impossibility.

I think that is one (but by no means the main or only) objection I have against the popular notion of Heaven. Can one honestly - honestly now, no slogans and cliches, just honest consideration - picture zillions of people living together in perfect accord - and that for all eternity?!

Only if somehow we survived into the "afterlife" as a totally different type of creature. One without feelings and individual wills.

Thus we are destined to have conflict and our animal nature will assure the conflict is often violent and bloody.

That's the matter in a nutshell.

And while I believe that the more clear thinking is advanced and embraced the more peaceful our existence can be, I harbor no illusions of utopia.

So that's why I preach reason and logic. It just makes me feel better to be doing something constructive with my time.

Sodom And Gomorrah An Example?

A warning about America and that "homosexual agenda," brought to us by an angry letter-to-the-editor writer:

If the day comes when our country condones the homosexual lifestyle as normal and acceptable, we are in grave danger of God’s judgment. We read in Genesis 19 what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sinful homosexual lifestyle, and God will surely discipline this country for condoning what He condemns.

The entire letter can be found here. Just click that link and scroll down to God condemns homosexual life. If you decide to go there, take the time to browse through the reader's comments section. The letter opened a heated discussion.

Two years ago (almost to the day, in fact) I posted here a rather lengthy post on the subject which I titled Rethinking Sodom And Gomorrah. I think it's worth a glance, just to see how badly the Christian homophobes have twisted this story which has nothing to do with acceptance of gays.

It's not that nice of me, I know, but I confess to taking a bit of pleasure out of poking fun at those "saints" who use this story to bash gays. Seriously, do they never read their own Bibles?

Personally, I believe profound ignorance as "normal and acceptable" poses a real threat to us.

Exorcising God

File this one under chain yankers. A Bible Belt based Satanic Church has rented the Oklahoma City Civic Center for a giant publicity stunt: an exorcism of God. Of course I find this both humorous and silly. This is supposed to be an educational endeavor. I doubt it will accomplish much along that line. Too inflammatory. Just scroll down and take look-see at the comments. That's always the most fun for me:

Poor sad fools! One must always remember that Light can always absorb Darkness, but Darkness can never absorb Light! May God have mercy!

If you don't believe in Satan, You will when you get to Hell!

The Christian Bible says that satan is a liar and the father of lies. If this group of people wanting to rent the Civic Center for the "exorcism of God" say they are not devil worhippers, well then they are probably just practicing what the Bible says about satan, that he is a liar.

[T]hese people are only playing with fire...satan is sitting back laughing at these people and just waiting the day they meet him in person. they will fall and beg god to get them away from satan and he will say noway.

Yes, this is chain yanking at its best.

"We don't kill animals, we don't kill children," James Hale, the church's Lord High Master, told ABCNews.com.

It doesn't matter. Satan is the ultimate symbol of evil and darkness. Theists will mostly assume that if you can embrace Satan, you can stoop to the lowest of levels of wickedness. The rest of us get the joke, but would rather pass on this dark humor.

I feel that to embrace the scientific worldview and reject superstition is intelligence and the opposite of darkness, in fact, the brightest of lights.

Thank God For Ignorance!

At least that is what one letter-to-the-editor writer seems to be preaching. Go to this page and scroll down to College training is overrated to catch her entire rant. Here are the highlights:

I often thank the Lord, that in His Good providence, I was spared of being indoctrinated into the jaded philosophies of Darwin, Freud and Marx which are required to advance.

Of course, when I graduated from Central High, if you applied yourself, you had the equivalent of four years of college. Only the professions required advanced education. Of course, we had prayer and Bible reading then.

College omits ambition, common sense and patriotism. What you do gain is a respect for the your pumped-up air, once you are given the slap on the back from the Chief of Airs, the Ph.D.

If you have graduated from one of these institutions with a modicum of American ambition or common sense, humble yourself before the Lord and thank Him that you have passed through that fire with His Image.

Wow!

Well, what you really have here, in case you don't recognize the obvious, is the old canard that everything you need to know about life can be found in the pages of the Bible.

It's getting increasingly harder to find modern day Christians who have not made at least some attempt to reconcile with education and integrate it into their worldview, but obviously some are still out there who didn't get the memo. I know a few myself.

Almost (but not quite) as troubling is the way even Christians who embrace education still want to subordinate general knowledge (read science) to biblical teaching. Evolution can be dismissed as "Darwinism," as if it were the wild ravings of one misguided man.

And no humanistic studies of the human mind and human behavior can pass muster with them because these studies don't begin with the "biblical truth" that we are by nature fallen creatures, estranged by sin from our creator.

These are the folks who go to the polls election after election and vote for politicians who exploit wedge issues like stem cell research, gay rights, government safety nets, global warming, immigration reform, academic freedom, separation of church and state, etc., etc., etc. - all in the name of God!

Knowledge is a good thing and a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Some will never realize how much that is so because they have chosen to keep their eyes tightly squeezed shut and their ears plugged.

It's a true pity.