My Thoughts on the Old Testament, New Testament, and Qur'an

I am conflicted. On the one hand, I respect all religions as valid paths to the Divine. On the other hand, when I start to dig into particular religions, I seem to prefer some religious texts over others. This comes with a huge disclaimer: I am very familiar with Christianity, but much less so with other religions. Still, I'll share some of my limited experiences with these holy texts.

The Old Testament is the expression of a primitive culture dealing with primitive issues. I'm sorry to say it, but it's true. When I started reading the Bible, as a young, impressionable man, I'll never forget coming across numerous passages that said "God hates," "God detests," and stories about God-sponsored wars, and other such nonsense. Even at that time, when I thought the Bible was God's Word, I knew something was wrong here. God does not hate; God does not condone war. Those are moral facts and follow from the very definition of God as an all good, perfect Being. However, I found comfort and wisdom of the Psalms and Proverbs, two of the best books in the Bible

But at the end of the day, I am not a huge fan of the Old Testament - there are simply too many passages that can be misused, interpreted literally, or downright wrong. This is why Kant called the Old Testament a non-Christian text, which I think is right. Jesus encapsulated the entire thing into the Golden Rule, which I think was also right. Most people are decent and will ignore the silly parts. But some people will take them seriously or literally. Racism, sexism, to name two. That's dangerous.

The New Testament, on the other hand, in my humble opinion, doesn't suffer from the same problems. Other than some sexist assumptions from Paul, and a weird violent symbolic apocalyptic story in Revelations, the moral teachings of Jesus throughout the Gospels have stood the test of time. They are extremely hard to critique. In high school and college, I studied every single teaching of Jesus, even looking at the extra-Biblical teachings from other texts (e.g. Gospel of Thomas). I entered every single teaching into a giant Word document, eventually putting them in categories like "love" "knowledge" "Kingdom of God," etc. It was one of the best things I've ever done in my entire life. Sure, I thought some of the saying were cryptic and weird. but morally, it doesn't get any better than the core teachings of Jesus: love God, love your neighbor, and love your enemies. That is the core message of the Gospels, and yet even still, several people don't get it. That's my point. Even if a text is rock solid, it will be interpreted through the lens of the person reading it. The teachings of Jesus saved me, so I am forever indebted to the New Testament.

The Buddhist texts and Taoist texts that I have read - also good spiritual and moral nourishment. I find them a little more metaphysical and intellectual, but the morality boils down to compassion, love, and selflessness. They seem to be quite peaceful, even towards animals and the earth.

As for the Qur'an, I haven't read it. I know that there are several beautiful moral teachings in it, including the Golden Rule. But, like the Old Testament, I have heard there are several violent passages and stories as well, and that Muhammed was in several wars himself. Perhaps it suffers the same fate of the Old Testement: the expression of a more primitive culture dealing with primitive issues. I recently read a book titled Heretic, written by an ex-Muslim woman, who is critical of the Qur'an. However, on the other side, I am a fan of Reza Aslan, a Muslim thinker and scholar of religions. He basically says that the Qur'an is just like any other religious text. It gets interpreted within a particular society, and through the lens of particular human personalities. We cannot blame the text itself. I agree partially. I'm saying we can blame the text- as long as we are specific about it. We need to call out the bad parts, which is what I'm doing right now.

What's the takeaway? Religious texts are not written by men. They are mostly inspired by God, and that's okay. They are still holy. Rather than diminish, this expands our understanding of both God and our beloved religious text. There is God. And there is you. The rest is there to help mediate that connection.That is religion. It's time for us to let go and face God for the very first time, waiting for us in the greatest recesses of the mind.

Why People Suffer

Religious

Let's go over the possible answers and see which is best. First, I'll start with the worst: people suffer because they did something wrong, they had it coming, God is punishing them. Karma's a bitch. I can see only one possible instance where this is true, and it's nothing more than a psychological observation. When we feel guilty, we probably did something wrong. I suppose we could call that suffering. Guilt is the natural indicator and God is the Author of it. That's as far as we go here. To say that God punishes people through earthquakes, hurricanes, or other natural, social, or political events is morally wrong and bad theology. C'mon, really? Do you really think God, the most perfect being imaginable, kills people? God is much better (thank goodness).

the Lisbon earthquake was seen by many as caused by God for the sins of city. Read Candide.

Karma, from what I understand, is misunderstood by most people. Saying "Karma's a bitch" to someone who "had it coming" is not the right way to think about it. Karma is not something you justify another man's suffering with. Karma, rather, is completely in the control of each person. It is the culmination and aggregation of a person's deeds. You do good, you become good, you progress in the next life. You do bad, you become bad, you regress in the next life. It's like heaven and hell, but not as final. You cannot apply Karma to another person, another group, another culture.

Second, people suffer as a test, as a way to build character, as a way to learn something, as a way to overcome. Soul building. Job was tested by God and he came out stronger in faith and material possessions. Thus the saying: God never gives us anything we can't handle. I get it. I understand that this might be comforting or even uplifting  to someone suffering. It could help you overcome a particular hurdle. Perhaps it's good to think of life itself as a giant test. Perhaps that motivates some people. Or not. What happens when several arbitrary, coincidental pointless things happen to you? How do you distinguish an accident from a cosmic test? People do break. Are you really gonna believe that God is picking on you? And when too much shit happens, and you find yourself on your knees, asking God why, why, why me - whence your faith then? What are you left with? Your faith is exposed, I think. Your faith did the harm more than the events themselves! You are left with a God similar to the one I described above: a God who uses nature to punish people, to teach them a lesson. I wouldn't do this to my own son! Nor would God. You suffered more than you needed to. Rather than having a friend in God, who would guide you through this horrible thing; instead, you made God into the author of the horrible thing. Perhaps there's a better way.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do believe in a God that's right here, right now, inside me and outside me; ever-present, all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing. I am not trying to turn God into a cold, careless, distant Creator. I simply believe that God does not play favorites; that he doesn't arbitrarily mess with us, or worry about the small, daily events of our lives; that he lets the rain fall on sinners and saints (as Jesus taught). He's eternal. We are not pawns in a game of chess; we are works of art within an unfolding work of art. I believe that God created a physical set of laws, which allows rocks to fall on human heads. And I believe that God created a moral law, which allows people to use their free will to hurt people. And I believe those two things - physical laws and free will - account for all the suffering in the word. God gives us the tools to overcome. In a way, he suffers with us (that's what Jesus symbolizes). And I believe that God created an afterlife for those people who wrongly suffered on earth; for the people which God sheds a perpetual tear; the people Jesus referred to when he said "blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted." God's gift of freedom was both a weakness and an act of love. That's the God I want to worship. Theologically, I will have my cake and eat it too.

Secular

Okay, that's enough for the religious answers to our question of suffering. But atheists and agnostics worry about suffering just as much as anyone. They simply take a more practical and political approach to the question. Which is excellent. So do I. For example, people suffer because of free will. That's something all religious and nonreligious agree on. People simply make bad decisions sometimes. Second, people suffer because of a horrible upbringing. They were planted in bad soil. The biological and psychological effects of having bad parents, or an insufficient support structure, cannot be ignored. When a child is born addicted to meth, the odds are bad, through no fault of their own. Third, people suffer because of unjust laws, inept governments, and immoral systems of finance and control. This is big picture. This is the ultimate political and sociological answer to our question, requiring ultimate political and social solutions. This is our common worldly battle. We must save ourselves from the suffering of  hunger, and poverty, and disease, and we must do it through social and political agencies. Some day, cancer will be defeated. Some day, people will have what they need to live. This should be the call of both secular and religious people worldwide. This is the kind of suffering that doesn't need to happen.

Offending Religious Infants

Deeply held beliefs will be called into question. That's an epistemic guarantee, based on the nature of those beliefs. People will call them into question and, more importantly, so will you. What will you do about it? How will religious people respond? That's the ethical question. In light of the killings that took place in Paris recently, I am reminded about the fragile nature of the religion of some people. As a lover of free expression and people, I'm saddened. As a lover of religion (including Islam of course), I'm forced to ask questions.

Who to blame? That's the knee-jerk reaction. Most will blame the particular people. Crazy people do crazy things. That's what John Stewart did on The Daily Show. Some will blame religion, calling it a disease that is plaguing our planet. That's what the New Atheists will do. Others will blame Islam, misrepresenting it as religion of violence. That's what some self-righteous Christians will do (and, I'm guessing, Fox News, in their own special way). Others will blame extremist ideology in all its various forms (secular and religious). Perhaps it's a mix of the first and last of these.

note: I'm not picking on Islam here; a cross would have covered the mouth.

We are creatures who like certainty, and that's what some people get from religion. I remember back when Christianity was taking root in me. Morally speaking, I got the message very early: love, forgiveness, sacrifice, random acts of kindness. After reading the Gospels, that was easy. But intellectually, it was a whirlwind of philosophical questions, most of which were exciting but many of which were confusing and challenging. What about other religions? Is the Bible the word of God? Early on, I do remember being threatened by other beliefs, rival systems, atheism, philosophical naturalism, even science itself (eek!). Intellectually speaking, they were the competition. I was using them to help define what I was. Which makes me wonder: Is this our default position? Is defensiveness the starting point of religious psychology? Perhaps.

But I grew up. All that disappeared. You face your own doubts. You question. You come back much better.  Morally speaking, Christianity has not changed for me. Not one bit. Intellectually, it has expanded quite a bit. Here's the point. There is absolutely nothing anyone can say that could ever offend me regarding religion. Similarly, there is nothing anyone can say about my own son that would offend me. Why? Because who gives a shit, man! People who get offended, I conclude, are religious infants. They never grew up like the rest of us. In proportion to the amount they are offended, is the amount of faith they lack. In proportion to how angry they get, is the amount of insecurity they have. In proportion to the amount of cognitive dissonance they experience, that is how mentally weak they are. I pity them; they probably live in a scary world. When I was young, my mom had to shake me out of bed. I hated it. That's infant religion. Now I get out of bed. That's adult religion. I don't know how many infants are out there. That's a hard question. All I can speak for is myself. I refuse to make myself a special exception. That's not right either. I give humanity the benefit of the doubt. Most of us are adults.

At the moment these extreme Muslim terrorists were killing people, the words 'praise God' was on their lips. They have no God. They have a reason to kill. This is a gang mentality. It is revenge dressed in religious language, the only justification they can muster. They never grew up. This is a primitive, primal, childish mindset. I actually don't have tools to explain it; it's beyond me. These are just my fleeting thoughts and guesses. But I do know one thing. The core teachings of the world's religions is the Golden Rule, a common-sense rule based on empathy. In this sense, it is a contradiction to be religious and to kill people. Nothing could be more hypocritical.

However, I do understand that religion is a complex thing interpreted by complex people.  Here is where I partly agree with the New Atheists. There are parts of religious sacred texts that seem outdated and wrong, and in that sense I put some blame on the texts themselves; or, rather, on the infinite value people place on those parts of text. I cannot speak for the Quran and other religious texts, but the Old Testament, for example, interpreted by the wrong people, could spell disaster. God condones killing (for God sake!). When I read the O.T., I read about a primitive people and their primitive God. Partly. The New Testament, in my opinion (and Kant's), is much better, but still could be used for horrible things like sexism (Paul's letters). Again, I think religious people need to grow up, realize that these parts of text require careful interpretation (as St. Augustine noticed), and move on with the good parts, the core parts.

How do we deal with religious infants? Lightly, I suppose. How do we deal with dangerous and violent religion infant organizations? Through justice, I would hope. This is why we have United Nations, International Courts, Crimes Against Humanity, and so on. On a large scale, justice is the best alternative to revenge.

Do Morals Come from the Will of God?

This is an old puzzle that comes from Plato's dialogue Euthyphro: if something is wrong simply because God says so, then morality sounds a little arbitrary. For example, what if God said murder was good?--would that make it good? (please don't say yes psycho). On the other hand, if something is good for independent reasons, independent from God's will, then morality sounds like it's...well, independent of God, which is presumably bad for religion (so some people think). Thus I'm in a pickle. For God fearing philosophers like me, I want both. I want morality to be connected to God in some way, but not in a way that leaves out tons of people.

Jeremy Bentham, the atheist Utilitarian philosopher, thought that morality rests upon an independent principle "apart" from God so to speak. That independent principle was this: good is maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. That's it. But he left room for God. He said that if God exists, then God would operate under this principle:

"The dictates of religion would coincide, in all cases, with those of utility, were the Being, who is the object of religion, universally supposed to be as benevolent as he is supposed to be wise and powerful...Unhappily, however, neither of these is the case...there seem to be but few...who are real believers in his benevolence...if they did, they would recognize that the dictates of religion could be neither more nor less than the dictates of utility: not a tittle different" (125).

In other words, God would be the best embodiment of utilitarian morality. However, people would not have to go through God (or the Bible) to get to morality. Anyone with half a brain can figure it out.

Kant, on the other hand, did believe in God, but he too thought that morality must not depend on God's will or the Bible, but instead on God's Reason (that is, reason, or rational thinking). Why? Because nobody really knows what God's will is; people disagree and that causes a lot problems. Morality, Kant says, must be reasonable, accessible to all, and quite simple: only act on those principles which can be universalized to all. Through this principle we get to the Golden Rule - never treat people as a means but as ends-in-themselves - and we get many of the 10 commandments.

My opinion is in line with Kant. I do think that morals "come from God" simply because everything comes from God, by definition. But how do people access morality? That's the question. Where do we actually get it? What or who is the gatekeeper? Our parents? Yeah sure sometimes. Religion? Yeah, many times. But where does religion get it from? Like Kant, I think Reason (our minds) ought to the be ultimate judge of what's right and wrong. In the same way that human beings come from evolution and God, morality comes from Reason and God.

Of course empathy is a huge natural component as well. Empathy, when found in a compassionate, rational, and open-minded person - that's a beautiful thing.

Meerkats, Interpretation, and God

Life of Pi is a popular book about a boy in a canoe with a tiger in the ocean. To my surprise, I loved it. This book is nothing less than a sophisticated, fair, and modern justification for faith in God.

We hear a story about a boy on a fantastic journey of survival, a story that is almost unbelievable - at one point they reach a living island full of meerkats. At the end of the story, the boy (now an old man) tells his story to another man (or two men...I can't remember the details). Anyway, he doesn't believe the story. So he tells the man a more realistic story: he leaves out the tiger and the meerkats. The skeptical man says: "which one is the true one?" The narrator replies: the choice is up to you which story you want to believe. I gave you my story. Then I gave you an alternate story. Both could be true. You cannot verify either. The choice is up to you.

Forget about the details of the plot; this is all a metaphor for life, for how we perceive the world, for how we interpret events. If you're wondering whether a boy really could survive with a tiger, or whether a meerkat island could actually exist, you're probably missing the point. If you think that religion is a bunch of silly made up stories just to make people feel good, you are also missing the point of the book. Everything that happens in your life, everything that happens in the world, is perceived and interpreted in so many ways.That's what the book is about. There is meaning behind events, and we provide that meaning. Unless you are a Nihilist, everyone gives meaning to life in some way. The meaning becomes reality, a part of the event. The fantastical story is clearly a reference to a theistic interpretation of life, while the alternate story is a reference to a non-theist interpretation of life. The philosophical point is this: we really don't know which one is correct, thus we choose. Given that, the author is suggesting that a religious interpretation is preferable.

I agree.

Billions and billions of years ago, our universe came into existence. That's a fact. But why? Why does anything exist at all? And what does the Big Bang mean, if anything? That's up for interpretation. Now apply this to all events, big and small. That's life; that's the human condition - we are meaning seeking animals, and that's okay. I choose to believe God is behind all events.

Did Job Teach God a Lesson?

William Blake portrays God speaking to Job in a whirlwind

The Book of Job is bizarre. It shows God making a bet with the devil, testing the faith of Job, and finally an epic scene where God basically yells at Job: how dare you question me mortal! Oddly, then God gives all Job's stuff back and sort of implicitly justifies him.

Some people think the lesson is simple: do not question the ways of God. When bad things happen to good people, trust God and never question His ways. He controls the universe, and you are a speck of dust.

True. But instead of God teaching us a lesson, Karl Jung (psychologist) believed that Job also taught God a lesson, a lesson that God could not teach Himself. The lesson was about moral perfection: that to be truly good, one must do the right thing in the face of horrible, unjust suffering. But God cannot suffer. One must have free will, something God might not have. For God to evolve, to become better, to become more loving, God confronts a morally perfect human (Job) and realizes that the limitations inherent in man are actually the most beautiful thing about us. What does God take away? Love, forgiveness, and sacrifice. Jesus, of course, will become for Christians the ultimate confirmation of the Book of Job: God becomes man in order to perfect love. The Trinity is complete.

Personally, this all makes some sense to me, even though this interpretation is controversial at best. (Quick interpretation tip inspired by Augustine: if an interpretation increases your love and understanding, it's probably right). Imagine God before the universe, before anything existed. God, all by himself, has limitations. God needs creation and creation needs God. Otherwise why would God create to begin with? Everything is a reflection of God and a part of God. Human beings are not all-knowing or all-powerful - we are not even close. But, because of free will, we have the potential to be perfectly good. Job and Jesus are good examples of that.

True Love is Freely Given
Here's another way to think about it. God could have designed the world in a purely rational way, where good people are blessed and bad people are punished. In a way that makes sense. But is that love? True love, unconditional love, is freely given. It looks beyond circumstances and just is. Perhaps the Book of Job is a justification for why God must allow good people to suffer: it's the only way to love freely, both the good and the bad.

In Search of an Atheist Moral Hero

John Lennon: moral hero and atheist?

I'm not trying to be a dick about it or argumentative. I really want to know about a great person in history who also happened to be an atheist. Much of my inspiration in life has come from reading about great men and women: about St. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King Jr., the current Dalai Lama, Dorothy Day, Gandhi, Jesus, Simone Weil...the list goes on. After thinking about this for years, I am yet to land on a figure living or dead who was a great moral hero and who was an atheist. Now, don't get me wrong, I realize that history has not been kind to atheism, and therefore many atheists never "came out." I also realize that biographies and (especially) autobiographies are a little exaggerated, and that many of my "great men" were also ordinary people with ordinary problems. But the fact that all these great men and women were great because of their religious beliefs is, to me, indisputable. Get rid of the religion of MLK, for example, and you get rid of MLK. That's another discussion.

Anyway, please suggest an atheist hero in the comments section below. This is a challenge and an opportunity for learning. I would like to read their biography.

Ground Rules

1. They must be an atheist, which is simply defined as a person who doesn't believe in God or a supreme being. So don't give me Thomas Jefferson (he was a Deist), but perhaps Thomas Paine (although wasn't he mostly a political revolutionary?). Also, the person cannot be religious. In other words, don't give me a Buddhist that doesn't believe in a personal, monotheistic God. Also, several religious people have been fiercely critical of religion. For example Luther, Tolstoy, Isaac Newton. That does not mean they are atheists (far from it, they were real Christians). Give me a real atheist, like Freud for example (but don't give me Freud...see next rule). Of course I am not saying that their morality has to be related to their atheism in any way (that would be absurd...atheism is a lack of belief). Or, if you must, give me an outspoken agnostic even, I'll go with that.
2. They must be really good people. Not great scientists, or great thinkers alone - great moral people. Great people do great things for other people, as all the people I mentioned above. Bertrand Russel perhaps? He was a social activist for peace and was behind some good causes. But I would need more information. Also I heard he was actually a dick in person. I don't know that, I just heard that from a professor of philosophy whom I respect. Einstein was a Deist as far as I can tell. John Lennon perhaps? Now we're thinking. How about Carl Sagan or Neil Degrasse Tyson? Well, maybe. Besides being excellent science popularizers (and great scientists in their own right), what have they done ethically?
3. No Socrates. He is one of my greatest heroes; in fact, part of my tattoo is based on him. But as I read Plato's dialogues, I'm convinced that Socrates believed in one God (or at least Plato did...it's hard to pull apart Socrates from Plato).

Not Fair!

You might find yourself saying "not fair" for several reasons. First, atheists were persecuted so much that they never "came out." I answer, like Jesus you mean? Great religious people have been persecuted too; indeed that is why they were so great. Or perhaps you think that historical figures lied about being religious, when secretly they were atheist. Setting aside that fact that lying  is not a virtue, you have to provide some evidence. You can't just name drop historical figures and say they were atheist. If they were silent on the issue, I might even buy that. But mostly I don't find this argument very successful. My Kant professor in college, for example, thought that Immanuel Kant was secretly an atheist. If you've read any of his work, you know that's silly. The truth is my professor really really wanted him to be. Second, you might say that atheism is not a moral worldview, so my quest to find an atheist moral hero makes no sense. But I'm not making that connection. All I'm asking is for a great person who happened to be an atheist. Now, I do see the connection between religion and morality of course. By definition, religion is a moral endeavor. Third, I'm not suggesting that atheists cannot be good people. My brother is a good person, so is my wife. Fourth, you might argue my rules above are too constricting. How so? Fifth, you might say that history has been dominated by religion; therefore, the atheists have disappeared from the record. I can see that.

Morally I'm Pro-Life, Legally I'm not, and why Pro-Lifers need to calm down

Morally I'm Pro-Life
For some of our beliefs and opinions, we should recognize a distinction between the moral belief itself and its legal implications, or its potential legal implications. For example, I believe everyone should love others, including their enemies, but I do not believe that should be a law. I don't think, for example, that disliking your neighbor should come with a $200 fine. I believe in radical forgiveness, but I would not support getting rid of all prisons and jails (in the name of forgiveness). I believe in God, but I also think government should be secular. These are moral and religious issues that may or may not become legal issues, depending on whether we want to extend them. The more I thought about the abortion debate and how complex it is, the more I realized that abortion is the same kind of issue--it's moral and legal.

• Moral Pro-Life: When you believe that abortion is wrong.
• Moral Pro-Choice: When you believe that abortion is permissible.
• Legal Pro-Life: When you think abortion should be illegal
• Legal Pro-Choice: When you think abortion should be legal.

Pick two. Before you think I'm splitting hairs or creating distinctions ex nihilo, check out this Pew survey which suggests we all look at it this way. I believe terminating a pregnancy is wrong, except in the case of rape and the mother's safety. That's my moral view. I wouldn't get an abortion, and if I extend my morals to other people, I don't think they should get an abortion either (the same way I don't think they should dislike their neighbor, or lie, or punch people in the face). I would never judge someone that got an abortion, based on the Christian prohibition against judging (Jesus: "judge not"). I would not hate them for it. I would simply think it's not right. That's all. Negative emotion is not required. The proper response is compassion, understanding, and sadness (both for the baby and the parents). I believe in contraception, which includes Plan B (in my understanding, it's preventative, not a termination). More on that later.

Why am I morally pro-life? Five main reasons. First, everyone is pro-life to a certain extent. When having these arguments, we forget that almost all Pro-Choicers are pro-life when it comes to the third trimester (i.e. babies that pretty much look like a real baby). Even liberals do not want to see mothers kill these kinds of babies. So the real question is: where exactly do we draw the line? From sex, to fertilization, to "viability," this is where the science gets very murky and the place we pick seems a bit arbitrary. Therefore, I don't blame people for picking "fertilization." Intuitively, it makes sense, but people don't even understand the science behind fertilization (I don't).

Women are more religious than men. Why?

According to Pew, "Atheists and agnostics are much more likely to be male (64%) than female (36%)." Not only that, women are more religious when it comes to a variety of measures:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/26/the-stronger-sex-spiritually-speaking/

But why? Well, I'll take my best shot at it. First, my short answer:
Women are more empathetic then men. Religion is tied to empathy. Therefore, women are more religious.

Not convinced? Let me explain. I admit this is a bit of a stretch, and I hate to shit on my own gender; but here's my long answer:

Let's start by asking: Are men different from women at all? Yes, I think we all agree. In what ways? Well, size and musculature, but that doesn't seem to be relevant, does it? What else... We know men have more testosterone which is linked to aggression. We also know that women have more oxytocin which is linked to cooperation and empathy (the so called "love" hormone, which now conveniently comes in nasal spray form!). Okay... How does this link to religion? Hmm. Broadly speaking, if you look at religion without prejudice, I think it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say that religion generally promotes cooperation (especially within-group), good will towards others, empathy, and love. For example, the entire core of Jesus teachings is two-fold: love God, and treat others as you would like to be treated. Indeed, the golden rule is at the core of all major religions. Therefore, if women tend to be more empathetic then men, then they will be more religious than men. And they are. Oh crap. Am I making a link between morality (empathy) and religion? Yes, I am. Again, this is just my best guess really, I'm not claiming these links are rock solid. Perhaps the different between men and women is not big enough to even require an explanation.

atheism and intelligence: is there a link?

No. Judging by the latest statistics by Pew (a reputable, unbiased source for this kind of information), there is no link, not in America at least (I didn't look into other countries yet). I'm not saying atheists are dumb by any means, far from it (I would guess that minorities who have to defend intellectual positions tend to be smarter than normal actually). But, let's be clear here: it would be flat out incorrect to say that smart people tend to be atheists. Not even close.

The Numbers

What if we filled an auditorium will all the very smart people who have attained post-graduate degrees? What percentage of those people, do you think, would be atheists? The answer is 3%. Of all the really smart people, only 3% are atheists. 68% would be Christian, 6% Jewish, 2% Buddhist, 2% Hindu, 1% Muslim. 5% are agnostic and 8% are "secular unaffiliated". So a fairly religious bunch of people (over 80%). Now, let's imagine a room of people who are smart but slightly less smart. What if we filled an auditorium will all the smart people who have graduated college? What percentage of those people, do you think, would be atheists? The answer is only 2%; even less atheistic, a little more Christian but less Jewish. Again, a fairly religious bunch of people (over 80%).

source: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-3.pdf

So the point is fairly clear: the link between intelligence and atheism, although talked about by some people, is really not there. In getting smarter, we do not lose God. To make a connection, to even start the conversation you simply need more atheists to begin with. Out of all the people in America, only 2% are atheist. That's such a small number, it's hard to really say anything about it. However, you could say, perhaps, that people who happen to be atheists also happen to be smart. In other words, you could analyze the small group internally to find out more about it. So you could say "atheist people tend to be smart," but you cannot flip that around: "smart people tend to be atheist"--that's clearly not true. We are talking about 2% of the population here! Obviously there are tons more smart people who are religious (shown above), so that's really not an argument that atheism wants to make (unless they want to be very elitist and arrogant and claim that 98% of Americans are really dumb, even all the ones with degrees). 

What about You?

Do you fall in line with these statistics? Or do they not match for you? As for me, they do match. I have a Master's degree and consider myself a Christian. So I'm part of the 68%. If you do not match, either you are weird or not a real American. Just kidding. ha. 

Of course, all these statistics do not speak to the deeper truth that "religion," "Christianity," and "atheism" are all very complex things, complex ideas. Like people, they really cannot be pinned down without the category bursting at some point. What's in a label? Sure, I'm "religious" I suppose (in my heart, attitude, mindset); but I don't go to church. Sure, I'm "Christian," but I don't believe in the Trinity doctrine. You get the point.

There are so many other fascinating statistics and trends when it comes to religion. Another time.

to my fellow Believers: evolution is true. Move on.

If you believe in God, you do not need to worry about evolution. I've spent most of my life thinking about religion and science, so trust me. It's all good. Or, don't take my word for it. Here is Charles Darwin himself on evolution: "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume [Origin of Species] should shock the religious feelings of any one." In fact, here's my best advice to any religious person who worries about evolution: go read Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. You might be surprised. I read it. I loved it. As a religious person myself, it made a ton of sense to me, it gave me another way to think about God. Just please read it - or stop having an opinion about it.

I would like to stop here. It's really not worth the effort. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that evolution by natural selection is true (they disagree on the details). Scientists are real people like you and me. There is no conspiracy here. Can we please just accept it, be humble, and move on? That should be enough. Why waste our breath.

Okay, fine. Let's play on.

I suppose it's a little more complicated than this. In all honesty science does make us change our religious beliefs sometimes. And that can be hard for some people. Smart theologians, like Augustine, were well aware of this. They said you should never read the Bible as a scientific text. That solves the problem before it starts. So if the Bible implies that the sun moves around the sun, then stop reading it as a book about astronomy; treat it as a metaphor (or myth, or just disregard it...they obviously didn't know that back then, c'mon give them a break!). With evolution this is no exception. If you believe that God created human beings in one instant - as if we just popped into existence like some ghost or something - if you believe that, then you probably have to reconsider. Human beings were created very slowly on this earth, over millions of years. We adapted, mutated, procreated, changed, and fit into our habitat the best we could. We all have common ancestors, we all share roots, we are all connected to animals, to life, to everything. That's how God chose to do it, and it's amazing if you think about it. Like the heliocentric theory, it's humbling.

Consider this: Evolution is a beautiful system that you could thank God for (I do)

We wouldn't be here if not for evolution! Evolution is a system whereby the species that are best fit for a particular environment survive. If you believe in God, then you believe that God "thought up" the system, engineered it, guided it, made its' laws. If you don't believe in God, then evolution stands on its own. No harm in that, right? But let's be clear: evolution allows species to adapt and thrive. I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty smart to me, pretty wise from a survival standpoint. Let's just say that if it wasn't this way, if survival depended on blue eyes or short legs instead, the endangered species list would be much, much longer. We would't be around to enjoy our huge brains.

Evolution says we came from monkeys!
Well, apes actually. Chimps and Bonobos are our cousins. The point is that we all come from common ancestors, a tree of life with probably one trunk - which means we all probably came from a single-celled organism. God made us from dust, and to dust we go, right? I find it humbling that we came from animals. The moral message is clear: respect animals, respect life, respect the earth. Again, when moral principles are practically written into nature, as discovered by science, we should probably be thanking God.

But Richard Dawkins says...
Don't listen to him. He's dumb (as a philosopher, not as a scientist).

Doesn't evolution paint a bloody picture of nature?
Animals that are not fit to survive tend to die out, yes. And animals fight over resources. I suppose you could call that harsh. But how could it be any other way? The earth is finite, resources are finite. Luckily human beings have the ability to transcend this. "Blessed are the meek, the downtrodden," says Jesus. We don't need to kill our weak, or let them die. Because we have morality. However, we are not off the hook just yet. There is something to this. God is all powerful. Could He have made a better system? Perhaps. Something to think about at least.

My Religion

God exists. That is my religion.
Jesus preached the truth about God. That is my Christianity. That is all for me, thank you.

Oh, and in case you forgot what Jesus preached: Love your enemies. That is enough.

I have read so much about religion and theology that, instead of expanding my religion into a full blown systematic theology, I go back to the basics. Simplicity! says Thoreau. The simple religion of God and love is all I need for my life. I prefer it. My mind is full yet empty. Everything else, all the doctrine and creeds; that's all extra. Sure, I believe the soul lives on. Sure, I believe reincarnation is better than hell. I am not against beliefs or people having them. But these are all fancy additions to a firm foundation. God exists. God is good. God is love. Act accordingly. This alone lights up my world, always has. When you focus on what really matters, you begin to take it more seriously. For example, I believe in loving my enemies. Really? Really. And when Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek and not to resist evil, I believe it. Literally, he really meant that? Yes, of course he did! Having enough love and understanding to actually love your enemies--that's the pinnacle of religion, the mountaintop, the goal.

Modern Western people tend to think of religion as a set of beliefs that you agree to, like filling out an application for church. No. Religion is life. Your religion is your life. As Karen Armstrong says in her books, the point of belief is action. Faith without action is dead. And, God forbid, you find yourself doing something stupid because of a belief, perhaps you should rethink it?

• Other Religions: I left for college a Christian and came back a "religious pluralist," or enlightened Christian (sounding arrogant). Religious pluralism allows space for other religions. It means all religions are valid paths to the same transcendent Reality. If God is beyond our comprehension, it makes sense. We look at the night sky and say "did you see that?"..."See what?" Religion begins. We experience the spiritual world differently. It's okay. Sure, some doctrines differ drastically among and within religions, but at the end of the day all religions share the same basic moral code (love and compassion). See John Hick.
• Prayer: sadly, I don't pray anymore. But I do believe in prayer as meditation on God, on yourself, on other people, and on your life. I believe it can have many psychological benefits, as some studies show. It makes you slow down and think, which is really important. I am against petitionary prayer; that is, asking for stuff. It's not that God doesn't care about you, He just thinks your silly little requests are silly. God works through the beautiful laws of nature that he created--deal with it. The best way to pray for healing is to become healthy. I know this is hard when it comes to accidents, cancer, and when bad things happen to good people. For that, we rely on faith alone, not prayers for God to "fix it." Again, religion is life. Live out your religion instead of relegating it to a sleepy Sunday night prayer session.
• Jesus: he was a mystic, a great man, a true spokesman for God, and my hero. In fact, the greatest hero in my life. He has opened my heart to love enemies more than anyone else, living or dead. That's an incredible thing. I do not think he was God (judging by what he says in the Gospels), but I am open to the fact that his death might mean something greater. If you ask me "did Jesus die for my sins?" I must admit I don't really understand the question. What really matters to me about Jesus is his teachings; diamonds in the ruff, life changing and world healing teachings.
• The Bible: experience is primary (you and God), scripture is secondary. Scripture, however, is special because it describes the original experiences that brought about the religion in the first place: Jesus preaching the gospel, Buddha sitting under the tree. It is crucial. Is the Bible the Word of God? Well, sure, the good parts are. But not the bad parts (and there are many).  Even Jesus criticized or reinterpreted many of the bad parts of the Bible. St. Augustine and many great Christian thinkers have taught us to interpret the Bible through the lens of love. They also taught us not to interpret the Bible against scientific fact. The truth, like God, is much too big for one book. As for reading the Bible, I stick to the Gospels, Proverbs, and Psalms--all beautiful books that have a direct impact on my life.

As I look back on my religious life, I must be honest with myself. My passion has lessened. As a high school kid who would wake up at six in the morning to read the Bible, when Christianity was fresh and new and God was opening my mind, I was much more zealous, excited, passionate. I was much more willing to go out of my way to help a perfect stranger (that's the sad part). I have tempered. In the Case for Faith, I remember reading that this is normal. We all become moderate with age I suppose. But my faith in the God of love has never been more rock solid. And the religious life never ends. I expect to have different views in 20 years.

Transcendentalism

Transcendentalism was a group of intelligent, socially conscious men and women walking around Massachusetts around the mid 1800's. Think Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau (although several women were major parts of the movement). Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance," the most uplifting words that have flooded my eyes, changed my life forever and continue to do so. I re-read Emerson yearly. Also Whitman's "Song of Myself." I will warn readers that the language and writing style of these transcendentalists can be rough-going and non-sensical at times, but for me it always penetrates my soul, leaving me with wisdom that is non-propositional, felt, based in conduct.

They took their name partly from Kant's "transcendental idealism". They accepted that a world exists beyond our perception of reality. There is a "transcendent" reality. Secondly, the world as we perceive it is, in part, a mental construct interpreted by our brains, "in our minds" so to speak, mental rather than physical. At bottom, Emerson says, Mind is primal, not matter; mind comes first. Thus they were "idealists". They were not anti-science.

They were anti-establishment, anti-authority. In other words, they agreed with Kant's definition of Enlightenment: think for yourself. They lived it. They were against slavery well before the Civil War. When Thoreau disagreed with paying taxes to pay for a senseless war, he didn't pay them. He went to jail instead. This inspired Gandhi. When Thoreau disagreed with the materialistic consumption of America, he lived in the woods and wrote one of the most influential essays in the world. They disagreed with each other and themselves. "Do I contradict myself?" said Whitman. "Very well. Then I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes."

They believed in the indomitable spirit of man, the amazing power of the self. We are God. "I am part and parcel of God," said Whitman. Therefore, we can do anything. Yet, amazingly, they were humble men. Emerson, an incredible man, was also tortured by his potential and his struggle to do great things; it haunted him.

They were unabashed optimists. Emerson, whose life was a series of family tragedies and suffering, was the most optimistic among them: "Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration. I am glad to the brink of fear."

They shared the religious and moral impulse, yet a fierce individualism found most of them in the ranks of Unitarianism, a pluralistic form of Christianity at the time. They hated dogma and loved the Divine so much they could not keep a religion. Emerson was a Unitarian preacher for a time; Thoreau's religion was nature; Whitman's God was in daily events: "I know nothing else but miracles."

Book Blog: Zealot (the new Jesus book)

http://www.kpl.gov/blog/?id=15032392909

Book Blog: For the Glory of God

http://www.kpl.gov/blog/?id=15032392899

How saying "they" might kill you

If you've worked in a factory, you've heard "they" a lot. They. Them. Those in power. Upper management, the government, the scientific establishment, etc. What will "they" do next to make my life miserable?

Sadly, from what I've read so far it turns out that this sort of worldview is a slow death. It's because the people who silently worry what they will do next are constantly under stress, animals in the wild. They have no control. It's a slow, lurking, chronic stress, barely detectable yet always there. The stress-response system ("fight or flight") is constantly running, which means the higher parts of the brain are not running properly, like calm reasoning, deliberation, judgement. It pains me to think of it. We all know these people.

I actually had the opposite opinion for a long time. Previously I thought that the rich people at the top were the most unhealthy, stressful, unhappy people in the world. Based partly on my religious views and partly because I wasn't rich, I would say "I never want to be rich...they are miserable." But then I read about the major studies that were conducted in England and other places, which clearly conclude that the lower you are on the social ladder, the more stressed you are, and the higher you are, the less stressed and more happy and healthy you are. It turns out Jesus was right when he said "Woe unto the rich, for they have their reward." In other words, they might have problems in the next world (due to love of money), but in this world they do pretty damn well. The book Born For Love comes to mind too.

Solutions

It's human nature to fear and this is one example of it. Yet, as all great religions and moral philosophers say: it's human nature for us to transcend human nature. First, will power. Stop saying "they." Catch yourself. Start there. I've done it. In my job, I always say "we" made a decision, whether I agree or not (it's pretty easy, the library is one of the best places to work). We passed Obama Care. We went to the moon. We cloned a sheep. Get it? It feels great and sounds right.

Second, go read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. If you don't think ideas can change your life, keep reading--eventually you will find what's meant for you. Stoicism is perhaps the best philosophy to deal with the unpredictability of life, which says: (1) never worry about things outside your control (because that's stupid), and only worry about things within your control (that's smart); (2) now conquer and overcome those things within your control; (3) now your life is, by definition, free from worry. Everything else is accepted with grace and all things are seen as a beautiful play of events, a gift from God or Destiny or Chance. The events that led to meeting my wife were random, sad, beautiful, and ended in one of the best decisions in my life. I took them all with stoic grace.

Third, if things get really bad--and sometimes they do--try faith. Religion, as Jesus said so poetically in the Sermon is the Mount, is really for the lowly, the down trodden, the poor. When the world shits on you, when you don't have a family to love you, when your greedy employer downsizes you, when you become ill and your luck runs out--only God is left to love you. Or despair. Both are understandable. This is why Aristotle thought that the good life required a little bit of luck.

Religious Pluralism

All religions are valid paths to a transcendent Truth or divinity (capital "T" Truth means it's an ideal--unattainable and yet real at the same time). Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Judaism, and the Baha'i faith are all after the same thing. But across time, language, geography and history they find it in different ways. These different ways, beliefs and practices are philosophically compatible.

Wait a minute. Bull shit. Jesus is God. Muhammad is His only prophet. How are those compatible?

This is where Kant comes in (and John Hick's An Interpretation of Relgion). All of these "beliefs" are no more than beliefs; they are grasping at a transcendent world that we cannot reach, unverifiable speculations about the nuemenal realm; doctrine or dogma is not knowledge. Beliefs, by definition, can be wrong. Only knowledge can be truly incompatible with non-knowledge (error). Nobody can disagree with e=mc2. But "Jesus is God" is on the exact same epistemological level as "Muhammad is His only prophet." We simply don't know; thus we believe. Therefore, they are both equally valid ways of thinking about God. Because we will never know, they can both exist together just fine.

And that's okay.

Two people stand in front of a Van Gogh. It means this, one says. No, says the other, it means this! They both give reasons. Perhaps we should ask the artist? Well, he's dead--and would that even help? Thus we have two different meanings of a piece of art that are compatible and can exist together just fine.

When it comes to practice (ritual), religions are quite different. When it comes to metaphysical beliefs, quite different. That's to be expected. But when it comes to morals, very similar. The moral codes of the major world religions are all based on love, compassion, forgiveness. They are compatible. They ground virtue and suppress vice in amazing different ways. Sweep away the hypocracy and you are left with love as the bedrock of religion.

Pluralism is an expression of love for other people, yet this will not satisfy a lot of people. Religious Pluralism is not for people who get angry when other people talk about other beliefs. It's not for people who are offended by the existence of Islam, or who use religion to define what they are not (rather than what they are). It is not for dogmatic, intolerance, judgemental types. It's for people who love religion and take it seriously, who realize that they are Christian perhaps because they grew up in a Christian household or nation (and that's okay). It is for people who are humble, who have a lot to learn, who realize the transcendent nature of their beliefs and place their hope in them.

Immanuel Kant

If Jesus saved my soul, Kant saved my mind. He brought together faith and reason, heart and mind, religion and science. He gave my Christianity a rational, philosophical grounding. He gave me a worldview, brought it all together. It still gives me delight to think about his synthesis of science and religion, of the phenominal and nuemenal worlds, and especially about his simple, rock-solid morality.

In his most important book the Critique of Pure Reason he said "I had to do away with knowledge in order to make room for faith."

It's a tricky quote. What knowledge is he doing away with? To figure it out is to figure out the man Kant, his philosophy, his scientific and religous beliefs, his humility. First, he disliked those religious people who claimed to have "knowledge" about God and His ways, to be dogmatically "certain" about "facts" like the trinity, virgin Mary, angels, or various other metaphysical beliefs. His philosophical system does away with that "knowledge" in the most respectful way--he brings it to the realm of faith and belief, where they belong. In this sense, he is "making room for faith." He was a humble Lutheran that was content to have his own religious beliefs and let others have theirs. Secondly, he disliked those scientists who claim to have "knowledge" about things that have no basic in experience or possible experience (alternate universes would be a present-day example, but he probably had Leibniz in mind). It's another form of dogmatism. Science, the pursuit of knowledge about nature, is tempted to delve into metaphysical speculations. And that's okay; it can't help it. But that's not knowledge either (and then there's people like Dawkins, a good scientist who has dogmatic beliefs against religion...I know God doesn't exist). Anyway, so when it comes to real knowledge, we are left with real science, all the things we can know about nature by testing, analysing, experimenting, deducing, falsifying.

Science deals with the physical world, but the world beyond our experience--the "nuemenal" world, the transcendent--is very real for Kant. This is the world we speculate about and have beliefs about and hopes for. This is the realm of freedom, morality, and God. If we could somehow peel away our senses, our filters, our concepts--then we could experience that world (hint: we can't). Perhaps some day we will.

Kant also saved my soul by teaching me what morality consists of, by giving it strong philosophical principles--namely the "categorical imperative"--which resonated in my mind as much as the command to "love thy enemies" did. "Nothing fills my mind with greater awe," he said " than the starry heavens above and the moral law within." The moral law within is imprinted on our hearts and minds. It's not a complex thing. The fundamental rule of morality is this: only act on principles that could be also universal principles for everyone. Simple as that. Lying, stealing, cheating, and killing don't pass the test. He tries to deduce the virtues and invalidate the vices from this one principle. He does a descent job, but his legacy for me is really this: being a good person is nothing more than following a few principles and never wavering. Never lie; never steal or cheat or harm others. Always tell the truth, love others and help those in need. That is the secret. Whenever we waver, that's when we sin; that's when we start justifying our actions. That's when we think morality is "complex," or situational, or "it's different this time" because of x, y, or z. Don't fall into that trap. It might save your life.

I'm naming my baby Immanuel after this great hero of mine.

Book Blog: Einstein's God, Krista Tippett

Einstein's God (no, "universal spirit")

Jesus

We are what we read. Of course "we are what we ____" is a truism. We are what we eat, what genes we have, what parents we had. But I am proud to say that I am what I read, and the more I read the more I am, the larger I get, the more multitudes I contain. My heroes are the list of dead people that live through me, that have inspired me, stayed with me, changed my behavior. They provoke and inspire me. Jesus, Plato, Emerson, Whitman, Aurelius, Descartes, Berkeley, Kant, Jung, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., just to name a few. They feel like people to me, like friends.

May as well start with the first. In high school I had a real conversation to Christianity; that is, self-propelled, self-discovery, the only real way to do anything. To discover something yourself, to own it, chew it up, digest it, spit some out, internalize it. I would wake up at 6AM and go to the coffee shop. I would acquaint myself with Jesus by reading the gospels, slowly, gradually, from small to big. When your friend introduces you to someone, do they say "this is Jim, he is perfect and saved your life"? That's the most ridiculous introduction ever, yet that is still the way preachers present the man Jesus to little children. It's all absurd and, in the end, sadly exaggerated and ineffective. Jesus to me was a silly idea represented by the Trinity, another silly and absurd idea to present to children.

Finally, he was turning into a person, one that I could read about. By dropping the dogmatic belief that he somehow, mysteriously "saved my soul" by dying on a cross, I allowed him to really save my soul by showing the path to become a good person in the eyes of God. Quickly he became a hero in my life, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has simply read the gospels and met the Jesus found there. He stands for nothing more than love and forgiveness and everything that entails. He is a simple, tragic man that is horribly easy to understand and follow. He is as simple as Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr., with the same beautiful message.

Soon after reading the gospels I became obsessed with doing anonymous good deeds for other people. Secretly shovel a driveway, leave a dollar, write a warm letter. I was thrilled to think about it, plan it. I was thrilled to know that only God, the searcher of our hearts--if God exists--was the only other witness. After all, it's the only way to test whether a deed is truly moral (and Kant says we can still doubt).

I must say, looking back at my life, in proportion to the amount I have been reading the gospels there has been a correlation with good, selfless deeds on my part. That is not a coincidence. But neither do I claim that "the gospels" are somehow the only way to do this, or more special than the book that Martin Luther King Jr wrote on love, which also blew my mind and changed my life forever.

Jesus became a close friend, a fundamental hero, an archetype for pure love, principled and enlightened love, theistic-based love, never failing love in the face of the greatest hatred. When he said "love your enemies" it resonated in my soul as the most true thing I have ever heard and will ever hear in my life.