Letter to a Believer and a Doubter: Why (and How) I Choose to Stay Mormon

Every once in a while (and especially over the past month) I get asked the question, "Why do you post material that is critical of the church on your Facebook wall?"

That's a fair question. After all, oftentimes those with an axe to grind will post articles, pictures, memes, etc. that are intended to throw a jab or two at the Mormon religion (or any other religion for that matter). Why else would somebody post material that doesn't present Mormonism in the very best light possible? Or articles that lead the reader to ask himself/herself difficult questions that perhaps haven't been considered before?

I have been accused of being "apostate" or "deceived by Satan" probably a dozen times in the past couple of years. The accusations have come in the form of emails, Facebook comments and even being stopped in the halls of church itself. My response is usually offering a smile (unless I'm really pissed off and go into cop mode) and asking the question, "What sort of material do you think I should be posting?" The question appears to be interpreted as being rhetorical in nature, as I have yet to receive an actual response. Maybe the other person just doesn't want to "go there" and in the interest of keeping the peace they drop the matter entirely. If so, I salute them. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."

But I can't drop it and let me tell you why.

Along with those emails accusing me of apostasy, I have also received correspondence (probably three times as much) from others who share (sometimes in the strictest of confidence) their own personal struggles with church history/doctrine. They (like me) desperately look for others with whom they can express their sincere doubts, honest questions and heartfelt struggle without being accused or blamed of heresy. Usually these individuals (like me) have felt that traditional church members and church leaders were "unsafe" outlets and that full disclosure of genuine struggle over church matters could lead to more problems than solutions. As one friend has said (and I share with his/her permission), "Opening up to ward members and ward leaders is like asking Mike Tyson to take it easy on you in the ring."

By no means am I some popular guy with a following. My blog gets, at best, 50-75 hits a day and most of those are random Google searches from people who don't even know me. I'm not John Dehlin or Seth Adam Smith and I don't want to be. I write this blog because...well...I enjoy writing. Writing is an outlet and a hobby for me. I don't care who reads my material to be quite honest. But contrary to what those who accuse me of apostasy may believe, I actually do have some friends and family members and I do care deeply about them. In addition, I do care about and understand those few who have reached out to me to express their earnest desire to better comprehend the complexities of Mormon history and theology that are usually eschewed by the...shall we say..."correlated" majority. I have experienced those long, dark, empty, yet somehow sacred nights in which you can feel your soul hurt in a way you didn't think possible, and in a way few members understand. I understand the desire to sincerely dissect the issues, weight the evidence, and engage in open and safe dialogue so as to better understand the questions that naturally arise. I've been there and in some ways continue to be there.

So, in short, this is why I post "un-correlated" material (on occasion) on my Facebook wall.  I say "un-correlated" because I want to be VERY clear on a couple of things:

1.) I DO NOT have a bone to pick with the church! I am a Mormon and love being a Mormon. I sustain the local and general leaders (and I'm glad I don't have their responsibilities) and I believe (perhaps in my own unique way) in the core doctrines of the faith. I cherish my membership and the many opportunities that my participating in this faith has given me throughout my life.

2.) I believe that the greatest threats to Mormonism today are not the critics, the doubters, the skeptics, the haters, the liars, the bitter ex-Mormons or the Jack Mormons (we've had all these types for over a century now). Instead I believe that in many instances, the greatest threat to Mormonism are Mormons themselves. In short, we are sometimes our worst enemy because we simply do not or will not understand those outside of our own secure little Mormon bubble.

The "un-correlated" material to which I refer is meant to elicit a meaningful dialogue, or at least to spark some deeper thought on the part of the reader (that is my hope). It is not meant to attack belief but instead to better understand it (again, that is my hope). But most important, it is meant to extend a hand of friendship and understanding to those who struggle. I for one am unwilling to hide behind the traditional "popcorn popping on the apricot tree" rhetoric and say that "all is well in Zion." There are members out there (a growing number of them) who have real doubts and concerns that aren't the result of sin, giving into Satan or failing to read their Book of Mormon and have family prayer daily. Their doubts and concerns exist because...wait for it...there are legitimate, fundamental and substantial questions to be had! Ignoring, downplaying or pretending that the doubts of others don't exist does absolutely nothing to help them in their plight. In fact, it only makes things worse. In short, there are just as many good reasons to doubt as there are to believe the truth claims of the church. Or as Terryl Givens puts it,

The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true.  There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore the more deliberate, and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads. The option to believe must appear on one’s personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. Fortunately, in this world, one is always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

The desire to believe is not somehow more virtuous than the capacity for doubt, just as the capacity for doubt is not more virtuous than the desire to believe. Instead of seeing belief and doubt as opposing rival forces we should see them as the gatekeepers to the human heart. Again from Terryl Givens:

The call to faith, in this light, is not some test of a coy god, waiting to see if we "get it right." It is the only summons, issued under the only conditions, which can allow us fully to reveal who we are, what we most love, and what we most devoutly desire. Without constraint, without any form of mental compulsion, the act of belief becomes the freest possible projection of what resides in our hearts. Like the poet’s image of a church bell that only reveals its latent music when struck, or a dragonfly that only flames forth its beauty in flight, so does the content of a human heart lie buried until action calls it forth. The greatest act of self-revelation occurs when we choose what we will believe, in that space of freedom that exists between knowing that a thing is, and knowing that a thing is not.

In other words, the virtual tug-of-war between faith and doubt serves as a litmus test in which both faith and doubt act as virtues so long as they are both put in check. After all, having faith for the sake of faith is no virtue but instead is merely blind obedience and acceptance of what one has been told. The same is true of doubt. Electing to disbelieve, without recognizing the true virtues of honest faith, is a living example of anti-religious bias.

So what is it that I would want both the traditional believing Mormon (particularly those who accuse me of apostasy) and the sincere doubter (who occasionally emails me) to know? Above all I would hope that they would be able and willing to sit down with one another and accept one another for who they are. Sadly this rarely ever happens because both sides arrive fully loaded to the meeting. The believer is oftentimes unwilling to concede that there is ever a legitimate reason to doubt the truth claims of the church, while the doubter is oftentimes unwilling to concede that faith can and does trump reason in many instances. As a result, such a meeting ends with each camp delivering its "go to" trump card to the other and both parties departing with a greater belief that ultimate truth is on their side.  

But again, they both miss the point of both faith and doubt. As stated above, faith and doubt are NOT enemies but rather polar ends to a powerful battery that when allowed to work as designed can provide the energy to bring about great things.  

I realize that I am not going to solve this battle today and I don't want to even try. Instead, I want to leave both the traditional believing Mormon and the doubting Mormon with some of the reasons that I remain a happy and believing member of the church. After all, the reasons for choosing to stay or leave any faith are personal, so I can only speak to those things that I have experienced and that work for me. I post them here in the hopes that the true believing Mormon will be able to better understand my perspective (without resorting to the "apostasy" nonsense), and so the honest doubter will know of how I am able to "make it work." These core beliefs that I cling to are probably not your traditional "Sunday School" doctrines, but they are all VERY Mormon nonetheless. They have given me a working template on which I hope to continually build a stronger and more meaningful connection to the divine.

So, without further delay, here is my "Letter to a Believer and a Doubter."

-----------------------------------------

Dear friend,

I know that it can be tedious to talk about religion these days. We live in a world where attention spans are often short, tempers are often hot, and any measure of disagreement is met with swift and severe rebuking. We've created an "Us v. Them" dichotomy on almost every important stage of society which prohibits us from engaging in meaningful dialogue that I believe we all are craving. We lock ourselves into our safe little homes, away from our neighbors, and drown out the loneliness with partisan talk radio, apocalyptic politicians/evangelists and self help books that fail because they focus on "self" rather than on "others." In short, we have become increasingly convinced that our safe little worlds are the only remaining bastions of truth in a decaying world. We cling to them tighter than the day before because to let go of our death grip on being right is simply out of the question. We discriminate when it comes to who we let in to our safe little worlds based on how much they agree with us, because disagreement (in the enlightened modern world) has become the new scarlet letter.

And it doesn't matter what the disagreement is about. In today's world, a friend who espouses an opposing political opinion, religious creed, NFL team or diet plan is quickly dismissed. Such an enemy is "de-friended" on Facebook faster and more arbitrarily than an Internet pop-up ad. Our need to be right has made us slaves to ignorance and enemies to tolerance.   

Despite these modern cultural shifts I believe that the human heart is still very much the same as it has always been. Even though our attention is easily distracted by the newest cell phone, Facebook comment or Star Wars trailer, what we crave most is connection and reconciliation. In short, what technology and society try to give us most (greater connection and convenience) is where they deliver the least. Wal-Mart isn't a friendly experience, social media doesn't give us a social life and On-Demand media just makes us extra demanding. What we really need is what has always been in front of us:

We need each other.

But my letter today isn't intended to address the social/cultural/technological limitations of our day, so my apologies with the soap box. Instead, I hope to take the concepts mentioned above and extrapolate them to the matter at hand: how can a true believing Mormon better accept those who don't adhere to their specific world view and how can a doubter who wants to "make it work" find the faith to do so?

First, allow me to address "The Believer"

I'm going to assume that you are a reasonable person who sincerely wants to do the right things for the right reasons. You aren't perfect, of course, but you, like the majority of people in the world, are doing your level best. You want to help others where you can. You want to be open-minded. You want to make a difference in the world.

You are also a person of integrity and for that reason you hold true to that which you believe. This is evidenced more in your religious convictions than in any other part of your life. You have gained a testimony of Joseph Smith, the Restoration and of Jesus Christ's central role in that plan. These are truths that bring you greater joy than anything else in your life. Naturally, you want to share that joy and so you "let your light so shine." You are a caring parent, a loving child, a thoughtful friend and a helping hand. In short, you are an ornament of goodness that proudly hangs from God's tree of life.

You love the church and so you feel the need to protect it whenever it comes under attack. You are aware that the church's history of dealing with persecution is what caused thousands to cross the plains and settle in the West. This legacy of faith is something you cherish, so when anyone challenges the validity of these truths (whether in or out of the church) it is easy and natural for you to want to defend your faith.  

I cannot and will not question your integrity or your motives. I believe they are pure and good. But what I will ask you (for the sake of so many who have struggled) is this: are you truly concerned about your doubting brothers and sisters when they raise issues that you interpret to be attacks on the faith? Yes, you may talk about them in Ward Council Meetings or remember them in your prayers. You've probably ingested all you can from local and General leaders on how best to meet the needs of a doubting member. 

But have you ever listened to them? 

Have you considered the reasons they doubt and struggle? Have you seen the genuine anguish in their face? Have you been able to discern the honest nature of their plight? If so, it should be plain to you that their struggle is not the result of sin, laziness or the buffetings of Satan, and "cookie cutter" solutions (i.e. "just pray more," "fast about it," "read your Book of Mormon") are not what your brother/sister are needing. I'm not suggesting that you give in to their list of grievances or even entertain the specific reasons for their doubts. What I am suggesting is that instead of providing correlated solutions to un-correlated problems you first consider the following:

1.) Resist the Urge to Label Their Struggle as being "Anti-Mormon"

Believe me, they've heard this line before. Many times. And what it really means to the doubter when you say it is, "Your doubts are just silly and unfounded." In reality, the cause of a faith crisis is oftentimes church approved material. Whether it takes the form of the new church essays on difficult gospel topics, the Journal of Discourses or scripture itself doesn't really matter. When you accuse someone of studying "anti-Mormon" material you are cheapening the reason for their struggle.  

2.) Seek to Restore Trust Instead of Attacking the Cause

Regardless of what you might think, the majority of people who endure a faith crisis aren't doing it over trivial matters. Odds are they have done their homework and may even know more about church history/doctrine than you. The natural desire is to attack the cause of the faith crisis by attacking historical arguments themselves. Avoid saying things like, "You're taking things out of context" or "That isn't important for your salvation." Instead, seek to rebuild trust. This is what they are wanting most: a desire to once again trust the church.

3.) Be Open to Sincere Questions

This can be tougher than you think. When a doubting member poses an un-correlated question in Relief Society/Elder's Quorum chances are they want an answer and aren't trying to stir the pot. Assume best intent and avoid the whole, "That isn't an appropriate question for this forum." Really? Church isn't the place to ask these questions? And we wonder why so many seek other outlets to find their answers! To be sure, some questions aren't appropriate, but it really isn't that hard to distinguish between the honest seeker and someone who just wants to stir the pot.  

4.) Separate Church Culture from Church Doctrine

Like any institution, Mormonism has developed its own culture. We do things because it has become "the Mormon way." But make no mistake, many of these things are simply cultural creations. The quickest way to lose a member who is struggling with a faith crisis it to make them feel unwanted by continuing to sustain bogus cultural practices. All should be made to feel welcome in church regardless of dress, opinion, etc. As Elder Uchtdorf taught: "As disciples of Jesus Christ we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God's commandments. But we are diverse in our cultural, social and political preferences. The church thrives when we take advantage of this diversity and encourage each other to develop and use our talents to lift and strengthen our fellow disciples," Just because they aren't Mormon in the way you want them to be (or in the way the majority is) doesn't make much of a difference.  

5.) Take as Much Off the Table as Possible

There are so many historical, scientific and doctrinal issues that we as a church can and should be able to "let go" of and not worry or waste time debating.  Issues like evolution, polygamy in the afterlife, the location of Kolob, etc. are all points that miss the point. Try to avoid defining where the church officially stands on issues that either don't matter or that are impossible to define. Trust me, the doubting member already has plenty on his/her plate. We don't need to add more.

6.) They Can't Go Back but They Can Go Forward

Chances are that any member who endures a crisis of faith is going to be permanently changed. They can't go back and shouldn't be pushed to do so. This may be the hardest thing for a traditional believing member to accept. Once you've peeked through the curtain to see the Wizard of Oz chances are you will never see Oz in the same light again. Instead of sending this person on a guilt trip of shame, help them to move forward in faith. A doubting member cannot unlearn what he/she has learned.  Instead he/she must now seek to find understanding and rebuilt trust. The old frameworks, old expectations and old assumptions aren't coming back and you are wasting time and energy if you endeavor to do so. Instead encourage new paradigms and new ways of understanding.

In conclusion, remember that the "doubter," like any person, is not somebody to be defined, labeled or neatly placed into a box.  He/she is a real person with legitimate reasons for concern. As I mentioned above, there are equally good reasons to doubt the truth claims of the church just as there are equally good reasons to have faith in such claims. Your ability to recognize this fact and to treat the doubting member with love and absolute acceptance will determine a great deal moving forward.

And if they do choose to depart, don't let them depart from you. This is especially true of family members. There is no more pathetic example of Mormon hypocrisy than when a family member is made to feel shunned, marginalized, unwanted or unloved. I'd tell you what I really think of such a person but I want to keep this G-rated. Just remember that your choice to be a "good Mormon" makes you absolutely, positively, no better than the member who chooses to depart (for whatever reason). If you take one thing from my blog today let it be this: love always wins and is always the best policy.

Let me now shift gears and address those who struggle with doubt.

First, let me say that I consider you a kindred spirit. I will never understand everything you deal with but rest assured I understand a good portion of it. I have dealt with my own crisis of faith for over a decade now (reference this blog post for more specifics) and have come to know many of the issues you struggle to understand. I consider you friends and sincerely believe that you represent the best and brightest that Mormonism has to offer.

I admire your ability to look outside of the traditionally prescribed and accepted box of correlated Mormonism and to seek answers for yourself. You recognize the value of honest inquiry and the need for greater intellectual rigor.  You are to be applauded for refusing to "go with the flow" and for daring to ask the question, "What if I/we are wrong?"  Believe me when I say that I wish there were more of you out there in the church.

I know that faith is a difficult concept, especially when you see the many blemishes that obscure the "only true and living church upon the face of the earth." You have uncovered hypocrisy, familiarized yourself with REAL history, recognized the flaws in our theology and endured the finger-pointing of the majority. To borrow from Robert Frost, you have ventured down "the road less traveled" and it has "made all the difference."

Now you are at a crossroad. Do you continue down the path of honest intellectual curiosity and continue to discover the inevitable errors caused by frail and imperfect humans (many who carry the title of "Prophet")?  Do you embrace faith or abandon it completely? Is there even a place for you in a church that sometimes demands conformity?

These are questions only you can answer. Just know that even though you may feel like an outsider or an outcast, there is a place for you in this faith! I don't care what the critics tell you nor am I ignorant of the many who have been excommunicated for "apostasy" because they asked too many questions in a far too public manner. I still maintain (perhaps blindly so) that YOU ARE NEEDED in this church!!! Even if the reason is simply because I need you. I wasn't kidding when I called you a kindred spirit. I feel I can relate more to you than I can to most members.  This is why you matter so much to me. This is why I post the things I post of Facebook. I want you to know that YOU MATTER and your questions/doubts matter too.

I'm going to try and avoid giving you the textbook reasons as to why I stay in the faith. I realize that you are a thoughtful group and I appreciate that fact.  For those reasons, let me provide for you a few of the reasons I choose to stay in the faith, along with a few of the doctrines of Mormonism that I find most sublime.  

I choose to stay for community. Mormonism is my tribe. It is my native language to God. I can no more discard my Mormonism than I can discard my "American-ism." This doesn't mean that I live without struggle. I find the Mormon community to be inspiring and aggravating. Perhaps there is a reason we are organized into wards. It recreates the setting of a family. Families are complex and so are Mormon wards. In the interest of full disclosure my wife and I struggle like crazy with our current ward. We feel marginalized all the time. This struggle, however, doesn't negate the fact that this is my community. Even if I don't feel like it all the time (we hardly feel like it), this is where we ultimately belong.

I realize that this isn't necessarily profound. After all, my Mormon heritage does not oblige me to stay with the faith. I'm free to leave whenever I feel like it. But leaving, at least for me, is akin to admitting defeat. It is giving up on something because I finally discovered that it wasn't what I thought it was. For some, this is more than justifiable reason to leave. If the church isn't what they had been led to believe then the game is up. I get that. But I also believe in learning to appreciate nuance and accepting people and things for who and what they are. Nobody is perfect and all institutions are man-made, meaning they are imperfect as well. If we abandoned everything that wasn't what we hoped it would be, all of us would have to give up on our jobs, our spouses, our children, out parents, etc., etc., etc.

I choose to stay because I believe in change and want to be a part of it. We are a church that is built of the concept of continuing revelation, which really means continual change. Yes, Mormonism sometimes moves slowly and carefully towards that change, but it DOES CHANGE, and I believe for the better. We have become more inclusive, more patient, more tolerant, more loving and I have the hope that we will continue to do just that in the generations to come. The goal is progress, not perfection. I don't expect prophets to bat a perfect 1.000, nor do I expect the church to always get everything right all of the time. I would hate it if somebody gave me that standard so why would I demand it of others? As Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught:

Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fullness is poured forth, it is not the oil's fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can't quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving. 

I choose to stay Mormon because I find beneath the sometimes popular nonsense a uniquely rich and vibrant faith that is deserving of sincere study and reflection. The following are just a few of the doctrines I love most about the Mormon faith:

1.) Eternal Progression: We are taught from an early age that God has prepared for us a plan that will allow us to become more like Him. In addition, we are also taught that this life is but a drop in the bucket to our existence and that further growth and improvement will be had in the life to come. Sometimes I think we downplay just how significant the doctrine of eternal progression is in the Mormon faith. The concept of eternal progression means that even God continues to grow and improve (if that weren't the case then there would be no ETERNAL progression). Growth and change are a never-ending process.

2.) Absolute Agency: The concept of agency is, at times, a bit of a paradox to us Mormons. We cling to it when it is convenient to us but not so much when it goes against our collective desires. Regardless of this fact, Mormonism teaches that man is truly sovereign in every meaningful way. We are the captains of our own ship and as such we are free to choose for ourselves whatever path we want. But the Mormon concept of agency is much more than simple choice.  As Joseph Smith taught in his King Follett discourse:

We say that God himself is a self-existent God. Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principle? The mind of man -- the intelligent part -- is as immortal as and is coequal with God himself. I might with boldness proclaim from the housetop that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all...intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.

We have always been agents unto ourselves and always will be. This is perhaps my favorite doctrine in all the church. More on this in an upcoming blog post.

3.) Exalting the Human Body:
It was Friedrich Nietzshie, the famous philosopher, atheist and critic of organized religion who said, "I would believe only in a God that knows how to dance." Amen, my dear atheist. Amen. One of the most sublime teaching of Mormonism is that the body is a gift from God. In fact, to become like God one must have  a glorified and perfected body. Though most Christian faiths preach resurrection, they still, at times, treat the body like a temporary shell that we simply must deal with, but thankfully will discard in the world to come. Not so in Mormonism. One of the main reasons for this life was to obtain a body. We see the body as divine and as being necessary for growth. We teach of a God who has a body of flesh and bone and also of passions. The human body gives us those passions and as a result gives us progression. Instead of merely dealing with the human body, Mormonism celebrates it as divinely appointed and necessary to our growth and progression.

4.) The Ultimate Gatekeepers of Grace:
The Mormon faith places a great deal of emphasis on the importance of works and rightfully so. But we are also a religion that deeply adheres to the doctrine of grace. Instead of going into greater detail I will refer you to the following talk by Brad Wilcox, who explains this better than I ever could:



5.) Universalist Approach to Salvation:
As elitist and as exclusive as Mormonism may seem, the fact is we are (or at least should be) the ultimate Universalists on the planet. As Joseph Smith taught, "God will fetter out every individual soul."  In other words, everyone is going to have every possible chance to "make it back" to our Heavenly home. If this wasn't the case, God isn't much of a God at all.  Mormonism, no matter how you slice it, is a Universalist faith.

And finally, I choose to stay Mormon because in it I have found Jesus. If there is a single gift that I appreciate most about having endured a faith crisis it is this: my loyalty will never rest with Mormonism or any other creed; my loyalties rest with Jesus. I don't shy from admitting that I have put all my eggs into the Jesus basket because I believe He is a surefire win no matter what. To the believer, Christ represents the atoning Savior of Mankind. To the skeptic, he represents, oftentimes, the very best of human philosophy. To quote James E. Talmage from his book, Jesus the Christ: "even the blasphemer recognizes the supreme nature and message of the very name of the man he desecrates." I believe very strongly that both devout believer, honest skeptic and everyone in between should strive to never let their Mormonism get in the way of their Christianity. After all, Mormonism, like any creed, saves nobody. It is in Jesus alone that salvation is to be found. As the Book of Mormon teaches, "hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in the words believe in Christ."  If Jesus is all that is left that is more than enough! In the end, everything else is colored bubbles anyway.

In conclusion (and I've certainly gone on for long enough) I want to share the following picture:

This medallion and cross is something I wear with me almost every day.  I do so because it reminds me of a couple of things: first, the cross is obviously a reminder that it is Jesus in whom I place my trust. The medallion is actually called a Jupiter talisman. Most are probably not aware of what a Jupiter talisman is so let me briefly explain. A Jupiter talisman is essentially a "good luck charm" that has its roots in pagan and folk magic practices.  Joseph Smith owned and wore one throughout his life, He was actually wearing his Jupiter talisman when he was murdered at Carthage. Joseph Smith wore his because his life and his religious experience were deeply rooted and affected by the practice of folk magic that was common in 19th century America (this is why Smith used a seer stone throughout his life as well).  Don't worry, this is the only less-than-pleasant tidbit of Mormon history that I plan on mentioning today.

So why do I have and wear a Jupiter talisman? I do not prescribe to folk magic or pagan ideology so clearly my Jupiter talisman carries no special powers in my mind. It's just a simple medallion.  I wear it because it serves to remind me that religion...all religion...is full of the crazy, the inexplicable and the downright bizarre. Once you go down the rabbit-hole of religion, you go DOWN the rabbit-hole. This is something I believe both devout believers and honest skeptics should keep ever-present in their minds. None of us will ever have all the answers we want, nor will we ever be able to conclusively prove what we believe.

Whether we embrace the "rational" disciplines of history, science, etc., or we place our faith in the symbols of the Christian cross, the Jupiter talisman or crazy seer stones, the lesson is not WHAT truth we believe but HOW we let that truth change us. If we stand for our beliefs while driving others who believe differently away from us then we missed the point of Jesus' message entirely. If we choose to be more critical and carry a skeptic's perspective, yet mock those of faith then you're just as much of a hypocrite. The goal is to live in harmony with each other, in the same way faith and doubt learn to co-exist. That's the great message of both religion and rational inquiry...

...at least that's what my seer stone told me.  =)

"Drinking the Kool-Aid": Lessons From Jonestown

Thirty-five years ago today, 918 people lost their lives in what became known as the "Jonestown Massacre."  Until September 11, 2001, the Jonestown Massacre held the unfortunate distinction of being the event that resulted in the largest loss of life among American civilians.

It is from this horrible incident that we draw the metaphor, "drinking the Kool-Aid," because the victims of this terrible tragedy drank a poisoned concoction that combined Kool-Aid and cyanide.

Virtually all of us see Jonestown for what it ultimately was: a horrific cult whose membership had been brainwashed by their evil leader, Jim Jones. Most of us would like to think that we would be intelligent enough to avoid becoming members of such an organization.  After all, only "crazy people" join cults, right?

Wrong.

The members of the "Peoples Temple" (this was the official name of Jim Jones' movement) came from all walks of life.  Though it is true that the majority of its members came from blue collar roots, the Peoples Temple also had members who were employed as doctors, teachers, bankers and even a couple of lawyers.  Simply put, Jim Jones' message appealed to a wide range of people from all walks of life.

And who could blame them?  Here are just a few of the more popular teachings of Jim Jones (keep in mind, Jones founded his organization in 1955 and many of these beliefs were cutting edge for the day):

-God wanted racial integration and for all people to be treated equal.
-Poverty and hunger are unacceptable to God and should be eradicated by any true disciple of Jesus Christ.
-We should all live together and attempt to establish a Utopian society that is free of social status, hunger and poverty.
-We are to be "in the world" but not "of the world," meaning that true disciples will band together, regardless of race, and work to shed the evil ways of the world.
-All men are created equal under God, and deserve the chance to fully develop themselves as they see fit.

Not exactly the ranting of a madman, right!?!

So why then did the Peoples Temple movement degenerate into utter chaos and downright madness?  This has, of course, been a topic of conversation for many sociologists, psychologists, historians and theologians for nearly four decades, and it will likely continue for many more in the future.  Obviously we have to recognize the leadership abilities of Jim Jones and his capacity to persuade his flock as being a major contributing factor, but at the same time we cannot give him all of the credit.  Why is is that people, intelligent and dim-witted, get sucked into groups like these? Do such groups exist today? How do you recognize them? Might we unknowingly be members of such groups right now?  All of these questions are worthy of consideration.

According to the research of Dr. Janja Lalich and Dr. Michael Langone, two Ph.D. Professors of Psychology who have studied the characteristics of cults in great detail, it can be difficult to conclusively pin down a cult, since many organizations (even businesses, musicians and professional athletic teams) exhibit cult-like behaviors or have cult-like followings.  With that said, they do provide a few key characteristics that all cult organizations seem to have in common.  They are:

1.) Excessive, zealous and unquestioning commitment to a leader, who is not accountable to anyone in the organization (and in some cases society at large).
2.) Mind-altering practices (i.e. meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, debilitating work routines) used to suppress doubt about the group and its leader.
3.) Leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, feel, etc., and defends it with severe punishments for violation of these new rules.
4.) The group becomes elitist, claiming special or exalted status for its members and leaders over the rest of humanity.  This creates an "us v. them" mentality in which members of the cult see outsiders as undesirable and potentially dangerous.
5.) The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends and purpose justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in activities that most would deem reprehensible or unethical (i.e. suicide bombing).
6.) Leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and control its members.
7.) The group becomes preoccupied with bringing in new members.
8.) The group is preoccupied with making money.
9.) Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group or group-related activities.

Dr. Ron Rhodes, an Evangelical minister, essentially agrees with the assessment above, but simplifies what he sees as cult-like behaviors into 6 key attributes: Authoritarian leadership, exclusivity, isolationism, fear of being "disfellowshiped," threats of satanic attack, and opposition to critical thinking.  In essence, both the scientific perspective of professional psychologists and the appraisal of religious leaders are in agreement on this matter.

Personally, I agree with the assessments mentioned above. In my estimation, all cults exhibit these attributes.  I do not, however, believe that we should liberally apply these categories to all alleged cults.  In fact, I believe that the term "cult" is used far too freely in the world today and in reality, very few organizations can and should be considered true cults.

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) I have seen how the term "cult" can be applied in a wanton and reckless manner.  Whether it be Pastor Robert Jeffress' accusation during the Romney campaign or the Reed Smoot hearings in which many members of Congress made the same allegations, the term "cult" is oftentimes employed as a "scary word" to invoke shock more than being a true appraisal of an organization's actual behavior.

With that being said, and instead of arbitrarily pointing fingers at which groups are and are not cults, I believe that a far better way to learn from cults like Jonestown is to focus on the behaviors of the individual as opposed to the group as a whole.  Too often we lump people in with others simply by their association with a group or cause.  And though it is true that association can tell us a great deal about an individual, it is a far too simplistic method of understanding why people do what they do. After all, most followers of the Jonestown community were good, honest and sincere people who left long before the Peoples Temple ventured down the path of the insane.

What I am ultimately trying to say is this: instead of labeling a group or organization as being cult-like, perhaps the correct course of action is to assess the behaviors of individuals (and certainly assess our own behaviors by looking inside ourselves) to determine if they are cult-like.  For example, a devout follower of liberal or conservative politics, who cannot or will not even consider the opinions of those who do not share his/her views, is, in my opinion, drinking the Kool-Aid every bit as much as his/her Jonestown counterpart.  Does this make the Democratic/Republican Party a cult?

Or take the example of my faith, which as I have mentioned above has been accused of being a cult on numerous occasions.  To be certain, there are Mormons out there (I know many of them) who esteem their leaders as demigods, who become elitist in their views, who believe that only fellow Mormons will be saved in heaven, etc., etc., etc.  They are, however, the exception and not the rule.  Most Mormons are free thinking, non-elitist and at least try their best to accept all people and views.  They come from different walks of life and have differences of opinion (i.e. Mitt Romney v. Harry Reid).  They participate in many different types of activities, jobs and trades (everything from Quarterback Steve Young to lead singer Brandon Flowers of The Killers).

And it's not just faith traditions that could be (at least according to the guidelines listed above) considered cult-like.  Take for instance many atheists, who esteem the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. above all others.  Many will become elitist in their world view, never questioning the "doctrines" of atheism as prescribed by science.  They see their world view as being THE WORLD VIEW and all others are either diluted in their thinking or too stupid to reach their level of "enlightenment."

Of course, I'm not suggesting that Democrats, Republicans, Mormons or atheists are cults, but I am suggesting that many of their respective followers are often very cult-like in their world view and behavior.  They drink the "Kool-Aid" of their respective "creeds" every bit as much as the Jonestown dead.

I think my point here is clear (or at least I hope it is).  Though cult-like organizations certainly exist and need to be opposed, they are few and far between.  What is far more prevalent is the existence of cult-like individuals, who adopt absolutist mentalities about their respective positions, creating an "Us v. Them" mentality in the process.  They fully drink the Kool-Aid, oftentimes unaware of the poison that exists therein.  They allow personal pride, peer pressure and cognitive dissonance to convince them that their way is THE WAY.  And these cult-like people are everywhere: in business, politics, religion, science, etc.  The key to guarding against this plague is to recognize the poison that exists in every single batch of Kool-Aid.  As Author Robert Anton Wilson put it:

Only the madman is absolutely sure.

Religion v. Science

and the Pitfalls of Literalism
in Both Camps

This past week I purchased a book on my Kindle Fire (thank you, God for the Kindle Fire) that I have been wanting to read for quite a long time: Proof of Heaven by Ebon Alexander. The book chronicles the alleged near-death experience of Dr. Alexander, a revered neurosurgeon who fell into a deep coma that completely rendered his neocortex (the part of the brain that allegedly controls human conscience) completely inactive.

Of course, there is nothing unique about Dr. Alexander's claims of his "spirit" journeying to the beyond.  Thousands of people from all cultures have made such claims.  But there are a few special circumstances surrounding Dr. Alexander's account.  First, it is a documented fact that the "thinking" parts of Dr. Alexander's brain were totally shut down for at least seven days.  Second, as an accredited neurosurgeon, who has lectured at schools like Harvard and Yale, Dr. Alexander was inherently a skeptic of things like near-death experiences.  As a result, Dr. Alexander attempts to analyze his experience through the lens of a scientist as opposed to the traditional approach that most survivors of NDE's take.

With all of this being said, I wish I could report that I found Dr. Alexander's book particularly enlightening.  Sadly, I was very disappointed.  The book, which seemed more like a bio of Dr. Alexander's life rather than an account of his experience, was, for me, a huge let down.  I also found little scientific analysis into his experience (for example, Dr. Alexander stated that "all of his questions" were answered by "god" but he never tells us what those questions were.  Not very "scientific.").  Long story short, the book was a lot of fluff with very little substance (in my opinion).

Anyway, the intent of this blog post is not to provide a review of Dr. Alexander's book.  I mention it here as a lead-in to a much larger and more difficult topic that never seems to go away: the topic of religion v. science and how both sides cooperate/clash with one another.  And whether you believe him or not, Dr. Alexander's story is the perfect illustration of just how messy this topic can be.  Even though most of us will never have the "privilege" of experiencing a NDE like Dr. Alexander, we all come to the same crossroad that he arrived at: where does human reason and scientific inquiry end and divine light and spiritual faith begin?

Of course, there is no possible way to answer this question and my simple little blog post will do little to address it today, but I do think we can clarify a few of the "rules of the game" that I find particularly troubling.  After all, it is impossible to even attempt an honest discussion on an issue like this if both sides cannot agree on a general code of conduct.  This is my goal today.

The first fact we must accept is that religion and science, though operating on fundamentally different playing fields, are essentially two different languages trying to tell the same general story: who are we? where did we come from? where are we going?  Religion, which is inherently dogmatic, resistant to change and often dictatorial in nature, provides a nuanced view on things like morality, kindness, charity and forgiveness, and the eternal value these intangible attributes have over what the palpable world offers.  Science, on the other hand, is self-reflective, always changing and based on verifiable realities, which places almost all value upon the provable, observable and rational.

And though these differences in approach to truth seem to regularly lead both parties into a head-on collision with one another, I believe that most of the wreckage comes as a result of both parties being either unwilling to concede any ground on even the most basic of principles and/or taking ridiculous cheap shots at the other side's weakest elements.

Take for example the works of scientists like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan: two men whom I admire for their scientific expertise and prowess with the written and spoken word.  Few men in the scientific world have the ability to inspire and persuade as Dawkins and Sagan do.  But their powerful prose notwithstanding, I am regularly disappointed to see these (and other) accredited scientists resorting to childish attacks on the low-lying fruit of religion.  They treat religion with such blatant contempt that it becomes impossible for them to be truly "scientific."  In other words, they take the worst of religion, portray it as a rigid monolith, that when compared with the best of science (which is fluid and evolving) makes any and all believers look like ridiculous, uninformed buffoons.  Such an approach is both unscientific and immature, and certainly unworthy of "sophisticated" minds like those of Dawkins and Sagan.  It is cheap shot, bush league nonsense.  In short, men like Dawkins and Sagan may be/have been great scientists, but they are/were piss-poor theologians.

But as is the case with any dysfunctional debate, it takes two sides to tango.  When we look at religion's contempt for science, we often see reason and common sense being replaced with suspicion and paranoia masquerading as "faith."  Religious leaders, bent on preserving the "integrity" of their holy books, resort to some of the most ridiculous arguments in human history.  Men like Ken Ham, who cannot accept the FACT that the world is billions of year old, have twisted reality to such an appalling level all in the name of protecting the Bible.  Such a narrow-minded view of reality, all in the name of literal biblical Christianity, is an embarrassment to religious people everywhere.  For men like Ken Ham the bottom line is this: Religion has had to concede so much ground over the years because of the FACT that so much has been proven wrong.  To believe, in the modern era, that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, living in a perfect garden only 6,000 years ago, until a talking snake convinced Eve to eat a naughty apple, thereby causing death and sin to enter the picture, which eventually caused a man named Noah to build a magic ark to save all animals from a global flood, isn't an example of a person's faith; it's an illustration of a person's ignorance.

But there can be a balance between both science and religion.  As Galileo stated during his bogus trial:

The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go...In my mind God wrote two books. The first book is the Bible, where humans can find the answers to their questions on values and morals.  The second book of God is the book of nature, which allows humans to use observations and experiment to answer our own questions about the universe.

Admittedly, there is a lot wrong with Galileo's summation, but I think that we all can see what he was getting at.  At the risk of sounding insensitive to scriptural literalists, taking the Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon or any other holy book as literal, factual undeniable truth is, at best, stupid.  But to discredit the moral lessons found in scripture for those same reasons is equally stupid, and the scientists who regularly slam scripture for such reasons would do well to watch their tongue.  After all, I wonder how scientists might react if theologians were to judge their mistakes by the same standard.  Whether taking the form of alchemy, the four humors, social Darwinism, or bloodletting (which killed our first president), science hasn't exactly batted 1.000 either and would be equally wrong to claim literalism.

Of course, Science doesn't judge itself by as strict a literalist standard and does a MUCH better job of learning from its mistakes than does religion.  After all, science doesn't claim to know the will of God.  But science does make it a regular practice to discredit that which requires faith, as if faith were a hindrance to an honest quest for truth.  But such an approach makes a mockery out of some of the basic elements of humanity...that being primarily our HUMANITY.  As Emily Dickinson wrote:

Faith -- is the Pierless Bridge
Supporting what We see
Unto the Scene that We do not --
Too slender for the eye

It bears the Soul as bold
As it were rocked in Steel
With Arms of Steel at either side --
It joins -- behind the Veil

To what, could We presume
The Bridge would cease to be
To Our far, vacillating Feet
A first Necessity.

So if taking too literal of a religious or scientific approach is a bad thing then what is the solution?  I'm not sure there is one.  Perhaps it would be a good starting point for both religion and science to take the best from one another.  Science would do well to recognize that there is much about the world that is not provable, verifiable or testable but is still a reality (dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity, etc.) and that much of what religion esteems of worth (kindness, charity, etc.) cannot be tested in a laboratory.  There is real value to sincere prayer, meditation, positive thought, and devout devotion.  To simply say, "I don't need church" is far too simplistic.  Sure, I would agree that one can live a good life without a faith, but a faith doesn't hurt.  In fact, it helps...a helluva lot.  As a recent Gallup poll shows, those who go to church are, by and large, happier, more successful and more charitable.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Attending church, like attending school, helps us to grow our understanding of what faith really is.  Benamin Franklin once stated that, "Genius, without education, is like silver still trapped in the mine."  Might I be so bold as to say that faith/hope/charity, without religion, is like silver still trapped in the mine as well.

On the flip side, religion would do well to recognize that science has CONCLUSIVELY proven some of religion's most archaic ideas and teachings to be completely untrue.  As a result, religion is going to have to learn how to be flexible.  This is where science blows religion away.  Nobody (or at least very few) in the scientific community get as crazy as those of the religious community when their ideas/beliefs are challenged.  Science is about challenging EVERYTHING, and religion would do well to challenge at least a few things.  As Thomas Jefferson apty stated:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.  Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

Questioning things is not a sign of weakness or a lack of faith.  In fact, I believe that an argument can be made that any faith, without a healthy dose of honest skepticism, isn't really faith at all.  It is both right and good that we change how we think about the nature of God.  For example the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god doesn't even exist in the oldest Hebrew texts of the Bible.  It may just be a mistake based on the Aristotelian thought of the Medieval era that God was nothing more than a mystical but simple unmoved mover.  Perhaps he isn't the celestial dictatorial magician we think He is but rather a teacher, motivator and persuader of good?

The bottom line is this: anyone who insists upon taking an absolute, literalist approach to either religion or science could probably benefit from learning a little more about religion and/or science.  After all, there is little REAL merit in the atheist argument that tries to explain away religious belief through reason and psychology.  To the believer know this: you don't have to listen to their ilk.  In the end, all they are saying is something like this:

"I'm an atheist because I am strong, rational and thoughtful; you're a believer because you are all about wish fulfillment and emotional response.  Therefore religious people are weaker, less sophisticated and more prone to deception that us atheists." 

Again, the Carl Sagan's and Richard Dawkins's of the world are far more eloquent in how they say it, but make no mistake; this is EXACTLY what they are saying...and it's bullshit.

And for the religious zealot who rebukes any and all verifiable claims of science by simply regurgitating the line, "because the Bible says so," all I can say is...GOD HELP YOU!  Your INTENTIONAL stupidity does your cause no good, but instead weakens the hand you have been dealt. Instead of taking such a hard-lined stance on what your holy book says, try to simply accept truth wherever it can be found.  I've often wondered as to whether or not biblical literalists believe in Jesus or in the Bible?  Or if Muslim literalists believe in Allah or the Qur'an?  In other words, has your holy book become such an idol for worship that you cannot look past it any longer?  Are you seriously that diluted in your thinking?

I don't mean to be harsh but sometimes harsh speech can shake people from apathy.  I think I have said enough.  Instead, let me leave you with the words of astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, from his excellent book, Death by Black Hole.  He writes:

Let there be no doubt that as they are currently practiced, there is no common ground between science and religion...history reveals a long and combative relationship between religion and science, depending on who was in control of society at the time.  The claims of science rely on experimental verification, while those of religion rely on faith.  These are fundamentally irreconcilable approaches to knowing, which ensures an eternity of debate wherever and whenever the two camps meet.  Although just as in hostage negotiations, it's probably best to keep both sides talking to each other.

I couldn't agree more.  What is most important is that we keep talking...a lot...and often.  Both sides stand to lose too much by backing into their respective caves and relying exclusively on their own "truths."  Or as Albert Einstein put it, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."  In conclusion, I leave you with the words of the good Doctor Ebon Alexander.  Perhaps his near-death experience illustrates the strange but important dichotomy that exists between religion and science better than I originally thought:

Today many believe that the living spiritual truths of religion have lost their power, and that science, not faith, is the road to truth. Before my experience I strongly suspected that this was the case myself. 

But I now understand that such a view is far too simple. The plain fact is that the materialist picture of the body and brain as the producers, rather than the vehicles, of human consciousness is doomed. In its place a new view of mind and body will emerge, and in fact is emerging already. This view is scientific and spiritual in equal measure and will value what the greatest scientists of history themselves always valued above all: truth.

Only time will tell I suppose.

Christopher Hitchens Strikes Out on Thomas Jefferson

One of my favorite things about early American religious history (one of my favorite topics to study) is the juxtaposition of actual history with the rhetoric of today's culture warriors who pose as historians. When pseudo-historians like David Barton or Howard Zinn present their cases to a historically illiterate public, they do so knowing that most of the resistance they will meet will come in the form of watered-down political/religious rhetoric that usually fizzles out somewhere on the never-ending highway of cable news and talk radio. And though most choose to accept the rhetoric of their chosen "team" in this never-ending culture war, I believe that it is still important to at least attempt to expose the historical faux pas wherever they may creep up. Whether it be a strange Glenn Beck rant or a Peter Lillback blunder, I believe that the "umpires" of history should call these impostors out whenever possible.

And today, I believe we have found another batter, who despite his massive swing and impressive batting average, has whiffed on a pitch that he promised to take yard. In one of his last works of mortality, Christopher Hitchens, the Late, great intellectual and atheist extraordinaire, elected to stand in the box and take a few swings at the religious legacy of one Thomas Jefferson. In his 2009 biography on Jefferson, Hitchens claimed that he wanted to present a more nuanced view of his subject than is usually found in the works of Jefferson critics and worshipers. Despite this claim, Hitchens' work quickly diverts from his supposed path of objectivity and travels head-on into an inevitable collision with modern pop-culture, thus rendering the work to be of little historical value. Aside from its strange conclusions on Jefferson's relationships with his mother and with Meriwhether Lewis, not to mention its lack of historical perspective on slavery, Indians, etc., Hitchens' book makes some astonishing claims in the very department that Hitchens loves/hates most: religion.

Right from the start, it becomes very obvious that Hitchens is attempting to "claim" Jefferson for the atheist camp more than he is trying to let Jefferson speak for himself. Hitchens somehow feels qualified to read between the lines of Jefferson's public and private declarations on religion, which affords him the ability to claim atheism where no atheism is to be had. For example, when discussing the final days of Jefferson's life, Hitchens writes:

(Pp. 182).

As his days began to wane, Jefferson more than once wrote to friends that he face the approaching end without either hope or fear. This was as much as to say, in the most unmistakable terms, that he was not a Christian. As to whether he was an atheist, we must reserve judgement if only because of the prudence he was compelled to reserve during his political life

In other words, Hitchens says, "Jefferson was probably an atheist but he couldn't admit it, due to his political duties."

And though it is true that Jefferson was far from being a Christian in any traditional way, to claim that Jefferson invoked religion purely for political reasons is reading between the lines. Virtually everything that Jefferson ever wrote on his personal religious beliefs reveal a private devotion to a providential god of nature, not a rejection of deity. So, while Hitchens was right to say that we must "reserve judgement" on Jefferson's religion, he could have done without the followup lines on political prudence being the exclusive reasons behind Jefferson's approval of religion.

***Strike 1***

Along with his weak attempt at portraying Thomas Jefferson as a closet atheist, Hitchens also fumbles the ball on his interpretation of deism. For Hitchens, deism of the 18th century was a strict belief in the absence of God from human affairs. No product of the Enlightenment could believe in any form of an intervening providential God and claim deism. This later proves problematic for Hitchens when he tries to classify Jefferson's public profession of faith (because he was privately an atheist) as deism, since Jefferson himself seemed to believe in a god who participated in human affairs:

(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18).

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever

***STRRRRRRIKE 2***

And finally, Hitchens takes his final hack of the bat when he incorrectly interprets Jefferson's motives for rewriting the Bible to his own liking. Hitchens claims that Jefferson's creation of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was meant to "[Throw] away all of the superfluous, ridiculous and devotional parts" of the Bible, and expunge "all mentions of angels, miracles and the resurrection" all in an effort to to separate "reason from faith." And though it is true that Jefferson removed many of the New Testament miracles, not all of the "ridiculous and devotional parts" were taken out. For example, Jefferson's "Bible" retains Jesus' emphasis on prayer, along with the blessings that come as a result. Jefferson's Bible also retains many of the teachings on the Father and the Holy Ghost, and their role(s) in assisting mankind. And perhaps most striking, Jefferson's Bible retains the belief that Jesus Christ himself will one day return to earth to judge mankind.

So much for the Jefferson Bible doing away with "all ridiculous and devotional parts." (Hat tip: M. DeForrest).

STRIKE 3. You're OUT!!!***

In summation, though Hitchens was a brilliant speaker, debater, writer and intellectual, he was not a historian. His biography (which really shouldn't even be considered a real biography but more of a "treatment") of Jefferson does not add much to the historiography of one of America's greatest statesmen. Regardless of this fact, Hitchens' book, like so many others from fellow culture warriors on both sides, is likely to influence many who regard history as the pursuit of "presentist" agendas mingled with the past. For me the book is pretty much on an equal footing with anything written by David Barton, Peter Lillback or Howard Zinn: on demand, fast food, quick fix, feel good, pill-that-numbs-the-pain, diluted commentary, camouflaged as history.

"Let There Be Light": The Big Bang, Evolution, God and Creation, Part I

Part I: An Introduction Into
The Pretended War Between
Religion and Science

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

This short sentence has caused more controversy than perhaps any other sentence in Western literature. The natural questions which have arisen over centuries of debate on this passage have obviously centered on how God actually went about creating the heaven and the earth. Did he magically snap is fingers and say, "It is well"? Or were the natural laws of science the primary conductors of creation?

Of course, these questions force us down the road to where the intersection between religion and science regularly collide in a violent head-on crash. Ever since Nicolaus Copernicus looked into his telescope back in 1609 and discovered that the earth was not at the center of the universe (a discovery that greatly angered the church and cost Copernicus his freedom), religion and science have been engaged in a tug-o-war for exclusive rights to the ultimate origins of man and the universe. Even 400 years after Copernicus, despite all of our advancement and discovery, mankind is still engaged in this same tug-o-war which has spread into our schools, communities and even our politics.

But this supposed tug-o-war is, in reality, an illusion.

Though I am not a scientist (far from it actually) I recognize that there are some basic facts that cannot be refuted no matter how much we want to believe otherwise. For example, our earth is a spherical object (7,926.41 miles in diameter) that orbits the sun at approximately 67,062 miles per hour. Of course, these are facts that almost nobody debates. But 400 years ago, such a claim could land a person in prison and even end with their excommunication and death. Today no religious figure would be so foolish as to suggest that the earth is flat or at the center of the universe, nor would they suggest imprisonment and death for those who believed otherwise. We have moved past such trivial debates.

But other trivial debates still remain.

First off, I fully recognize that my take on this topic could be construed as offensive to some, but I hope you will believe me when I say that I mean no disrespect. Every man/woman is entitled to believe as he/she sees fit. Religion is a personal endeavor of faith; and faith, as Jesus said, can move mountains. With that said, I also believe the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan who stated that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Regardless of what we believe, some scientific facts are undeniable.

Such is the case with evolution. Ever since the days of Charles Darwin, scientists have been putting together the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle, and their work has yielded incredible fruit. Today, scientists have been able to map the human genome, illustrate our development via fossil records, calculate the age of rocks and bones with advanced atomic testing methods, explain the natural functions of the universe, etc., etc., etc. Simply put, the debate over the reality of evolution is closed. Yet despite these fantastic discoveries some still maintain that science is wrong, while a literal interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago is right.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not a hater of the Bible. In fact, I believe that the Bible has brought more people happiness and joy than any other book in human history. Those who knock the Bible usually are the same people who have never read it or attempted to understand it. With that said, my original statement stands: I cannot, in good conscience, accept a literal interpretation of scripture (scripture that was written by those of late antiquity and translated over and over again) as the exclusive authority on matters that are scientifically proven to be false. At the same time, I refuse to accept the belief of many within the scientific community which suggests that scripture (and even religion as a whole) is somehow outdated, irrelevant and thus unworthy of our devotion. Such a conclusion seems, in my view, to actually be quite UN-scientific and downright arrogant.

This is why I stated that this "tug-o-war" between religion and science is an illusion. In reality, we require both to help us understand who we are and where we came from. Though religion and science may appear different on the surface, the fact of the matter is that they were made for each other. There is no REAL debate between religion and science because God is the author of science. The natural laws which created the universe and humanity are His laws. The Big Bang was His doing and Evolution is His handiwork.

Of course, this probably isn't going to sit well with many devout scientists and religious zealots but I don't care. These are my views and I am sticking to them. I for one am sick and tired of hearing people on both sides insist that they alone are right, while the other side is wrong. It's time we quit throwing the baby out with the bathwater and accept that both sides have much to offer. As Albert Einstein put it, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Science needs to learn that despite all it has proven, it cannot observe faith in a petri dish. It will never be able to explain the intangible truths of the universe or the infinite strivings of the human spirit. In short, science's biggest hurdle is accepting the fact that observable facts are not the only facts that can be observed.

On the flip side, religion must accept the fact that the stories found in scripture are ancient man's attempt to explain his origins. Obviously, ancient man didn't have the scientific understanding we possess today. As a result, his stories explaining mankind's origins (chiefly those from the Book of Genesis) are founded in innocent ignorance. After all, how could those of late antiquity possibly understand the Big Bang, natural selection, DNA, etc.? But this does not give today's devout believer a pass. In our modern era we have been given (thanks to God) and incredible amount of knowledge that no other society could even dream of. We know with 100% certainty that the earth isn't 6,000 years old (more like 4.5 billion), that snakes can't talk and that modern Homo Sapiens have their origins not in a garden but on the African plains roughly 200,000 years ago.

If our goal is truly to come to a better understanding of who we are and why we are here (the ultimate question that both religion and science tries to answer) we need not turn a blind eye to the beauty of religious faith and the discovery of scientific research. To do so is to see the world only in black and white. And unfortunately it is the extremists on both ends, who insist on this black and white view of the world, who are causing all of the controversy. We will only see the amazing tapestry of colors that is the creation of humanity and the universe when we reject the all-or-nothing nonsense of the secular scientist and the religious radical.

To my ultra-religious friends I say this: It is time to do away with the childish understandings of ancient man and to accept the knowledge of our present day. As 1 Corinthians 13: 11 states:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Stop and ask yourself why you believe evolution to be such an affront to your faith. Is your belief in God so dependant on literal interpretation of ancient works that you are rendered incapable of accepting and understanding the truths of evolution and science? How is your belief in a God, who simply snaps his fingers, creates the world in six days, takes a nap on the seventh (because nothing says omnipotent like needing to check out for a day or so), and introduces evil to the world via a talking snake and a naughty apple, any less relevant than a belief in a God who brings about the beauty of the world via evolution and natural law?

To my secular scientific friends, who rely exclusively on the merits of "rational" thought and "observable" facts I would ask this: Why does your "reasonable" understanding of things entitle you to belittle those of faith? Are you so arrogant as to think that those who believe in God are simply delusional by choice, since they believe in that which is intangible to the scientific method? By what scientific data are you able to justify your mockery of those who claim a deep, intimate spiritual connection with the divine? Can you offer up anything of substance other than "it's just an emotional reaction"? The reality is that in your quest to disprove that which cannot be seen with a microscope or tested in a laboratory, you have actually added credence to faith. You have proven that we cannot discredit any theory until it has been thoroughly tested. And for the believer, the theory of God is tested (and proved) on a daily basis. It is proven in the answer to a simple prayer. It is proven in the acts of charity of a neighbor. It is proven in the hope for a life after death. In short, the faithful have been using your methods long before science came on the scene. Or as NASA Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow stated:

The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

In conclusion, let us quit buying into the stupid rhetoric brought on by the zealots and the culture warriors who insist upon the myth that religion and science are somehow opposing forces. Instead, let us think of religion and science as peanut butter and jelly. Though on the surface they look, taste, smell and feel completely different, nobody will debate that peanut butter and jelly are made for one another. I leave you with the words of Pope John Paul II:

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish...We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be.

***This is the first post in a new series on science, religion, God and creation. In part II I will address how the different religious and scientific interpretations of the creation of the world (the Genesis story) can help us develop a better understanding of things when they are taken together as opposed to at odds with one another.***

Wood/Hitchens on Religion and America's Founding

Sorry for my absence from blogging. Life has just been busy. In an effort to return to my blogging roots I have decided to post the following videos. The first is of renowned early American historian Gordon Wood (my favorite American historian). In the video, Dr. Wood discusses the role that religion played during the founding of America. The second video is of well-know atheist Christopher Hitchens, who discusses the same thing.

What I find interesting in these two videos is that both men draw some of the same conclusions but from different angles. Wood makes it clear, from a historical perspective, that religion was a big deal for the American masses, but that the key Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Madison, etc.) held reservations as to how religion was to be treated in a republic. Essentially Wood makes it clear that though skeptical of organized religion, the Founders understood that religion (in the general sense) was necessary for a republic to survive. On the other hand, Hitchens argues that the founders saw religion as a threat to any free society, and endeavored to have its power and influence put in check. Take a look:

Wood:


Hitchens:


Now it might be our nature to give Wood more credit than Hitchens, since he's a historical juggenraut and doesn't have the disdain for religion that Hitchens exhibits on a regular basis. I myself admit that I agree more with Wood's synopsis. However, Hitchens does make some valid points that Wood himself makes from a different angle. Hitchens is right when he points out that the founders saw organized, government-sanctioned religion as a terrible threat to the infant republic. But Hitchens' assumption that the key founders detested religion in the general sense just isn't true. As Wood points out, religion was still a big deal to the masses of colonial America, and as the infant U.S. became more democratic, their religious zeal found new outlets, hense the massive Evangelical explosion of the early 1800s (not to forget the explosion by other groups like the Mormons, Shakers, etc.).

America's National Day of (Fighting Over) Prayer

If you've followed my posts over the past couple of years it should come as no surprise that I absolutely, 100% reject the "America is a Christian Nation" nonsense. My reasons for such a stance are many (and I won't dive into them today) but sufficeth me to say that I believe such as stance is actually quite anti-Christian in nature. With that said, I don't want to be misunderstood here. This does not mean that I believe religion played no role in the founding of America. Quite the contrary. I believe it was (and still is) a fundamental component of American republicanism; one that we cannot and should not do without. Religious freedom and diversity is as important to us as are our separation of powers.

And I don't believe I am alone in my beliefs. The role of religion has always been a difficult juggling act throughout American history. The question of when and how religion can be taken too far (or not far enough) in relation to government was a question even our Founding Fathers wrestled with. And in our modern era the story is no different.

Which bring us to May 6, 2010. Today is, by presidential proclamation, the National Day of Prayer. And as can be expected, the typical pro and con voices of "reason" have emerged to support/lament this time-honored practice of fighting over prayer, more specifically prayer being sanctioned by government officials. And though I tend to oppose the "Christian Nation" crowd on a regular basis, I am choosing to stand with them today. The National Day of Prayer is a good thing and the secularists need to back off. Here's why:

First off, let's travel back a ways to the era of our Founders. Yes, many of them were "Theistic Rationalists," "Unitarians," "Deists," "atheists" or any other "ist" you can think of. However, these same heathens LOVED to pray (it's true). Take, for example, the First Continental Congress. You all know the story. It was suggested that the first official act of business should be to begin with a prayer but when deadlocked over who should give that prayer, Samuel Adams (a pious man to say the least) arose and stated that he was "no bigot, and could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country." Shortly thereafter, Jacob Duché, an Anglican minister, was selected to lead the group in prayer.

Fast forward to the war for independence. One of the first General Orders issued by General Washington required soldiers to adhere to a moral code that included prayer:

The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the Government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkeness; And in like manner requires and expects, of all Officers, and Soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on divine Service, to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

And then there is the case of John Hanson, president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, who, in 1782, issued a proclamation calling for a national day of thanksgiving in which the nation was to "give thanks to God" for their good fortune during the war.

And let us not forget, despite the controversy over whether or not he said "So Help Me God", President George Washington stated in his first inaugural address:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

And then there are the numerous Thanksgiving proclamations made by several early presidents, each of which implored the American populace to give thanks to God through prayer. Bottom line: prayer, in whatever form, is as American as apple pie.

Of course not everyone liked the idea of prayer being sanctioned by government. In 1812, John Adams actually lamented his call for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:

The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has alarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicion prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion."

-- John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812

And Thomas Jefferson:

Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

~Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808.

And James Madison:

There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.

~James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

And while most modern presidents have followed suit by declaring national days of prayer (Harry Truman even signed a bill requiring presidents to do just that), some presidents sided with Jefferson. Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt spoke up for what Roosevelt called "absolutely nonsectarian public schools." Roosevelt added that it is "not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in schools."

Yes, truly the debate over prayer has a long and tedious history. As Diana Butler, author of the controversial book, A People's History of Christianity points out:

When it comes to prayer, Americans love to fight -- and our prayers have driven us apart. Arguing over prayer is an American tradition.

In the 1600s, Puritans rejected the formalized prayer of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and founded their own churches as a way of protesting state-supported prayer. For their trouble, the Anglicans put them in jail. When they got out, they left England and settled in the New World. But the Anglicans were already there with their own colonies and outlawed Puritan prayers again. So the Puritans outlawed Anglican prayer in their own colonies. Quakers, disgusted with the Puritan-Anglican quarrel, rejected verbal prayers altogether, choosing to pray silently instead.

In the 1740s, during the Great Awakening, the new evangelical preachers practiced extemporaneous prayer. They rejected all written prayers in favor of being "moved by the Spirit" and making up public prayers on the spot. Many in traditional churches -- Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Congregationalists -- found extemporaneous prayer to be theologically shallow and "unlearned" and forbade its exercise in their churches. These groups didn't imprison each other over prayer. Instead, they consigned each other to hell and set up rival denominations to insure their own salvation. American churches split over prayer, leaving some to free-form prayer and others to written and ritualized prayers.

After the Revolutionary War, a puzzling question arose: Whose prayer would undergird the new nation? How might prayer be practiced in the commons? What words should bless state functions?

The political leaders (perhaps recognizing that prayer was above their pay grade) came up with a unique and practical answer: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words, "We won't touch that prayer-thing with a twenty-foot pole. You are on your own, people."

Of course, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution didn't solve anything. Congress, despite trying to avoid the issue, had chaplains -- most typically of the formal type -- who prayed for their work. And Americans -- even in the early period when most of them were Protestants -- kept arguing over whose prayer was theologically accurate and most spiritually effective. Entire denominations were formed on the basis of devotional style. And as Americans argued and denominations split over prayer, religious leaders and politicians continued to proclaim days of prayer for national unity.

And though it's likely that the debate over prayer's role in the halls of government is sure to remain for as long as the stars and stripes continue to fly, I believe it is important for us all to recognize one important fact: whether you favor prayer being intertwined with government or not we must acknowledge its role in American history. Americans are, for the most part, a prayer-loving people. I am reminded of the very first post ever done at my other blog (American Creation) entitled, "Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?" In that post, I pointed out that the story of Washington kneeling in prayer (and made famous by Arnold Frieberg's now infamous painting) is surely a farce. Despite its obvious mythology, fellow blogger Brian Tubbs made an excellent point. He stated, in this blog's first ever comment:

Whether GW knelt in prayer at Valley Forge as depicted by the paintings is like asking whether he stood in the boat when he crossed the Delaware. GW probably didn't kneel in the snow at Valley Forge. But I'm sure he prayed at Valley Forge. That GW prayed in the exact manner depicted in the famous painting may be called into question. That he was a man of prayer cannot be challenged.

And so it is with prayer on a national level. Perhaps we are not a Christian Nation and that a separation of church and state does keep the men of the cloth from dictating policy. This truth, however, does not mean that we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We have been, and probably always will be, a nation of praying people.

And maybe both the pro and anti-prayer advocates can appeal to Jesus for a resolution on this matter:

"Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." ~ Matt. 6:5-6