"To be a Conservative" - Barry Goldwater, 1981 (a warning of how religion can divide our politics)

I came across a post on Facebook quoting Barry Goldwater from a speech he gave to Congress back in 1981. Ever on the lookout for "quote mining," I found the speech in it's entirety buried in an online archive book of the Congressional Records.

Regardless of political persuasion, I found the speech very compelling. I know that a number of my conservative friends would most likely raise their hackles at this speech, which, I guess, is the reason I found it buried in a difficult to navigate archive. So here's the speech in it's entirety. Enjoy. :-)

To be a Conservative
Barry Goldwater to Congress, September 18, 1981

            Mr. President, it is a wonderful feeling to be a conservative these days. When I ran for President 17 years ago I was told I was behind the times. Now everybody tells me I was ahead of my time. All I can say is that time certainly is an elusive companion.

            But those reactions illustrate how far the ideological pendulum has swung in recent years. The American people have expressed their desire for a new course in our public policy in this country—a conservative course.

            President Reagan’s triumphs at the polls and in Congress during the past year are, of course, great tributes to his skill as a politician. But they also resulted, I believe, from the long-developing shift of public opinion to traditional American values.

            As far as I am concerned, that shift had to come. Government had been intruding more and more into every aspect of our lives. The people just would not stand for it anymore.

            I have seen it coming for a long time. Throughout my political career, since the day I took my seat in the U. S. Senate, I have preached one basic theme: The bigger Government gets, the more it threatens our freedom.

            I am certain those who contributed to the growth of Government had all the best intentions. As they started one Federal program after another through the years, their motives always sounded good and the intent of the programs always seemed admirable.

            Almost 150 years ago a young Frenchman came to this country and marveled at the success of the American experiment in democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote after visiting this country that:

            “The advantage of democracy does not consist… in favoring the prosperity of all, but simply in contributing to the well-being of the greatest number.”

            And the foundation for our form of government is not in the principle of prosperity for all but in freedom for all. That is what has attracted all those who have migrated to this country. That is what has made America the symbol of hope and prosperity for all the world. Freedom: That is what true conservatism is all about.

            Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedom that document protects.

            We believe, as the Founding Fathers did, that we “are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

            And for 205 years this Nation, based on those principles, has endured. Through foreign wars and civil wars, through political scandals and economic disasters, through civil disorders and Presidential assassinations, our flag has flown high. Through it all we have survived every possible attack on our freedom.

            But where the guns of war and the breadlines of the depression failed, another force could succeed in dividing our country. The specter of single issue religious groups is growing over our land. In all honesty, I must admit that the birth of the so-called “new right” is a direct reaction to years of increasing social activism by the liberal side of the religious house. Within that development lies a very serious threat to our liberty.

            One of the great strengths of our political system always has been our tendency to keep religious issues in the background. By maintaining the separation of church and state , the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Throughout our 200-plus years, public policy debate has focused on political and economic issues, on which there can be compromise.

            James Madison once wrote that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

            Well, Madison certainly recognized that humans are not angels. He realized that they tend to group together in narrow interest groups, which he called factions. And he wrote extensively in the federalist papers about how the Constitution should protect us from the abuses of various factions.

            Madison saw this as the great paradox of our system: How do you control the factions without violating the people’s basic freedoms?

            Madison wrote:

            “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

            And in a well-constructed representative government like ours, Madison said, one of our greatest strengths is our ability to “break and control the violence of faction.”

            What he said is that the aim of the framers of the Constitution was to allow freedom of religion and freedom of speech for everyone, not just those who follow one religious faction.

            Madison said:

            “A zeal for different opinions concerning religion has occasionally divided mankind… and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppose each other than to cooperate for the common good.”

            Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage of Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?

            Our political process involves a constant give and take, a continuous series of trade-offs. From this system of compromise, we get legislation that reflects input from many sectors of our society and addresses many needs and interests.

            Obviously, not everyone can be pleased, but at least all sides are considered.

            However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.

But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.

The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they cajole, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

In the past couple years, I have seen many news items that referred to the moral majority, pro-life and other religious groups as "the new right," and the "new conservatism." Well, I have spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the "old conservatism." And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics.

The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.

As it is, they are diverting us away from the vital issues that our Government needs to address. We are facing serious economic and military dangers in this country today, and we need to make a concerted effort to correct our problems in these areas.

But far too much of the time of Members of Congress and officials in the executive branch is used up dealing with special interest groups on issues like abortion, school busing, ERA, prayer in schools, and pornography.  While these are important moral issues, they are secondary right now to our national security and economic survival.

I must make it clear that I do not condemn these groups for what they believe. I happen to share many of the values emphasized by these organizations.

I, too, believe that we Americans should return to our traditional values concerning morality, family closeness, self-reliance, and a day's work for a day's pay. These are the values our forebears clung to as they built this Nation into the citadel of freedom it is today.

And, I, too, have been pleased with the swing of the pendulum for in recent years to the conservative, moral end of the spectrum.

But I object to certain groups jumping on that pendulum and then claiming that they caused it to swing in the first place.

And I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.

I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.

This unrelenting obsession with a particular goal destroys the perspective of many decent people with whom I think I agree on most issues.  In the quest for moral righteousness they have become easy prey to manipulation and misjudgment.

A prime example was the recent nomination of Sandra O'Connor as a Supreme Court justice and the ensuing uproar over her stand on abortion.

The abortion issue has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. I happen to oppose abortion, but there are many fine conservatives who would go along with regulated abortions.  In fact, my own wife believes that a woman should have the freedom of choice for herself whether she is capable of continuing the pregnancy and then raising the child.

I disagree with her on that. Yet I respect her right to disagree. If I expected her to agree with me on every issue we would be in a lot of trouble.

And the same goes for prospective Supreme Court justices. No single issue should ever decide the fitness of a Supreme Court justice. To think otherwise is to go against the integrity of the Constitution.

There are many broad issues addressed each day by a jurist that are much more revealing of how that person might perform on a High Court. A judge’s attitude on a private property rights, State sovereignty, statutory construction, and treatment of criminals tells me more about whether a person is conservative than his or her stand on abortion.

Of course, the saddest part of the whole dispute was that Judge O’Connor was attacked by these religious factions for a position she does not hold. She opposes abortion and said so. I firmly believe that she recognizes the authority of legislatures to regulate it.

She will make an excellent justice of the Supreme Court. She will make President Reagan proud that he chose her as the best of all candidates—men or women.

And the religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy.

They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternative.

The great decisions of Government cannot be dictated by the concerns of religious factions.  This was true in the days of Madison, and it is just as true today.

We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of State separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we must not stop now.

To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.

Source: The Congressional RecordVolume 127 - Part 16, Pages 20589 through 20590

Godless but Not Alone

A little over a year ago I found myself unemployed and staring at an uncertain future, not knowing how, if, or when I would ever see a steady income again. It was a very dark time.

Now things are much better. I have a new employer, I'm making more money than before, and although the future is always uncertain, it's looking pretty good at this point. A theist friend recently said that his faith in god is what got him through troubled times and kept him a charitable human being when he otherwise would not have been. I find that rather sad.

What kept me going was self-confidence, and when that was lacking, it was the encouragement and love that friends and family gave me throughout the ordeal, and when they weren't around, it was knowing they were still out there still wishing me the best, and then there was the memory of my late father who always told me to keep pushing for my goals in life and that I was capable of doing anything I wanted to do. That's some powerful "mojo" right there!

I guess you might say I gather the strength to get through hard times in life from living life itself. A Unitarian Universalist minister once told me that the meaning of life was whatever meaning we put into it ourselves. This rings very true for me. It is through living life the best I can, engaging friends and family along the way, and creating new memories to cherish that I gain the benefits of wisdom, love and support I need when times get rough.

I am an atheist, happy, godless, and never alone. :-)

Crossing the Withered Crag

or

Retaining an Appearance of Professionalism While Getting Fired

A Short Narrative by Michael W. Haynes

Note: In March of 2012 I was "let go" at my place of employment. In May of 2012 I found new employment. Those two months were a roller-coaster of emotions for my wife and I. The following narrative is an artistic and embellished account of my experience at the beginning of this life changing experience. Stay tuned...

Part One: Mantra

I’m not quite sure how to describe it. I suppose it’s like standing under the metaphorical black cloud, knowing that lightning is going to strike at any moment, but not knowing when. And when it finally does strike, it’s no surprise, but the shock is just as powerful and devastating.

I arrived at the office, looking forward to my first cup of coffee. D_____ and I were chatting and I had just picked up my empty “Marvin Martian” coffee mug from my desk when the phone rang. A_____’s name lit up on the phone’s caller ID panel.

(Kaboom!)

The lightning had just struck. A_____ was the HR Legal Counsel, and as far as my job was concerned, Death had just rung the front door bell.

I answered with my usual professional tone, “Good morning. This is Mike,” as the carpeting on the floor shriveled away and cracks formed beneath my shaking feet.

“Hi Mike. Could you come down to the second floor HR office for a moment? We need to speak with you.”

“Sure. I’ll be right down.” I kept my tone pleasant, upbeat and professional. My feet were numb, and my heart was trying to burst out of my chest. I put down the receiver slowly. “Well D_____, this is my last cup of coffee here.”

“What do you mean?” D_____ was a contractor who hadn’t been around long enough to understand what a call from A_____ meant to a regular employee.

“The HR Legal Rep wants to talk to me.”

“Oh?”

“Yup. My job here is over. A_____ is the unfortunate person who has to be involved in anyone’s dismissal,” I explained as we headed toward the coffee pot. My voice was still steady, and I was “matter-of-fact.” My composure was rock solid, but the room was shaking, the cracks in the floor under my feet were growing wider, and it was all I could do to hold on to my coffee mug.

“Maybe it’s something else.” He offered hopefully.

“Nope,” I poured my last cup of coffee as calmly as I could. “If it was something else, she would have told me what the ‘something else’ was. I’d better get going. I don’t want to keep them waiting.” I set the coffee pot down gently.

“What? They’re about to let you go, and you’re worried about keeping them waiting?” He asked incredulously.

I laughed at that. “Yeah, just simple human courtesy, I suppose. I can’t imagine that they’re actually looking forward to this any more than I am.”

“You’re a bigger man than me.”

“Don’t be so sure!” I joked, “I haven’t faced them yet!” The floor was falling out from under me now, and the walls had begun crumbling away by the time I had reached the elevator.

I stepped inside the elevator and turned. The doors slowly closed in solemn silence, and I felt oddly safe and secure in that small, confined space. “Nothing can touch me here.” In that brief moment of serenity a mantra formed and started echoing in my head, “professional; upbeat; no sob story; no complaining; no yelling; no tears.”

Part Two: Attitude

“Breathe.” I reminded myself as the doors opened onto the second floor. Only there was no floor; no walls; just darkness. All that was left by now was a withered, narrow crag that led to a lonely, stone bunker in the distance. The harsh, cold, buffeting wind nearly knocked me down, but I strove forward. “The only way out is through,” I told myself, “Breathe!”

The door to the cramped bunker opened with a sad, whimpering sigh. The damp, stone walls glistened in the primitive torchlight. G_____, our CIO, looked up at me with a somber look on his face. The pale, flickering light accented the lines of dread that crossed his brow, and A_____ stood just to my right with her hands folded in front of her... She glanced at me and managed a weak smile.

(Breathe!)

“Ah!” I exclaimed in mock surprise, “I’m glad I grabbed some coffee first!”

(Steady…)

G_____ replied with a sad half smile, “Yes Mike. I guess you know why we asked you here.”

“Yes, I assumed as much.” I replied softly, sitting down and taking a sip of coffee.

The torchlight dimmed as the air became heavier. I could feel the entire room quaking uneasily. I was hoping that the “honest-sincere-and-professional” mask that I had put on just before I entered was doing its job, because my feet had just melted to the floor, and my hands had become shackled to the table in front of me. I was paralyzed. Then as G_____ spoke, everything else around me blurred, and all I could hear was the rushing of my own blood flowing through my ears.

(Oh shit! This is really happening!)

I kept my mask on, nodding my head politely as if I could actually hear and comprehend what he was saying to me.

(Breathe! Breathe Damn it! Look him in the eyes! Keep that goddamn mask on! No fucking tears now! Damn it!)

“…So I’m sorry it has to be this way,” he concluded. “A_____ will cover the details of your transition and will have some papers for you to sign before you go.”

(“Transition!” Is that what they fucking call this now?)

He stood up and started briskly for the door.

(Get up! Get on your feet man! Say something positive, and shake his hand! Damn it! Let that son of a bitch know that he just fired a real professional! )

I felt my body stand and step toward him. (Did he just flinch?) I saw my hand reach out and grasp his in a firm handshake. My lips started moving, “I’m grateful for the time I have worked here, and I’m proud to have been a part of such a talented team that has contributed so much to the company’s growth.” (Wow! This is pouring out of me like syrup!) “I wish you all the best and look forward to reading great things about the company in the future!”

(Bull’s-eye!)

He blinked. His mouth opened. Then it closed again. Then it opened and he stammered, “Wow! You have a great attitude!” He then turned and hurried out the door.

Part Three: Things I Need to Do

I sat down again as A_____ began explaining what would be happening next, severance package terms and continued insurance coverage, etc. Reality began to slowly fade back in. First the carpeted floor reappeared beneath my feet. The stone walls were replaced with finely finished drywall, some nice prints adorned the room, and lastly, the primitive torches were replaced with soft, fluorescent lighting.

My feet became unglued from the floor, the shackles had fallen from my hands, and I could speak again. A sense of purpose and resolve rushed over me. My job was gone, but I was still here. I was still a professional, and I could still accomplish any goal I set my mind to.

(Holy shit! What a trip that was!)

I looked excitedly over at A_____, “So, can I get my stuff from my desk now? I’ve just lost my job and I’ve got things I need to do!”

"...For an Atheist"

I don't think I can count the number of times I've had someone tell me incredulously, "It's amazing! You're really a nice guy even though you're an atheist!" or "Wow! It's great that you're so open minded, especially since you're an atheist!" and my favorite, "You seem so happy and morally sound for an atheist!"

I was sure at those times that these statements were given as sincere compliments, and I gratefully accepted them as such. It was nice to know that I was providing a view of an atheist that didn't fit the stereotypical sad and lonely, angry-at-god, lost soul atheist that so many theists picture in their mind. Something in the back of my mind itched a bit though.

"...For an atheist?" What if the word "atheist" in those sentences was replaced with some other word defining a different segment of our population? Try inserting "Jew" or "Muslim" or "Christian" or "black" or "woman" in place of "atheist" in those statements. They don't sound like compliments any more, do they?

So if you have said anything similar to the examples I provided in the first paragraph, thank you. I do appreciate the sentiment. Lets just leave off that "for an atheist" bit from now on, m'kay?

Growing Up With Silent Doubt

I was reflecting on my childhood indoctrination the other day, and I remembered sitting quietly in the back seat of our station wagon on the way to church, hoping that maybe this time the preacher would say something convincing enough to remove all doubt. It never happened. I remember him saying once, "Millions of people around the world can't all be wrong!" and how I was almost convinced, except that my 9 year old inquisitive brain shot back silently and sharply in my head, "But what about all those millions of people who believe something different?" 

Early on in my indoctrination during the 1970's, Sunday School teachers and other adult congregation members (including my parents) would admonish me for being too inquisitive. I would be told repeatedly that to question the word of God was to question God himself and risk eternal damnation. So I kept my doubts to my self, silently fearing that my "sinful" thoughts were already known by the all powerful "Father in Heaven" and that my doom had perhaps already been sealed. The indoctrination had successfully done its job. I was sufficiently terrified enough to go through the correct motions of praying, reading the Bible verses I was told to read, proclaiming my love for a 2000 year old "savior" whom I had never met, and obediently stifling any doubts that would creep into my mind lest I be damned forever.

Even in my rebellious teen years, the fear still existed. I had pretty much determined that I would most likely go to Hell if I suddenly died, hoping that maybe I would have enough warning before hand to make a last minute prayer for forgiveness. I would imagine myself slipping into Heaven just in the nick of time, with the gates slamming shut and nipping the backs of my heels. I had an atheist friend in high school, and I remember him telling me how he didn't believe in any god or afterlife. I was so amazed that he could think such a thing and not be frightened of death, or of being wrong and finding himself in Hell! It was astonishing! And I had a hard time grasping how he could be so comfortable with his position. Somewhere in the depths of my mind though, buried beneath the lies, the fears, and denial, was a wish that I could be just as comfortable with my life as he was with his.

In my 20's my wife and I decided we needed to get our act together and start following the "right path." We both started attending a church and reading the Bible in earnest. By my late 20's, after digging deeper into the scriptures and finding all the contradictions and horrible atrocities committed by a supposedly "loving" god, those doubts from my childhood began to surface again, with fear of eternal damnation tagging along for the ride. My first breakthrough in shaking off the paralyzing indoctrination of my childhood came to me while I was thinking (of course).

I was working at a factory at the time, and 80 percent of my time was spent watching a machine run, intervening whenever it got jammed. So I had time to spare for self-reflection and thought. I first realized that my emotional fear was all that was holding me back from pursuing the rational doubts that I had been stuffing down all these years. So I conducted my own little "thought experiment." I asked myself, "If I had no fear whatsoever, would I still believe all of this Christianity stuff?" The immediate, almost knee-jerk answer that popped into my head was a resounding "NO!" Fortunately, my wife was having doubts as well, and although our individual searches for the truth didn't match up exactly, they were close enough in comparison that we were able to share our discoveries with each other, both of us agreeing that the doctrine of Christianity was bunk and would not get us any answers to our questions.

I didn't know it at the time, but that day in the factory was the beginning of my 13 year journey toward non-belief in a god and the supernatural. It took me several years of searching and struggling with the byproducts of my indoctrination before I eventually landed at being an atheist. I still wanted to believe there was a god of some sort; that there was some type of afterlife and some kind of externally defined purpose for my being in the world. Yes, there were still some residual fears that needed to be shaken off, but I was on my way to freedom, breaking my silence at last, asking questions and fearlessly letting my doubts be heard by anyone who cared to listen.

Why Write All These Words?: The Death of an Atheist

For the past week I have been reading many online posts, blogs, and articles noting the death of Christopher Hitchens, best known perhaps for his book God is Not Great. Some atheists, myself included, felt mild sadness and will miss his writing and his skill at debating. Some atheists viewed him as their hero and were literally shedding tears. Some atheists hated the guy over political differences and were glad that he was gone. 

Of course there were also theists who had something to say about Mr. Hitchens’ death. Some were genuinely heart-felt and kind in their address. The rest of them seem to fall into three categories.  Some went with the Universalist idea, suggesting he would be in Heaven eventually. Others who do not believe in a literal Hell suggested that he was indeed dead and gone, missing the opportunity for “everlasting life” in Heaven. Lastly, there were those who said that if he didn’t convert at the last moment, that he was in Hell and/or separated from God forever, screaming for mercy. The latter group came across almost gleefully in an “I-told-you-so” sort of way, as if his death was somehow “proof” that he had begun his eternal torment.

At first I was angry at the theists in this latter group for expressing such terrible ideas about the late Mr. Hitchens. Then it occurred to me that in his day he didn’t really have any kind words for the late Jerry Falwell or Mother Teresa either. None of this really matters anyway. He’s dead. So what purpose do all of these words have? Why would so many people bother to write about their feelings concerning one man’s life and how he lived it? My guess is that when news breaks about the death of a widely-known person who has had such a divisive influence on our political and theological discussions, there are a lot more of us who notice a sort-of “empty spot” in our lives. Whether it’s big or small, or brings sadness or happiness or something in between, the fabric of our lives has been permanently changed, and we take notice.

Perhaps in the case of Christopher Hitchens, a very outspoken atheist who held no punches when it came to debating the existence of a god and/or an afterlife, there is an odd curiosity of what it must be like to come face to face with death, unwavering and unrepentant. His fellow atheists, whether they liked him or not, might recognize this one aspect of his outlook on life and death with some respect, perhaps awe. Theists on the other hand, especially the more fundamental ones, might have a harder time wrapping their heads around this.

Of the many misconceptions widely held about atheists, the idea that we actually believe in a god but simply refuse to acknowledge it somehow, seems to be one of the most common. So when someone like Christopher Hitchens dies with no remorseful last-minute conversion, the theist might conclude one of two things:

• He honestly did not believe that there was a god or an afterlife. - For the theist to acknowledge that Mr. Hitchens’ disbelief was truly held through to the very end could mean that there is the slightest chance that he might have been right. Such a concept seems to be one of the scariest for a stalwart theist to imagine.
• Or he was simply too stubborn and prideful; refusing to believe what was “obvious.” - This allows the theist to continue feeling secure in his or her beliefs without having to address any doubts. Thus the theist, depending upon the flavor of religious faith, concludes that Mr. Hitchens is burning in Hell or just eternally separated from God or is truly dead with no chance of experiencing an afterlife, and all is right with the world.

No, the words aren’t for the late Christopher Hitchens, they’re for us, and they help each of us to describe how we are dealing with this “empty spot” that has been left behind. Whether we agree with each other or not; whether we are theist or atheist; whether we liked the man or not, all of these words paint a tapestry of how his life influenced the world around him. So, if we all felt the same, it would be a pretty boring tapestry, wouldn’t it?

On Faith and Killing in the Name of Faith

I wonder sometimes, if there was no religion, would the hairless apes of Planet Earth simply latch onto some other ideal or philosophy that they would be willing to kill for? Someone once told me that faith was the culprit in clashes like this one rather than belief in a god or a religion.

Faith can be placed in anything I suppose, whether it is a person, place, thing, idea, or philosophy. However, it seems to me that those who consider faith a moral virtue also attach the qualifier that it's only virtuous if it is in agreement with their own values. As long as the hairless apes on this planet hold to this way of thinking, I doubt seriously that any peace we might enjoy would ever last longer than a fleeting instant in our brief, tumultuous time here.

Listening to Silence

when i was young i was told
god was maker
of everything that has been,
everything that is,
everything that will be.

i was told then to pray
for his still voice,
his comforting words of hope,
comforting wisdom,
comforting love for me.

i listened in silence
for any word.
so anxious i was to hear,
anxious to perceive,
anxious for belonging.

in silence i heard naught
but my own sigh,
disappointed, no answer,
disappointed, still,
disappointed, grieving.

so pretending to hear
some small still voice
i bowed down with the others,
bowed down just in case,
bowed down for parents' praise.

trying with each prayer to
feel his presence,
i felt only my sadness,
felt my tears falling
as hours turned to days.

i did what i was told
for all those years.
yet those years were not wasted.
they gave me wisdom,
time to think, time to feel.

now grown and on my own,
my life is full.
i have a world around me,
a world i can touch,
not imagined, but real.

without belief in some
fictional god,
i still have life before me,
a life with purpose,
with vision and with choice.

i've listened to silence
and found for it
two uses (among others),
to stay quiet in,
or to fill with my voice.

Cherish Your Doubts

Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth.

Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery.

A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief.

Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false.

Let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is a testing of belief.

The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing:

For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure.

Those that would silence doubt are filled with fear; their houses are built on shifting sands.

But those who fear not doubt, and know its use, are founded on rock.

They shall walk in the light of knowledge; the work of their hands shall endure.

Therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help:

It is to the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the attendant of truth.

- Robert T. Weston

The Problem of Faith

In a recent email exchange with a few close friends, I lamented on my fence-sitting position about the idea that religion, in and of itself, is harmful to our society. I received a great response from my friend Janet Factor. Our short exchange is pasted below. Janet's response is included with her permission.

Mike:

I continue to have this internal debate over the idea of the direct "harmfulness" of religion.

Many atheists claim that religion, in and of itself, is harmful, not only because of what some religious adherents do in the name of a particular religious deity or figurehead, but because of the negative influences it can have on their day-to-day decision making (for example: praying for healing instead of visiting a hospital).

I always wonder, however, with humans being the way they are, if there was no religion, wouldn't there most likely be some other harmful political or social ideal that various groups would follow with just as much fervor?

Janet:

You have a point, Mike, in that of course there are other destructive ideologies that people can adopt. However, it is not as though the presence of religion prevents them from arising, Nazism got along just fine with the German churches.

I would put it this way: the problem is not belief in gods per se, nor is it even the broader system of religions in general. The problem is FAITH. Faith is a great evil that underlies Nazism and Stalinism just as much as it underlies religion.

For this reason, I believe that if religion, which explicitly names faith as virtue, encourages and glorifies it, were somehow eliminated (not that I think it will be) the other irrational and destructive systems of thought would also decline. Faith teaches people to be credulous, and the evil among us will always exploit credulity.

But I will say, this is a battle that will have to be fought anew in every generation. It will never be won for good and all.

I think Janet is correct. As long as faith is upheld by humankind as a virtue, it will remain an anathema to our wellbeing in modern society.

The Atheist's Paradox - A discussion with my friend, Edward

Edward, a friend of mine and a believer in God, recently posted a comment on my Facebook page which presents the "Atheist's Paradox". I had asked him to place the comment here, but technology didn't seem to want to cooperate, so at his request, I am presenting our discussion here. I will update further discussion between us on this topic here as time permits.

Edward:

The atheist's paradox: Those without experience of God's presence are in no place to talk about him, and those who have are in no place to doubt.

Mike:

The Atheist can comment about the god character he or she has read about and say, "If an omniscient, omnipresent god like this did exist, why would this god leave such a confusing message behind, and punish those who didn't believe with everlasting torture?" These are valid questions, and for many Atheists, a satisfactory answer has not yet been given.

So, if a non-believer is in no place to talk about this god, how would believers expect to engage them a dialogue which would allow them to provide a convincing argument otherwise?

Edward:

Darwin was quoted “Man understanding God is like a dog trying to understand calculus.” We often want to push our perspective on what God should be, which usually is the perfect father or mother figure we wished was in our lives making us safe and happy. We also by nature seem to want God to be omni-fare making life the most well monitored playground imaginable.

But the most casual of observations will teach us that God did not make this universe a child’s dream like candy garden. The God who made little fluffy bunny rabbits also made foxes to kill and eat them; then when we protect the rabbits from the foxes we only hand the rabbits to crueler fate of starvation via overpopulation. No matter what, rabbit loses; doesn’t sound much like an all loving and kind God does it. To have a positive relationship with God, one must get past the notion that the meaning of life is to be coddled and cared for by your creator.

God like the like the mass of a photon may well not be directly observable. So if we are not quick enough to catch God winking at us, then the best we can do is secondary observations borrowing from statisticians and sociologist the tools to see if evidence exits.

Mike:
I would be interested to see the source of that quote from Darwin. The closest I could find was the following:

"I feel most deeply that this whole question of Creation is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton! Let each man hope and believe what he can."

In any respect, I believe I understand the point you are making here. I have heard Atheist skeptics say that if you want to ask them about belief in God, first you need to define what "God" is.

Reading what you have written, I am reminded of Mathematician and Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, who is famous for saying God created the best of all possible worlds. Note he was not saying that it was a wonderful place where everything is delightful and joyous. He meant that the world was the way it was simply because it could not be any other way. Put another way, he believed that God was a perfect being who made the world the most perfect way possible. Making it any different would simply have resulted in a worse world.

It doesn't convince me of God's existence, but I do think it's an interesting way of viewing the world. So, to bring this back to the issue of the paradox with the definition of God that you have provided (your last paragraph), I, an Atheist, am talking about (or blogging about) God although I do not believe I am experiencing His presence. Perhaps the paradox should be worded as my late father (a former Baptist preacher) used to say when I was a child:

"For the non-believer, proof cannot be found. For the believer, proof is not necessary."

This I can agree with. Given your definition, it does come down to an issue of faith. Faith is the stickler point for me. Darwin said, "...this whole question of Creation is too profound for human intellect." Then he followed up with, "Let each man hope and believe what he can." Seems like he left "belief" up to the individual.

To believe or have faith that there was some "creator" responsible for the Big Bang and life on Earth is understandable and maybe even plausible. However, to also believe that this "creator" is interested in our morals and day to day activities, demands that we worship and praise him, and wants us to accept 2000 year old writings as his word and commandments for how we are to do these things just seems (forgive me) absolutely ridiculous.

I am of the mind that just because I don't have all the answers to the questions of "life the universe and everything," it doesn't mean that I fill in all of those unanswered questions with "God did it." Today's scientists, through experimentation, study, and peer review, have managed to answer many questions that were unanswerable in Darwin's day. So I still hold out hope that we will someday have those answers we seek, although it most likely won't be in my lifetime.

Colin McGinn "Why I am an Atheist"

It wasn't until I saw him on Johnathan Miller's BBC series "Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief" (which someone was kind enough to post on the internet) that I knew who Philosopher Colin McGinn was. Just recently, I decided to look him up on Google and find out a little more about him. I was very happy to find a blog post of his entitled "Why I am an Atheist."

It's somewhat of a lengthy read for a blog post, and his first few paragraphs threw me back a little, because his definition of what an Atheist "believes" VS. what he or she "knows" seemed at first glance to be contrary to my way of thinking. I persevered however and am grateful that I didn't let this one issue stop me from reading the rest of what he had written. Thanks to Mr. McGinn, I now have more to think about, or perhaps less. ;-)

I Atheist

This was originally written on a Facebook note in August, 2009. I didn't want it to get "buried" there, so I have "resurrected" it here with a little editing. Enjoy.

I Atheist
by Mike Haynes on Friday, August 21, 2009 at 12:03am
A recent FB conversation about faith with a good friend and other Atheist related topics I have encountered today have prompted me to think, and write.

First a couple of definitions:

Theism:
the⋅ism
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Atheism:
a⋅the⋅ism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


So, a Theist is one who believes in the existence of a god or gods, and an Atheist is one who does not. There is no reference to science or religion. Note the use of the words "belief" and "disbelief" in both definitions. No other verb or activity is defined.

Clearly we can see that "theism" by definition covers any religious belief that includes a creator/ruler or god and any individual or group deistic philosophy. So a statement of the form, "All theists think/believe/say/assert/worship " could be refuted by many people who consider themselves to be theists.

Likewise, a blanket statement of the form, "All atheists think/believe/say/assert/worship " could be refuted by many people who consider themselves to be atheists.

You will find many Atheists who disagree with other Atheists. Contrary to popular stereotypes, some Atheists are Pro-life, some are politically Conservative, some have very high morals while others lead a life as decadent as possible. You can't pin us down with a single ideology very easily. All you can say is that we don't believe in a god. I am not writing this to "convert" anyone to "Atheism." I simply want my voice to be heard.

I am an Atheist. I believe there is no god and no afterlife. Note that I am not making an assertion of knowledge here. I am not saying, "There is absolutely no god." Nor am I saying that I "hate" any god or any others who may believe in a god. I am not a Satanist. Satanism would fall under the blanket term of theist since a Satanist would be viewing Satan as a "supreme being".

I have been told there is a god. I have seen no measurable evidence and have had no personal experience to support this statement as true. It does not seem plausible to me, and thus I do not believe it. That is all. The possibility exists that tomorrow I may change my mind for some reason, but I doubt that will happen.

I have been told that my disbelief in a god is a form of blind faith, something I ranted about earlier concerning Fundamental Christians. In the strictest sense, it may be true that my non-belief may require some faith, but here's my take on that idea:

I have faith that I'm going to enjoy my next cup of coffee. I have faith that the sun will appear over the eastern horizon tomorrow morning. This is supported by inductive reasoning. Past experiences of these events do not guarantee 100% that the next occurrences will be the same as before, but I believe it's a safe bet. I have faith in this respect.

However, if every day of my life, someone walks up and tells me that invisible pink giraffes orbit Pluto and they can't be detected by any means we know of, I will not believe it. If I was also told that these invisible pink giraffes created us, the universe and everything in it. I would not believe it.

Suppose that someone wrote a book a long time ago about how invisible pink giraffes orbited Pluto, and that they could be detected at one time, but now choose not to be...that they know my every move and can read my mind...that I can thusly communicate to them telepathically and they will grant my wishes, but only if they want to and only if I send a sincere enough telepathic message. Oh yes, and more importantly, I need to give a percentage of my income to a special invisible pink giraffe messager who would make sure that the money was put to use in a way that the invisible pink giraffes see fit. Would my non-belief still be regarded as faith in the traditional sense?

As absurd as my above example sounds, I could never in the strictest sense assert that it is 100% false. The faith required to believe it is 100% false could hardly be considered "blind faith" however.

I do not believe that science has all the answers. I believe science is a good methodology to use in order to understand our world. Science will retrace it's steps and correct and/or improve itself as new information comes along. Newton's Theories on Gravity worked fine in his day. Einstein's Theory of Relativity improved upon Newton's theories so they would work at velocities near the speed of light. Einstein actually acknowledged one of his own "blunders" and publicly admitted it. It is this type of self-evaluation and correction that has given us the modern technologies we enjoy today. Science does not have all the answers, but it is continually striving to unravel the mysteries of this universe we live in using proven methods that can be backed by empirical evidence and sound logic. Belief in the Scientific Method does not require blind faith.

I don't care if someone else believes in a god or gods (or invisible pink giraffes). It doesn't concern me. So why do I bother stating that I am a non-believer? Why is it so damned important to me? It is because there are people in the world who are willing to kill themselves and others for their god. Their are those who believe their government should enforce their religion and teach it in their public schools. Their are those who would warp the scientific method to include a "god" factor in their calculations. There are those who would have children believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

So? What religion should our government enforce? What denomination of that religion? Should the space shuttle be prayed over by technicians, or should they actually do the calculations and work necessary to make sure it gets off the ground? What about your surgeon? Should he/she remove your kidney stones with prayer or with sound, scientific, medical knowledge? These are of course extremely silly examples, but hopefully you get the idea I'm driving at.

This is why I wear the label of "Atheist."

This is why I speak out.

This is why I will not "get over it."

This is why I will not shut up and go away.

- Mike Haynes



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bibliography:

American Psychological Association (APA):
theism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved August 20, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism
Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
theism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism (accessed: August 20, 2009).
Modern Language Association (MLA):
"theism." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 20 Aug. 2009. .
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):
Dictionary.com, "theism," in Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Source location: Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com/. Accessed: August 20, 2009.
BibTeX Bibliography Style (BibTeX)
@article {Dictionary.com2009,
title = {Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)},
month = {Aug},
day = {20},
year = {2009},
url = {http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism},
}

American Psychological Association (APA):
atheism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved August 20, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
atheism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism (accessed: August 20, 2009).
Modern Language Association (MLA):
"atheism." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 20 Aug. 2009. .
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):
Dictionary.com, "atheism," in Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Source location: Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com/. Accessed: August 20, 2009.
BibTeX Bibliography Style (BibTeX)
@article {Dictionary.com2009,
title = {Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)},
month = {Aug},
day = {20},
year = {2009},
url = {http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism},
}

Einstein, Newton, Gravity, and Light
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2008/01/einstein-newton-gravity-and-light.html

Einstein's Blunder
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/blunder.html

Young Earth Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Dominionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

Stupid Creationist Tricks

Yes. I said stupid. Call me arrogant, but when creationists continue to throw poorly thought-out arguments against evolution, they sound uneducated and stupid.
Ask An Atheist

The New York Times reports on the response to “good without god” signs on Fort Worth buses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/us/14atheist.html

What I find interesting is that the message, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” is being considered by many Theists as a hateful message, when it is simply a message to Atheists that they are not alone in their non-belief. The message is for Atheists, not Theists, and the outrage and vandalism is proving nothing but the hatred of religious bigotry.

My Favorite "Calvin and Hobbs"

A Humanist Thanksgiving Proclamation

“A Humanist Thanksgiving Proclamation,” by Robert Green Ingersoll

“When I became convinced that the universe is natural—that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom.

The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the world—not even infinite space.

I was free. Free to think, to express my thoughts. Free to live my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings. Free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past. Free from popes and priests. Free from all the “called” and “set apart.” Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods.

For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought, no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings, no claims for my limbs, no lashes for my back, no fires for my flesh, no following another’s steps, no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers, who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought, to those who fell on the fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons bound with chains, to those who proudly mounted scaffold’s stairs, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons and daughters of men and women. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they have held, and hold it high, that light may conquer darkness still.”

—Robert Green Ingersoll (1833–1899)

According to a couple of Objectivists, our moral codes are outdated. I *almost* agree.

Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate say that our moral code is out of date. I partly agree, but not with their philosophy.

Objectivism is one of those areas which illustrates how not all Atheists think alike.

It's funny. I start hearing or reading something like the article linked above that promotes the Objectivist philosophy and before I get to the end, I find myself thinking, "This isn't so bad of a philosophy." I like the absence of a belief in a deity, and I like the idea of upholding self-identity and not blindly following along with the masses, but then the idea of Capitalism being morally superior to Altruism comes to light, and my brain screeches to a halt.

My take is that both Capitalism and Altruism have their obvious benefits to society, but I can't see how any society can last very long by favoring one over the other. I believe both Entrepreneurs and Philanthropists deserve praise in our society, because together they serve to promote the self-sufficiency we all need to make progress possible, and the empathy and kindness we all need to make sure no one is left wanting for basic needs.

So, although I'm clearly not an Objectivist, I still find it a fascinating philosophy to read about.

--
Mike Haynes

PS. "Who is John Galt?" ;-)

Stephen Hawking: Physics Leaves No Room For God

My hero, Stephen Hawking has gotten the debate going again. He apparently states in his latest book that physics leaves no room for God. My first thought however is "Duh! God is based on faith, not the scientific process." Now I have to think for a moment about what is being said. Stephen Hawking has found a possible answer to how and why the universe exists. This answer doesn't require a god. That is all well and good, but it isn't quite yet "the" answer. So, I think interjecting the existence of a god into the issue is irrelevant (there is also some question as to whether he actually said this or if it was the co-author who threw it in). This is indeed fascinating stuff, but it still doesn't answer what happened "before" the big bang. Thus we have a long way to go in addressing the full answer to how and why we are here.

Note: I do have a little problem with the moderator's question to Professor Jon Butterworth (an Atheist), "...How many more years do you people need to find out?" It makes me want to punch him...just a little. ;-)

The Final Hurdle - A Personal Journey of Deconversion

"We are young
Wandering the face of the Earth
Wondering what our dreams might be worth
Learning that we're only immortal
For a limited time"

- from Rush's 'Dreamline'


In reference to my Atheism, a Christian friend once said to me, "It's too bad you have to live with such hopelessness."

"What do you mean by that?" I asked.

He replied, "Well, from your viewpoint, after you die, there will be nothing, so your life would have had no meaning. Why bother trying to accomplish anything? It would just be hopeless."

"Not at all," I said, "To the contrary, it makes this life more precious and meaningful, because it's the only one I've got."

He wasn't very convinced. Our conversation continued a bit, and it was very clear that what bothered him the most about my Atheist convictions was that if there was no afterlife, then upon death we would simply cease to exist; all of our thoughts, ideals, creativity, and everything that makes us who we are would simply vanish. To him, this was simply unacceptable and unbelievable. There just had to be something after this life was over! I could understand why he felt this way, because I used to think the same way.

During my long transition to non-belief concerning the existence of any gods or an afterlife, I must admit that the idea of no longer existing was the final and most difficult emotional hurdle that I had to get over. Throughout my childhood, I had always been told that everything was created by God, and there was a plan, and after I died I would go to Heaven and live forever. The idea of non-existence seemed foreign and scary. It was just utterly inconceivable that an individual’s existence in any form at all would come to an absolute end.

In my mid-twenties I began thinking critically about what I had been taught as a child, and these fantastic ideas of a god and an afterlife fell deeper and deeper into the realm of doubt. Questions about our origins and what we were doing here still nagged at me however, and it all seemed so unfair to me. We humans are one of a species of apes on this planet whose brains have evolved to the point that we understand clearly that our lives are finite and that we will each eventually die. It seemed to me at the time like we were all the victims of a very cruel practical joke. Only, there was no "joker" to blame it on.

I continued for several years identifying myself as a Deist or Agnostic (depending on my mood), avoiding the "Atheist" label because it seemed to me at the time to carry with it a cold resoluteness; a harsh finality that would indeed slam the door on any hope or meaning I could find in life. Having turned my back on the Christianity I had been brought up with, I kept on trying to foster some belief in some type of higher power or some type of afterlife through various New Age practices, Neo-Paganism, and numerous Western adaptations of the Eastern religions. Every attempt I made ended with my critical thinking getting in the way. I was unsatisfied with the absence of any empirical evidence. I needed something that would give me confidence that I wasn't following yet another set of ideas based on nothing more than blind faith and wishful thinking. It was at a point like this in my life when I finally decided to come to terms with this "unfair practical joke" that humanity had been stung with. In retrospect, what I had finally decided to do was to make a paradigm shift in my outlook about life on this little speck of dust we call "Earth."

I first considered what it would be like to not exist. It sounds silly if you think of it, because it wouldn't "be" like anything. So, I imagined myself going to sleep some evening, dreaming a final dream perhaps, and then drifting off to...nothing. No alarm clock to wake me up, no bills to worry about, no concerns. "That wouldn't be so bad." I thought, “I can handle that.” As for meaning, purpose, and hope in life; I decided that would be up to me to provide.

Today I have a newfound appreciation for this life, this world and all the discoveries that have been made and are yet to be made. It's not perfect. No one said it would be. Many aspects of it are unfair, but the choices I make determine how I will deal with the unfairness. I don't have all the answers, but Science does what it can to discover them, correcting and refining itself along the way as new data and insights come to light. There are still many unanswered questions, but that just deepens the mystery and increases the excitement of each new discovery. I am not a victim of circumstance, and I am responsible for my own actions. My life has the meaning I define for it, the purpose I give to it, and the hope I contribute to it. The final hurdle is now far behind me. I lead a full and happy life filled with wonder, love, and a renewed hope for the future of this little planet and its many inhabitants.