Mar
31
Today’s The Guardian reports that the hand-waving catholic church in the USA has banned the hand-waving that is reiki treatment in its institutions, describing it as unscientific
and inappropriate
.
Guidelines issued by the committee on doctrine at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops warn healthcare workers and chaplains that the therapy “lacks scientific credibility” and could expose people to “malevolent forces”.
The document also claims that for a Catholic to believe in reiki presents “insurmountable problems”.
Reiki means “universal life energy” and was developed by the theology professor Dr Mikao Usui at the turn of the 20th century, from Buddhist beliefs and Sanskrit teachings. The client lies on a couch, clothed and relaxing, while the therapist’s hands rest lightly on the body in a special sequence. Clients often report heat and tingling sensations.
The money quote (with my emphasis) goes as follows:
The church’s guidelines state: “A Catholic who puts his or her trust in reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no man’s land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one’s worship of God by turning one’s religious feeling and practice in a false direction.”
The intellectual compartmentalisation at work here is, to me, astounding. Then again, hypocrisy is not something lacking in the catholic church.
The Guardian: Catholic bishops in US ban Japanese reiki
Possibly related posts:
- The Guardian: Christians respond to the ‘atheist bus’ Three sepa
- The Guardian: If… – ‘My chin is lookin’ kinda long’ Steve Bell
- Tony Blair on dogma When talki
Mar
30
The origin of life, the universe and our species is one of the big questions. In general, origin is hard to prove and difficult to comprehend. To comprehend a point in the past where matter, and indeed time itself, didn’t exist is taxing on a number of levels, and inevitably leads us to question the fragility of our own existence.
Certainly origin is one of the aspects which underlines the different approaches theists and atheists take on certain issues. Specifically, atheists will question and seek answers whilst theists are happy to accept the first answer given.
Just to be clear, the majority of religions (I can personally speak of Islam and Christianity) believe that their has always existed. To back this up, they raise the issue of cause. Cause triggers an effect, if there is an effect, there must be a cause. The effect is the universe, so what’s the cause?
Back to the Beginning
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It seemed appropriate to start with Genesis as it gives us a launching pad and something to consider. “In the beginning” implies that this is the start, and as the topic of discussion is origin, we can presume that this is the start of the start, the beginning of the origin if you will. This opening statement sits well with scientific theory, in that before matter, time did not exist.
The start of everything was the creation of matter (assuming that time cannot exist unless there is matter on which we can observe its impact). Without wanting to dive into a discussion of semantics, the quote opens up the possibility that God could not have existed without his creation. The statement is not “God existed and then created…”, it is “In the beginning” - which suggests, as I stated earlier, before anything else. So while the argument is that God has always existed, it only really applies within the confines of science’s definition of time.
The result of this is that the bible does not necessarily claim that God existed before his creations. Applying logic to conclude that he must have existed in order to create something does not apply here. We could speculate that God only came into existence through the act of creating. We would, of course, dispute that “God created” due to a lack of evidence.
Returning to the issue of cause, God has been referred to as the cause without a cause, which seems like an odd definition. This is obviously an attempt to avoid calling God an “effect”.
When it comes to cause, theists rely on two principals to solidify their argument. Firstly, that every effect has a cause. Secondly, that if we follow the cause and effect chain back to the beginning, we must reach a point where the condition falls down (i.e. either we reach a point where there is no cause and hence no effect, or we reach an effect without a cause - both breaking the fundamental cause and effect rule). They say that God is the end of the chain, the original cause. And just to be clear here, we’re talking about an infinite regress.
God of the Gaps
As an argument in support of the existence of a creator God, infinite regression is simply a dressed up version of the “God of the Gaps” argument. Theists find a gap in science’s knowledge, latch on to it, and propose God as the answer. As scientific knowledge has improved, it has closed off many of the “God of the Gaps” arguments while opening up a number of new ones. It’s what happens in the course of scientific advancement, whilst some problems are solved, others are caused.
The obvious issue any logical person would have with claiming infinite regress, or effect without cause, as an argument for the existence of a God is that it is ultimately self-defeating. You cannot argue that God must not exist because ever effect must have a cause, whilst also arguing that God is the cause without a cause. It’s not only hypocritical but logically indefensible. Either you accept that the universe is bound by the rules, or not. You cannot pick and choose the rules you accept, and those you apply in your arguments. This isn’t about creating a level playing field when it comes to these discussions, it’s about ensuring there is a sound foundation on which to base our ideas. Selective acceptance of rules is not a sound foundation, quite the opposite. As Bertrand Russell so elegantly put it…
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Even discounting the flawed logic, the infinite regression argument still fails the same tests that the “God of the Gaps” argument fails. For example, the absence of a scientific explanation for a phenomena, any phenomena, does not necessitate, nor prove, the existence of a God.
In steps Science…
Earlier I touched on the idea that science causes itself problems. In it’s pursuit of advancement and knowledge it breaks boundaries and unveils new worlds. We never had to consider sub-atomic physics until we knew the sub-atomic world existed, for example. The key difference between the scientific approach and the theistic approach can be clearly evidenced in any “God of the Gaps” argument. While theists are happy to suggest that any gap in knowledge is the work of a God, science works to close the gaps in our knowledge.
Unlike the theist camp, followers of science do not claim to have an answer to the origin question. There are numerous Theories of Everything, including String Theory, but they are unproven (and untested) theories. My assertions above are logically questioning the Christian take on creation, not scientifically disproving it - the distinction is important and I do not want to mislead anyone by claiming otherwise.
Scientifically, we are heading towards a situation where we can examine the conditions that resulted in the universe, it’s all a matter of being able to closely reproduce the environment the big bang occurred in. This requires an almost incomprehensible amount of power. Nevertheless, onward we go.
I’ll openly admit that origin, or creation, is an area I struggle with. On the one hand, I find theist’s versions of events irreconcilable with the real world, yet I also do not know enough about the subject to be confident in science’s explanation. This is an area vastly more complicated than evolutionary science, and demonstrating it isn’t as simple as demonstrating speciation or intermediate fossils.
As a response to the infinite regression argument, I wanted to offer an alternative, logically defensible, theory. As I touched on previously, I can logically discount the infinite regression argument, in much the same way I can logically discount the God of the Gaps argument, but it would be hypocritical of me to not offer an alternative.
The cause and effect argument for the existence of a God is based on two assumptions. Note that I’m using a closed definition of the word “universe” to illustrate my theory. Perhaps a holistic system would be a better description, but that’s too much typing.
- We know and understand all the physical rules by which our world is bound.
- The creation of this universe was bound by those same rules.
To address the first assumption, our knowledge of the universe is evolving all the time. To assume that we know all the rules by which our universe is constrained is arrogant and incorrect. Simply looking at the advancements in areas such as String Theory should give some indication that we are still learning. We are also unable to recreate certain environments and conditions, therefore preventing us from fully exploring posited hypotheses. In particular, the massive amounts of energy required to recreate the conditions around the time of the Big Bang means it is not currently possible to fully understand the events that took place.
Are we part of a larger universe?
The second assumption is also open to debate. Whilst we can, based on current knowledge, state that effect must have a cause, we can only state that as being true for our own universe. We do not know what exists, if anything, outside our universe, and whether it is bound by the same rules. To ground this in reality, we can look at a known example - the sub-atomic world. Whilst is is undoubtedly part of our universe, it is not universally bound by the same rules. We have witnessed behaviour in the sub-atomic world universe that contradicts our understanding of the world and the prior understood laws of physics. Logically extending this to encompass the possibility that our universe is in turn part of a larger universe, doesn’t seem a stretch too far.
Whilst considering this possibility, we might also care to wonder whether the universe which contains our universe is subject to the same physical laws and conditions as our own. To assume that it is would be a leap of faith. There is nothing upon which to base a logical assumption that because energy and matter cannot be created in isolation in our universe, it cannot in any universe.
You might also consider that if, in the “Extra Universe” (perhaps “Super Universe” would be more fitting) matter under certain conditions can produce energy, the origin of our universe was the result of such a reaction.
Conclusion
I don’t want to suggest that the theory above is the answer to the question of origin. Rather I hope it acts as a starting point for a discussion. The theory itself can be dismantled and discredited, which I welcome, so long as its purpose remains. The one thing I hope it has suggested is that it cannot be scientifically disproved, and that alone is evidence enough that our knowledge of the universe, and the environment our universe inhabits, is still limited.
What I do want to reiterate is that the logical argument for the existence of a God is always based on shaky foundations. Live by logic, die by logic.
No related posts.
Mar
30
Are more social ills associated with religion or a lack thereof?
If you're honest, your answer to this question probably maps to your belief status. After all, most of us like to think we're on the side of the elves, not the orcs-- that we and our kind are making the world better. In the absence of clear evidence, the religious and the nonreligious both believe this. Every once in a while, though, we actually get a bit of data to mull over, and last week some interesting research hit the press.
One of the oft touted benefits of religion is that it eases our dying. Surprise: According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "Terminally ill cancer patients who drew comfort from religion were far more likely to seek aggressive, life-prolonging care in the week before they died than were less religious patients and far more likely to want doctors to do everything possible to keep them alive."
Religious patients were less likely than secular patients to sign do not resuscitate orders or to create living wills. They were more likely to want ventilators to keep them breathing till the bitter end. They got more ICU care. Doctor Holly G. Prigerson, an author on the study, offers a very benign explanation for this pattern: "To religious people, life is sacred and sanctified," Dr. Prigerson said, "and there's a sense they feel it's their duty and obligation to stay alive as long as possible."
If you are a nonbeliever, set aside your annoyance at her implication that life isn't sacred for the rest of us. The problem with this explanation is that it simply doesn't map to the facts of the situation. These patients knew they were already in the final stages of the dying process. They also knew that their use of extraordinary measures was costly, though they wouldn't incur that cost themselves. Medicare spends one third of its entire budget on people in their last year, much of this on people in the last week of life. In a world where children go without immunization, women go without prenatal care, and young adults can't afford insurance, the choices these patients made did not increase the sacred and sanctified life on this planet. The opposite is true.
Even for themselves, they may have gained little. The measures used to prolong the dying process often are associated with suffering and pain above and beyond that caused by the terminal illness itself—leaving a person with little capacity to experience a few more hours or days to experience that which we cherish in life.
Why might devout believers avoid preparing for death and then want anything medical science has to offer to prolong the dying process? I can't help but put on my therapist hat here and offer a hunch.
The fact that devout patients more often failed to take preparatory steps like living wills and advanced care planning gives us a clue. It suggests that they were avoidant--coping with the dying process in part by not thinking about it. As a coping mechanism, avoiding works really well in some ways and not so well in others. It can shut out a host of negative emotions, but it also can get in the way of doing what needs doing, on a practical level or an emotional level or both. Then, if an avoided reality breaks through, you're not ready. Think, for example, about how you avoided studying for exams.
Avoidance suggests anxiety or fear.
We are made to be scared of dying--to fight for life and as the poet Dylan Thomas put it to "rage against the dying of the light." Nonreligious people have to face this head on. They have to wrap their brains around the idea of non-existence, which frankly is rather hard to grok. Emotionally it raises not only fear but anger, confusion and grief. Religion offers a shortcut. Death isn't really death. It is a transition to the next phase of life. In Christianity, when you die you retain your personal identity and memories. You become either a perfected or perfectly tormented version of yourself. For the Christian believers in the study, this is what their religion teaches, and as believers they expect to be perfected, not tormented.
But very few people believe in heaven or hell the same way they believe in the floor beneath their feet. If they did, as Christian philosopher Ken Himma has pointed out, it would be unconscionable for them to have children and risk the latter. This week a devout airline pilot was convicted of manslaughter, because, in the face of potential disaster he handed off controls to a copilot and began praying. (Sixteen people died.) Cases of this type are mercifully rare; if they weren't, the devout would not be entrusted with planes. Faced with the prospect of fiery death, usually prayer isn't quite as trusted as the control panel.
In psychological research, stated beliefs don't always match what subtle indicators like eye movements, sweating or reaction time reveal a subject's underlying assumptions to be. Freud was wrong about many things, but he was right that a whole lot of stuff going on in our brains isn't available to our consciousness. We know this to be true of religion. (Pascal Boyer)
Implications? Even though belief offers a shortcut around anger and fear at the thought of death, it isn't a perfect solution. At some level, a believer may wonder or even know that he simply doesn't know, but belief itself precludes the hard work of coming to peace with nonexistence. So, in those hard final days, faith is there, but subterranean fear is too. We are all human, after all.
That is my best guess about what is going on with those cancer patients. Correlation is not causation, and let me caution that my clinical hunch may be quite wrong. Religion may increase other feelings that make people want to prolong the dying process. Fear of death may increase religiosity. Some other factor may contribute to both. Given the social costs, these questions seem worth exploring.
As a society, it is becoming more and more clear that collectively we have to make some hard choices about medical care. We have been living high on the borrowed hog, pretending that we can have it all. But in a world where economic theory meets reality, unlimited access to aggressive life prolonging technologies has an opportunity cost. The tradeoff is less healthy children and young adults because of money not spent on simple preventive measures and early interventions.
Will religion help us make these decisions in the most moral way possible? (Our wisdom traditions, both religious and secular, do archive the best ethical thinking of our ancestors.) Or-- will the yearning for eternity make it harder to tend the precious fragile lives that are sacred to all of us here on earth?
Mar
29
You may have noticed that this blog is now sporting a new look. I thought a brief post was in order to outline the reasons for changing the look and what it means for you.
The Motivation
When this blog first started, it didn’t get much traffic and even fewer comments. It was thrown up quickly by me using a freely available WordPress Theme. Over the last year or so the length of the posts have increased, the number of visitors have increased and with it, the number of comments. A few weeks ago I decided it was time for a change, and I set the following goals:
- Improve Readability
- Improve Handling of Comments
- Provide Room for Expansion
Let’s break those goals down.
Improve Readability
Comparing readability between the old and new design.
Readability was not a strong point of the theme I was using. Small text on a dark background does not equate to readability. It got to the point where I didn’t enjoy reading my own posts and the comments of others on this site, purely because of the styling of the text. This situation had to be remedied.
Improve Handling of Comments
There are a lot of comments on this site. Some posts already have 100+ comments against them. 100 comments against a post require a slightly different structure than 5 comments against a post.
Provide Room for Expansion
I’ve got some exciting ideas for this site, and was already beginning to find the previous theme restrictive. The new look should provide a bit more flexibility and agility.
The Changes
The design of the blog has been completely overhauled. I’ve changed it to dark text on a light background, introduced a better visual hierarchy for content and given text some more rome to breathe. Hopefully it’s easier to read. I’ve also rolled out some more specific changes.
Comments
I’ve made two changes to the comments system. They are now threaded and paginated. Threaded comments mean you can now respond directly to a previous comment, and see your reply appear in line. This should help keep the comments organised, and allow commenters to easily see any replies against their comments. If you want to reply to a specific comment, just click the “Reply” link and type away!
You’ll also notice that comments are now paginated, so that no more than 25 comments appear on page at any one time. Again, this is to help keep the comments organised and easier to use. I’m not 100% sold on this approach, so I’ll be monitoring it over the next few weeks.
This site now also supports Gravatars, so if you have one linked to your email address, it will now show up in the comments. Hopefully this will aid with scanability.
Search
The New Atheist Blog Search
The old, rather hit and miss, search facility has now been replaced by a Google Custom Search. This should provide more relevant results. The other big benefit of using Google is that it searches the entire site, including the comments. This was very important.
Improved Inter-Page Linking
One of the major problems with the old theme was that links to other pages were not really promoted as much as they should have been. This has been addressed with dynamic “Most Popular” and “Recent Comment” areas as well as slots for me to manually add featured content links.
Known Issues and Improvements
I’ve already identified some areas for improvement, and I’ll be monitoring performance over the next few weeks. At the moment, the site does not function correctly with Internet Explorer 6. Personally, I don’t see this as an issue. We only get a handful of visitors using this out dated browser, so it doesn’t warrant to extra effort to correct the problems at this moment in time. If you are one of the IE6 users out there, you really should upgrade your browser as soon as possible (I’d recommend the completely free and excellent FireFox).
I’m interested to hear your thoughts on the redesign. It’s so different that it may be jarring at first, but I believe the changes are for the best. I’m no web designer, so while I’ll make every effort to enhance the site and correct bugs, I can’t promise I’ll have the time and / or knowhow.
The image below (click to enlarge) depicts the site as it is supposed to look. If you are looking at a site that looks significantly different, please let me know by using either the comments or the reinstated contact form.
The New Atheist Blog Screenshot
Related posts:
Mar
29
My fiancé and I have had nothing but awkward resistance from her family regarding the wedding. The older of her two younger brothers is coming, but her younger brother and parents are being sent an invitation anyway. Maybe she sees it as passive-aggressive; I think it’s a waste of a stamp. As with all disagreements, we did what she wanted.Whether it was a nice gesture or a back-handed swipe, she
Mar
29
The UN Human Rights Council has voted to adopt a text proposed by Pakistan that makes defamation of religion a human rights violation. Apparently the term "human rights" does not translate well into Arabic, as this resolution does not protect the rights of human beings, just religious ideas. The measure was pushed through by Muslim nations who seek to leverage the rule against those who would
Mar
28
Hmm… I wonder if this is how it goes over in the “labs” at the Discovery Institute…
Last login: Sat Mar 28 15:56:35 on ttyp1 Welcome to Ubuntu Christian Edition! Jesus loves you, billd! :~ billd$ cd ID/ :~/ID billd$ ls idweasel :~/ID billd$ ls -a . .. .holybible.tex idweasel :~/ID billd$ ./idweasel ----help idweasel, version 2.0 usage: idweasel [-sV] [-d godmodule] s : show program source V : show verbose output d godmodule : design with selected god module :~/ID billd$ ./idweasel > output.txt :~/ID billd$ ls idweasel output.txt :~/ID billd$ cat output.txt METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL :~/ID billd$ ./idweasel -d Jesus > output2.txt :~/ID billd$ ls idweasel output.txt output2.txt :~/ID billd$ cat output2.txt I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE :~/ID billd$ ./idweasel -V -d Jesus > output3.txt :~/ID billd$ ls idweasel output.txt output2.txt output3.txt :~/ID billd$ cat output3.txt Output: I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE Notice: Thou shalt have no other programs before Me. Dogma: Do you think string concatenation just happens by CHANCE? Warning: Evilution suxxors! :~/ID billd$ cat Jesus cat: Jesus: No such file or directory :~/ID billd$ # :-( :~/ID billd$ whereis Jesus :~/ID billd$ # :'-( :~/ID billd$ ./idweasel --version idweasel v2.0 (Post-deluvian) (c)4004BC cdesign proponentists This program is not IN ANY WAY AT ALL based on that heathen Richard Dawkin's original 'weasel' program. So there! :~/ID billd$ ./idweasel --source Error: source code not available. This program is irreducibly complex. :~/ID billd$ cat ./idweasel #!/usr/bin/magic :~/ID billd$ echo ./idweasel -d FSM YARR! HERE BE STRIPPERS AND BEER FOUNTAINS! :~/ID billd$ # fuck! :~/ID billd$ exit logout [Process completed]
No related posts.
Mar
28
By Ara 13
Buy new: $14.63
8 used and new from $4.91
Customer Rating:
Customer tags: atheist(5), satire(5), agnosticism(5), agnostic(4), metafiction(4), evolutionary psychology(4), evolution(4), evolutionary biology(3), great read(3), fiction(2), military fiction(2), comedy(2)
Mar
27
Mar
26
From the same people that brought us pearl clutchers and koranimals, I present to you:
The chaos that inevitably ensues when readers of Mad Mo’s Book of Nonsense try to follow, or impose, their own rules.
Whether they’re running their own country or trying to ruin someone else’s, it’ll end in qu’randemonium.
/hattip: remigius
Possibly related posts:
Mar
26
Evil Burnee has made me aware of a new petition, this one quite close to my heart (so to speak) considering that it involves a staggering encroachment into free-speech and additional religious privilege.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that the UK Government uses all of its powers to reject and, if possible, veto any attempt at the United Nations to limit free speech in relation to religion and any associated attempt to criminalise the criticism of religion and encourage other governments to similarly reject/veto any such attempt.
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a voting block within the United Nations, is currently attempting to use its power within that organisation to seek to have a binding resolution made attempting to force governments to criminalise freedom of expression. In pursuing this course of action it seeks to promote the idea that religion can be defamed and that criticism of religion should be outlawed.
This is a gross violation of the most basic and fundamental of Human Rights, that of freedom of speech. It must be countered by all governments wherever possible and properly identified for what it is, a blatant attempt to stifle debate and criticism of religion. Religions do not have rights, people do. Whilst this is being introduced by Islamic countries it is not specific to the religion of Islam.
The original non-binding resolution can be found on the UN web site.
If you—like me—refuse to kowtow to dogma, refuse to give up your liberty to criticise religion (and especially the actions of those who act with religious certainty) and refuse to give religions the respect they think they deserve then please sign this petition.
Additional reading
- International Humanist and Ethical Union: The Cairo Declaration and the Universality of Human Rights
- Center For Inquiry: CFI Defends Freedom of Expression at the U.N. Human Rights Council
- UN Watch blog: “Defamation of religions”
- Slate – Christopher Hitchens: “Don’t Say a Word”
/hattip: Notes from an Evil Burnee
Possibly related posts:
- Petition: Withdraw support for creationist zoo in schools Over at RD
- MPs attempt to ban ‘atheist bus’ campaign Yes, you r
- Number 10 responds to ‘no sharia’ petition The UK gov
Mar
25
 |
this is a video exposing the lies of Dr zakir naik in one of his speechs this man has no idea how science works or what it actually says cause he's too busy brain washing other to his religion of Peace (haha yeah right) |
From:
m007417
Views:
3487
   82
ratings |
| Time: 04:29 | More in People & Blogs |
Mar
24
Comment at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/18/710284/-Losing-Your-Religion-How-to-Talk-to-Your-Kids
Sometimes I get letters from former Evangelical/fundamentalist Christians who are also parents. "What do I say to my kids?" they ask. "I raised them to believe that without the blood of Jesus they are evil sinners. What a horrible thing for them to think! I feel guilty." "All of their friends are members of our old church, so we keep going. I don’t want to tear them apart, but it’s getting harder and harder for me to pretend." "When I try to talk to them they just cry. They think I’m going to hell."
Polls show that more and more of us are questioning our received traditions, seeking to base both our personal lives and our public policies on reason and evidence. For parents, this brings some extra challenges. Changes that may feel rewarding to us personally can be confusing and scary to kids who love us. No matter what age the kids are, telling them your beliefs have changed or even that you no longer believe can be tricky. Here are three suggestions.
1. Help them to understand your changes as a matter of spiritual growth rather than spiritual abandonment.
The bottom line is that moral and spiritual evolution are very much in keeping with the history of human religion, including Christianity. Every past generation answered our deepest questions as best they could. What is real? What is good? How can we live in moral community with each other? But every generation was like the blind men and the elephant. They were limited by their cultural and technological context – their point in history. Besides which, they, like us, were imperfect. By outgrowing the answers that were handed down to us, we honor their quest and continue their journey.
Here is how I explained my own loss of faith to my extended family.
Even if you emphasize growth, both your own and that of our ancestors, your kids will ask about your current beliefs. After all, you’ve probably taught them to think that it’s the answers that matter, not the process. Do you believe in God? Are you a Christian? Do you believe in Jesus? Are you going to Hell? Try to anticipate their questions and think ahead about some simple responses that are both honest and reassuring. But let them know that you are still learning and that you expect to keep learning for the rest of your life. The nice thing about this framework is that it allows your conversations to continue evolving.
2. If your children are still at home, don’t forget that they may need a new community.
As you continue to grow and change, you may find community online or with your spouse or you might simply prefer solitude and good books in this next phase of the quest. But if you have raised your children with religion in the center of their lives, they will have their own need for explicit conversations about religion, spirituality and morality. What should replace Sunday school or Pioneer Girls or Bible study?
On top of this are their social needs. Did your church reach out to kids with fun and music? Your kids may have their friends, their weekend activities, and their summer camps all integrated with religion. It’s not fair to cut them off abruptly just because you’ve hit your own tipping point.
Think about seeking out a moral/spiritual community that allows room for doubt or even atheism. A Unitarian church might be a fit, or a Quaker meeting or Ethical Culture Society. If you were in Christian fundamentalism, you may not know that within Christianity there are traditions that would allow your children access to familiar rituals and stories without feeding the belief that the Bible is perfect and their parents are doomed. Traditions I might look at include United Church of Christ, United Methodist, and Episcopal. All of these recognize the human handprints on the Bible and traditional dogmas—and they allow a humble, inquiring approach to the meaning of Christian faith. However, this very much depends on the individual minister. Openness to interfaith or "interSpiritual" work can be one indicator that a group doesn’t make exclusive claims about truth and salvation. Pay particular attention to whether your children would be offered explanations of the world that seem real and right to you, and whether they would have a group of peers.
3. Trust yourself, even when you are feeling your way in the dark, to be a spiritual guide for your children.
You may feel less wise or less confident than before, but that is because you have moved forward. Don’t be afraid to talk with them about spiritual matters, just because you no longer have a clear set of pat answers. What you do have still is deeply held values and principles that guide your life. What are they? Have you ever put them into words? At the Wisdom Commons or the Virtues Project International or similar sites you can find quotes, stories, and curriculum materials to help you talk with your kids about your moral core.
As complicated and awkward as it may feel to find the right words for all of this, it’s worth it. You have the chance to model for your kids what it means to be a lifetime learner -- someone who cultivates the curiosity and humility that can make it actually feel good to realize you were ignorant. Along the way, if you keep asking questions, you will be making some wonderful discoveries, and part of the delight can be sharing them. If you once gave your kids a fish, now you can invite them on a fishing expedition. Who knows what you might catch together!
Valerie Tarico is a Psychologist in Seattle, Washington. She is author of The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth; founder of www.WisdomCommons.org; and host of Christianity in the Public Square, Moral Politics Television, Seattle.
Mar
24
Warning: if you’re one of those muslims that gets upset at the drop of a hat kufi or because you think a bunch of letters arranged in the sequence
M O H A M M E D
have some special or magical significance, you probably shouldn’t watch the following video. Really. I mean it. Because I know how some of you get all bent out of shape and (start threatening to) kill folk because they don’t or won’t dhimmise themselves or kowtow to your super-special-invisible-sky-friend.
The rest of us can watch it and maybe have a wee chuckle. Or not, depending how uptight you are.
Mohammed Brand Condoms, courtesy of The Nose On Your Face (home of Islamic Rage Boy©).
/hattip: Godless not gormless over at The Freethinker.
Possibly related posts:
- Word of the day: qu’randemonium From the s
- BBC: Teddy Bear Teacher “pardoned” The BBC ha
- Taking the Infidel Challenge Thrawn has
