I don't know if I'm fighting the "good fight," but I'm certainly fighting.

The internet is full of people, this much we know for sure. All kinds of people, really. Just look at this blog! In this one tiny area of cyberspace we have quite the smorgasbord of intellects and ideals. Let's look at religion.

We have people like myself and Green (hope you don't mind being lumped in with me) who've done our time in one sect of Christianity or another and though finding it unfulfilling (to put it very lightly), we're still skeptically open to the possibilities.

We have people like the good Teresa, who is very sure that there is no god, and more power to her.

We have people like Travis, who is completely sure that there is a god, and although he has failed to convince me that the case is concrete, god bless him, he keeps trying.

And then we have people like my wife, Leah, who remain comfortably disinterested in the whole matter. This is the stance I envy the most.

So here we are, this quaint little community. I think everyone is, generally, polite, courteous, and pleasant. Even Travis, who opposes almost every single thing I say about religion, does so in a respectful, even tempered, way. For this, I am very thankful. It's not like this everywhere else, as I've just experienced.

Remember The Naked Pastor? I wrote about him, briefly, a while back. Well, David Hayward (the Naked Pastor), has recently decided to leave his church. He just feels like he doesn't belong there anymore for whatever reason and he is leaving on good terms. Of course, this is met with an outpouring of support from his friends and blog readers. I, personally, sent no note of encouragement because, while I enjoy his blog, I don't really care if he works at a church or not. But he seems like a decent guy and I do wish him all the best.

So then there is a blog called Remonstrans written by a guy named Norm who goes by the alias "Dissidens." I believe the blog is set up to be a critique on the "emerging church" but honestly, I haven't looked at it past the post in question. Dissidens doesn't like Naked Pastor. Seems to have a vendetta against him, to me. So he posted this blog about David's leaving. I didn't really find anything terribly awful in the post. He's entitled to his opinions. I thought calling David a "basket case" was petty, but mild.

The only reason I found the blog was because David linked to it in his response. But it wasn't until I saw the first two comments that I thought I should speak up. Here is the conversation, as it pertains to me, in its entirety.
Team Us is in bold.
Team Them in italics.

Dissidens said:

That’s true: the horror of this hits someone who has read Dave’s jitney creed and the sycophants he’s attracted.

When these people desire a theology that commends itself to their sad intellects, this is what they get and this is the price they pay! Hayward questioned everything but himself, and this is his legacy.

What a grisly soul.

So I said:

Sad intellects? Jesus, you guys clearly know everything. Better a sycophant than an asshole.

It was several comments later before anyone thought that what I said was worth commenting on and it came from someone calling themselves "The Divine Passive."

I can't tell if Taylor is both praying AND cussing, or merely cussing. The NP would be proud either way I suppose.

Well, I couldn't have people think I'm praying so....

The Divine Passive,
I'm just cussing.

Simple enough, right? I really thought that I was done there, but Dissidens couldn't have me leave without a dose of good ol' scripture.

Taylor:

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Do you not fear God, Taylor?

Well, he asked me a question, so he deserves an honest answer. I've always thought the terminology of "fearing God" is strange, but I've had it explained to me in more ways than I care to remember so I get it. I know what Christians mean when they say it, more or less.

If there is a god, then I'm relatively sure it's not Jehovah, so I would say that I fear your god about as much as I fear Santa Claus.

Also, I guess I should clarify that I don't fear Santa Claus

Now here is where it gets really juicy. Dissidens comes out swinging!

Taylor:

Now see, this is exactly why I think Hell was a brilliant idea. You’re not sure there is a god, but you’re pretty sure it isn’t one particular god, and on the strength of that uncertainty you blaspheme his name when he explicitly told everyone not to.

If you can’t reason with such a person, what more appropriate future could there than eternal confusion?

So not only is this lovely soul glad that there is a hell (or glad he can think there is, anyway) he's particularly pleased that I'm going. Now the concept of hell is a discussion I'm not trying to have right now, but I will say that the idea that god will forgive child molesters, rapists, and murderers but has no room in his heart for people who are not easily convinced of the far fetched, is....weak sauce. Anyway, this was my favorite response because his was so primed for parroting. So I said....

Now see, this is exactly why I think cussing was such a brilliant idea. You've got no empirical evidence that there even is a god, but you're somehow certain that you've picked the right one, and on the strength of that unjustified certainty you belittle and condescend to people who differ from, but are still just as clueless as, you. At least the folks over at Naked Pastor seem to enjoy a sense of self awareness that you're apparently not privy to.

If you can't reason with such a person, what more appropriate future could there be than to be eternally called an asshole?

So he said...

Who says a) that I don’t have empirical evidence for the existence of Yahweh? and b) that only empirical evidence is sufficient for belief? Why couldn’t faith derive from logic and first principles?

You’re as good a philosopher as Dave is a theologian. I can see how you would appreciate his sense of self-awareness.

And then I went home and lived life and Todd and Hollie came over and we played in the park and ate pizza and watched Lost and went to bed. So I didn't have time to respond and in my absence, Mike The Infidel stepped in and said a lot of what I wanted to say...

I'm more than a bit amused by someone who describes hell as 'eternal confusion' in a comment on a post talking about people's attitudes being non-biblical. Where, pray tell, does this conception of hell come from?

As for:
a) Please, provide it.
b) Faith is enough for belief, certainly, but why should faith be valued?

Before Dissidens could get back to him, The Divine Passive was back and he had some questions for Mike and I...

Mike and Taylor

How should I (or any other Christian) understand your hanging around Christian sites if your "spiritual journey" has taken you away from Christianity? And what is it about the NP that you find attractive?

AND THEN I'M BACK AND I'M JABBING AND I'M SWINGING...

Well, I don't recall being much of a philosopher on here, but this is great, I've been looking for someone who has all the answers and here you've been all along. If it weren't for the Naked Pastor, I'd never have found the one person with empirical, testable, verifiable, evidence that not only does god exist but we know his name.
So, although Mike already beat me to the punch here, if you've got such evidence, prove it. My email is taylorglenmuse (at) gmail (dot) com. If you don't mind, write me an email explaining and demonstrating this evidence. If it is truly empirical, then you should be able to prove yourself right, beyond a reasonable doubt. Try to remember my "sad intellect" though and use small, concise words.
However, if you can't really prove it, then all you've proven yourself to be is an unyielding, arrogant, person who puts theology ahead of people. In other words, you're a pharisee, and we all know how Jesus felt about them.

The Divine Passive:
I can't speak for Mike, but I'm only on this blog because NP linked it, and then this guy called people that read NP "sycophants" with "sad intellects" so I called him an "asshole," and so on and so on. I guess the shorter answer is "because I have a lot of free time at work, and I find religion interesting even if I no longer partake."
What I like about the NP, is that he's often pretty funny and/or insightful, and while a lot of Christian blogs tend to sell what I consider unjustified certainty, while being completely unable to understand how anyone could disagree with them, it's refreshing for someone to be the slightest bit humble about their faith while understanding how some can not believe.

AND HERE COMES DISSIDENS...only he doesn't really want to talk...He'd rather talk about talking.

Taylor:

God works in mysterious ways, doesn’t he? I don’t guess we get many readers via nakedpastor.com, but then not many people get to Nineveh via a nasty fish. God appears to have a wicked--if I can use that word--sense of humor.

I can see you’re having trouble focusing here, Taylor. I understand how a steady diet of the assumptions and platitudes one gets from Hayward could encourage a habit of sloppy thinking, but let’s tidy this up a bit. Back while you were scrambling for a spell-checker you said, (comment #28) “You've got no empirical evidence that there even is a god…”. That is the kind of self-serving assumption a lot of skeptics make about my life.

If you read my answer more carefully than you read the opinions on NP, you will discover that I never said a) that I ever had empirical evidence, or b) that I could “prove it”—your words. I was challenging your own claim that I had no such empirical evidence; you don’t know if I have or if I haven’t. So here right at the beginning of your gymnastic routine you’ve already fallen slap off the beam.

Make A Note: I didn’t say I had empirical evidence, I said you couldn’t know whether I have or haven’t. That was your first faceplant.

It might—but probably won’t—interest you to know that I believe God is 1) invisible, 2) inscrutable, and 3) ineffable; I cannot see him, I cannot comprehend him, and I cannot explain him—even to myself, let alone to a miseducated skeptic. If God doesn’t want you to see him, he could sit on the bridge of your nose and whistle to you and you still could not detect him, even “empirically”.

Your second faceplant was the assumption that the only way I might come by reliable knowledge (or faith) was empirically. If your Mom could go to the bookstore and bring home an idiot’s guide to flossfy, you could look up the word “empirical” and learn that not all knowledge comes through experience or science. If your Mom won’t do that for you, go here and follow the links.

Read Kant if you can, he’s helped many people all over the world.

"Don't say I don't have evidence!!!" OK, what evidence? "I NEVER said I had evidence, you're stupid. Read Kant."

And then a newcomer joined in, by the name of Warren, and he's got a few assumptions he'd like to make...

Taylor:

I enjoyed the Pharisee slight from someone who believes that Jesus was wrong about Theology and therefore people anyway.

I also like the fact you borrow from Theistic morality to judge. Unless of course you can define morality from naturalism.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/04/atheist-i-have-honest-questions-dodge.html

I clicked on his link only to be unsurprised by the kind of up-our-own-ass apologetics that are so tiring. "If you want me to believe it I need proof" "You won't believe it no matter what the proof is!!" "Well, we'll never know until you actually show me some, will we?" "First you prove me wrong!" *Facepalm.

While I was drafting my final response, a fella named Joshua Allen joined in. I'm not sure what side he's on but I got a chuckle out of his response, either way...

@Taylor: You're challenging the wrong person. You should demand proof from God Himself. You should challenge God to a game of chess, and publish the challenge details far and wide, so that God cannot fail to hear you. If He shows up and beats you at chess, you'll have a story to tell. But if he doesn't show up, you'll be able to tell everyone that God doesn't exist, or at least that you are a better chess player than God.

Clearly, God would not let a challenge from a mortal like yourself go unanswered, since it would be so damaging to His reputation. Therefore, failure to appear is proof of lack of existence, or else fear of something even worse -- being a bad chess player.

Alas, I already know that I am a horrible, horrible chess player and I'm painfully aware of what a waste of time this has been and would continue to be. I just wanted to throw a little support behind David, call an asshole an asshole and be on my way, so I said...

Well, as fun as semantics and assumptions can be, I don't appear to have been wrong, do I? I said you didn't have evidence, you implied that that was not the case, I asked for it, and now you want to make the argument about whether or not you ever really said you had any. And you want to accuse me of intellectual gymnastics?

I know this is a complete waste of time, but if god is all the things you say he is, how did you come to know so much more about him than everyone else? There doesn't seem to be anything of substance here, just a theological "I know you are but what am I?!"

"...I believe God is 1) invisible, 2) inscrutable, and 3) ineffable; I cannot see him, I cannot comprehend him, and I cannot explain him—even to myself, let alone to a miseducated skeptic."

How convenient. You'd think those beliefs would lend themselves to a more humble approach but I suppose Kant can explain how you should be a dickhead to everyone that disagrees with you. I think we're done now. You talk a lot but don't say very much.

Warren,
Is it not possible to disagree with some things a person says and agree with others? Just because I don't believe that Jesus was god doesn't mean I don't think he said some lovely things. I would ask you to explain how Theists have exclusive rights to morality but I'm probably not going to be around to read it. I would also ask why you assume I'm a naturalist. Naturalists aren't the only thing you can be if you're not a theist, you know.

So that's what I've been doing. It was a good time but I won't be going back to see if anyone responds further, because I don't want to get drawn back in, and I know I could be. But it did make me appreciate the conversations that we have here that much more. I kind of understand them calling me names and saying I'm painfully ignorant or whatever they would say, but I think it's really weird to have that level of animosity towards David, who differs greatly on a lot of issues, to be sure, but still believes the same basic things. Seems theologically cannibalistic.

"I was God once." "Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died."

I'm talking out of my ass, won't you join me?

One of the things my brain does, when it's not being required to do anything important, is concoct scenarios in which a personal god makes sense. I've said numerous times that I'm not really an atheist, because I don't actively believe that the existence of "god" is impossible. What I'm relatively sure about, is that organized religion is, more or less, complete nonsensical superstition wrapped around a few universal truths that you could learn just as easily by opening your eyes. Christianity's version of god simply doesn't gel with reality, as far as I can see. To my knowledge, neither does anyone else's. Well, maybe the Greeks. The reason I say that is because the Greek gods were flawed. All of the traits, good and bad, that humans, and pretty much everything in existence, have, the gods had also.

Christians need god to be perfect. Well, why is it that such a perfect thing, that you believe created everything, has shown himself incapable of creating anything perfectly? Maybe you're putting too much pressure on him. For all we really know, maybe direction of the supernatural is just a skill set that this guy happens to have, and just like anything else, it seems miraculous and amazing to people who can't do it. Playing guitar is impossible to do until you learn how to do it. What if the same reality applies to things like directing evolution or whatever reasonable theists think god does? If we say, for the sake of argument, that a personal god does exist, and we also accept the fact of Evolutionary Theory, then it looks to me that what we could infer is that god didn't have a goal, started simply, like a novice, and got better and capable of more complexity as time (lots and lots of time) went on.

So what if god is good, but he's not perfect? Maybe all those times that people feel like things worked out so perfectly that god must've been involved, he was, and he's happy he could help. But all those times that things couldn't have possibly worked out worse, he couldn't make it, there's a lot of people on the earth and hey, they all got problems, but he's really sorry. Hopefully, he can get you next time. Maybe we really are "made in his image" but what that really means is that, just like us, most of the time god is good, but he can be a real disappointing bastard sometimes, too.

In such an obviously imperfect world, why do we need to believe in a perfect deity? Why would we even think it possible? To me, if god exists, he has to feel like C-3P0, surrounded by adorable, and well meaning, but painfully misguided Ewoks.

Embracing my Inner Theist.

I read blogs. Usually, while at work. I read science blogs, music blogs, personal blogs, atheist blogs and christian blogs. One of the atheist/humanist blogs I've recently started reading, and he has started reading me, is by a fellow named Jeremy called Le Cafe Witteveen. I like Jeremy's blog because he seems to have had a similar deconversion to me, and because he posts pictures like this:



Through Jeremy, I've discovered the Naked Pastor. This is probably my new favorite Christian blog. He is an actual pastor, I believe at a Vineyard Church, but he's also an aspiring artist/cartoonist, and his stuff is poignant.


But my favorite thing about him is that he embraces what he calls his "Inner Atheist," and I really applaud him for being self aware. In another post about his Inner Atheist, he says:

"I validate those who never sense God’s presence. I see honor in rejecting gods. It takes nerve to topple idols and walk away from falsehood. It is fearless to detach oneself from people who cherish counterfeit and peddle snake oil. And I think it sometimes takes courage to be an atheist. I embrace atheists, for in many ways I am one myself."

After reading about the Naked Pastor's inner atheist yesterday, I was inspired to embrace my inner theist. Driving home from work, I was thinking about my life. It is really amazing. I have the love of a beautiful woman who inspires me, adores me, and holds me accountable to myself, a beautiful daughter who is smart and who's personality grows by leaps and bounds every day, a family that loves me even when I shit all over the things they believe, a roof over my head, food in my belly, and music in my heart and in my hands and in my ears. And while I realize that it is possible, nay, probable, that none of these things required or included supernatural intervention to come to be, I feel an overwhelming rush of gratitude for them, and an overwhelming desire for a place to put that gratitude. I find my heart longing for a reason to believe in a personal theistic god, just so I have someone to thank. Of course, after I thanked him, I'd probably have to ask why he's so good to me and so awful to so many other people, but still, the sentiment remains.

Inner Theist, you have been embraced.

"If there's a god looking down below, I hope he sees all that he controls. And if he chooses not to intervene maybe its best that I don't succeed."

I'm going to let my friend, Jason, blog for me today. And by that, I mean that I'm feeling lazy as shit and his blog talks about me so I'm going to link it.


In this one he talks about the conversations that he and I have had, usually over wings at Waterloo Icehouse, about Jesus/faith/atheism/yadayadayada.

In this one he talks about why he likes my song "On Modern Men," and relates it to the first blog.

I love it when people talk about me and Jason's a really kind and smart guy. When you're done reading the blogs be sure to listen to his music and get your life enriched, as well.

I don't agree with everything he says (and I guess that's kind of the point), but most of my complaints with his post are semantics and not worth noting because I think I agree with the core of what he's saying. Enjoy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM:
Jason doesn't have a link on his new site to the Jets Under Fire site, and you can get way more of his music there (for free!!) so I thought I'd add it.

Faith, and sex, and god in the belly of a black winged bird.

I didn't blog yesterday because I pretty much had the office to myself so I used the day to watch both Kill Bill movies and several episodes of Futurama. So, as you can see, I was busy.

Last night we went downtown for a Halloween party that our friend's company was throwing at a club. I don't thrive at parties but Leah loves to dance and its really cute to watch even if I don't feel like dancing.

Yesterday, on the radio, they were talking briefly about angels and more specifically, guardian angels. I remember hearing that the concept of "guardian angels" isn't scriptural, so I looked into it and its really not. A lot of people were calling into the radio station saying that they believe in angels and they believe everyone has someone watching out for them and other feel gooderies. Why do so many Christians think they've got guardian angels when their holy book doesn't even tell them that they have. It definitely mentions angels, but the concept of having one assigned to every person is something else entirely. We've all seen the "Don't drive faster than your angel can fly" bumper stickers. The notion is heavily present in our culture.

I get it, its comforting, but is it good to be comforted by things that aren't really there?

Once upon a time, I found myself with a lot of suicidal thoughts. I arrived at this place, largely, because I'd spent the lion's share of my time on the idea that god had a plan for my life and was involved to the extent that he was lending a hand to make that plan work out, and I was seeing for the first time that it was a real possibility that that was not the case. I didn't leave the faith immediately. No, that was just the beginning. I fought tooth and nail with reason to hold onto some form of the idea of a comforting deity. Now, years later, I look back at that time and realize that I didn't get through it because some guardian angel carried me, I got through it because those were the moments that I began to realize that I had to take responsibility for myself. (Also, I had great friends and family and a crush on a girl who would become my wife.) My life, my happiness, my failures, my successes, these are all things that are my responsibility. When I do something bad, its not because the devil tempted me, its because I can be an asshole. When I do something that's noble or selfless, kudos to me.

In my old age, I find myself taking issue with any religion teaching people that they are somehow inherently flawed from birth. "You're born a condemned person who can't possibly be good on your own, only our god can SAVE you." I'm, of course, not saying that people are perfect, but not being perfect doesn't mean that we're flawed in our design (for lack of a better term). No religionist would tell you that raccoons are born flawed and until they hear about Jesus(or Mohamed or Xenu) they're doomed. If there is a god, all the evidence points to the fact that he/she/it/they spent just as much time and care on the raccoon as they did on the human. To me, it just seems like an unhealthy way to think about one's self.

But...I could be wrong. What do I know?

What a day of reading end-times prophecies will do to you.

The new issue of Greater Than Magazine hit the internets today and it features an interview with yours truly. Its free to read online and it also has an interview with Delirious, a band I've always enjoyed. Apparently, they're breaking up this year. They've been together forever and put out a ton of records so that's sad for them and their fans.

Today in Sydney, Australia the sky turned blood red. It then faded to gold as the sun rose, but still, in light of the close proximity to the rapture prediction...pretty freaky. It was a dust storm and Sydney has a ton of red clay topsoil, but they've never had one even remotely close to as big as this. I have to admit that this spooked me a little bit.

I'm not one of those guys that can never admit that I was wrong. I'm wrong all the time. Obviously, I don't think I'm wrong til I'm proven wrong but I can admit it when that has happened. That being said, I guess I could be wrong about religion and god. As I said before, I'd love to be wrong about religion and god, I just haven't seen anything that makes me think I am. But as I was creeped out by the dust storm today, I began to wonder to myself if I am just like the faithful...So scared of being right or wrong that it becomes damn near impossible for me to accept evidence that contradicts my point of view. I don't think that that's the case for me or at least I hope its not. In this situation it begs the question, "Is it possible for something to make little to no sense, to defy logic and common rationality, and still be true?"

What does "god" even mean? Is is an actual "person" with feelings and character and a name? Is it enlightenment? Is it the light in all living things? Is it simply a catalytic force? Is it just another word for "that which we cannot explain"? Does anyone know? Is it possible to know?

I'm still seeking god (whatever that means). I know that's a weird thing for an Atheist/Deist to say and maybe its just because its so bred into my character, but I feel like I'll always be seeking god. I was brought up believing that I could find "him" and learn to understand "him" in the church, and I think maybe I saw glimpses of it there but they were clouded by dogma. I was taught that the Bible was the best way to learn about god's beauty and love, and there is some beautiful stuff in there, but the Bible is so full of bullshit, contradiction, and flat out crazy talk that it doesn't stand up as a reliable document, to me. So when that had become unsatisfying I didn't and still don't know where to look. If "god" is life and an appreciation for life then I see it the most in my family, my friends, and in music. But maybe those are just beautiful things and there's nothing "spiritual" about my love for them. I've made up my mind to never believe anything supernatural without evidence and I stand by that.

All that to say, if there is a personal god and this life actually is some kind of cruel game of spiritual hide & seek then I guess I'm still playing, but don't think for a second that I don't think this is fucked up.

In Congress, you're supposed to raise your hand before you shout out like a jackass. Its called "manners," bro.

I often call myself a Deist, though to hear me talk you'd probably say I sound more like an Atheist. I guess they're both correct, in a way. I'm an Atheist in the way that everyone is an Atheist, meaning that there are plenty of gods that I don't believe in. I don't believe in Zeus or Thor, nor do I believe in Allah or Jehovah (though they're essentially the same thing).

Deism, like Atheism, isn't a religion. There is no dogma, no holy text, and no doctrine to which our beliefs must adhere. Its really just a category that you fall into. Being such, Deists more often than not have vastly different beliefs. When I say "I'm a Deist" all I mean is that I accept the possibility that there is something out in the universe that caused the big bang, and at this juncture it is unexplained and unexplainable (though it might not always be).

For some, Deism lends itself to an Intelligent Design explanation of the world, and this is where I think I start sounding more like an Atheist because "Design" implies that there was a goal, and I don't see anything that makes me think that that's the case. I do see a lot of things that lead me to believe that Natural Selection shaped life into its current complexity through millions and millions of trials and errors.

I'm somewhat of a creator, myself, in that I'm a songwriter. I think that any artist will probably agree with me here. When I sit down to write a song I have no idea what the song will sound like, because I haven't created it yet. I'm inspired but I don't have a goal that I'm trying to achieve. As I begin to work I do some things I like and keep them and some things I don't like and cut them. And the truth is that its never really finished, like any piece of art, there's not a finished point. There is only the point at which I stopped working on it. That doesn't mean that I will never change it, it just means I'm through for now. Plus, you have to factor in the other musicians that will play on the song and how their interpretations and style will play a big part in shaping it. When we reach the stopping point, I'm often surprised by what the song has become.

To me, if god has had a hand in the story of the earth, it seems more likely that their part is more like that of the songwriter and that he/she/it/they are just as surprised as we are by what happens. But you never hear anyone entertaining the idea of a god who's not omnipotent, omnipresent, and whatnot. Not as exciting, I guess. Anyway, I don't really have any reason to think either way is true. Its just a thought I had.

Tonight, Quiet Company has a show in San Marcos with The Soldier Thread and This Will Destroy You. I think it will be very good. Also, Sunday is the big video day so PLEASE come and be extras in it. It will be fun and Sweet Leaf Tea is sponsoring the shoot so there will be drinks and whatnot.

I decided last night that its comedy gold to get on Facebook and respond to people's statuses by simply calling them a "nerd." I don't know. The word just got really funny to me last night. So no offense, because I don't think I'm done yet.

The purpose driven strife

Harry Potter week is finally upon us! Rejoice, true believers! We're seeing the movie Thursday night and I know you're all thinking what a poser I am for not going to the midnight showing on Wednesday, but I've got a kid now and that sort of thing just doesn't happen as easily nowadays. This movie looks AMAZING though, and I totally expect it to Avada Kedavra my ass.

Leah and I took Harper to east Texas this weekend. My brother and his family got to meet her for the first time, and I got to spend a lot of quality time with my niece and nephew. It was really great and Harper travelled well, which we were nervous about. But like a jackass, I accidentally left my computer, phone charger, and Harper's Baby Einstein mat at my parents house. Leaving my stuff sucks a lot but that mat is really the only toy Harper plays with so we're going to have to just buy something else for her.

A lot of you may know that I'm a huge proponent of the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, and for my money, its the single most powerful and transformative philosophy book that I've ever read. I've gotten a few people to read it and typically, there reaction is similar to my own. My brother is reading it now, on my recommendation and judging from his blog, I don't think he's going to be as affected by it as I was. Oh well. He is correct about what he says though, that the book does hinge on the reader already accepting certain facts. For instance, if you don't understand or just don't accept evolutionary theory then you will probably not agree with the rationale of Ishmael because the bulk of the ideas therein stem from humankind sharing the same humble origins as everything else in nature.

I also got my mom to read it not too long ago but I think one of the only reasons she consented to do so was so that she could get me to read a Christian book of her choosing. I'm not sure how even these scales are though: I ask her to read one book and then I have to read another one on top of spending almost 30 years obsessing over the religion of her choice. I'm kidding and I digress, I'm happy to do it. After all, if there is a viable reason out there to jump back into the fold, I'd love to hear it. That being said, if 26 years in the church isn't long enough to have heard all the arguments in favor of Christianity, then what are we doing in church so much?

The book she's chosen for me is Surprised by Faith by Dr. Don Bierle. My problems with the book start early, with the front and back covers. They advertise that Dr. Bierle is a "scientist" but never say what kind. They talk about how he studied life sciences but never say which ones; he's a doctor but what kind? It does say that he holds M.A. and Ph.D degrees in life sciences and an M.A. in New Testament studies. In the preface he talks about how much education he's had which is impressive to me, who has very little education past high school, but he also talks in detail about how devoutly religious his family was and how he was somewhat groomed for the ministry as early as age 14. And with that admission his arguments become somewhat tainted to me. He's been indoctrinated from a young age just like most religious people and that gives him a motive: a desire to return to the comforting religion of his family. I know because I feel it too, and I'm not saying that this is definitely how he is but just that it seems probable to someone like me. Somewhere between 14 and college Dr. Bierle became a skeptic and that's where he starts Chapter 1. I was actually really impressed at the beginning of this chapter because he really seems to get how I feel and understand the problems I see in the plausibility of it all. I guess he was a skeptic after all. A persons perspectives on religion and spirituality are really contingent on the question "at what point are you satisfied?" and pretty quickly, it becomes apparent that Dr. Bierle is far more easily satisfied than I am, at least on the topic of the first chapter which is, essentially, "what is the meaning of life?"

He poses the question "Do we have a purpose in life?" That's a good question, and I say "yes." He agrees but he thinks that the only way to have a real purpose in a finite universe is to have an infinite god give you one. I disagree. He postulates an analogy which essentially says that all the world exists for humankind's eventual benefit and therefore an infinite god must exist. Because there's soil, and soil's only purpose is to grow grass, who's only purpose is to feed cows. And why do cows exist? It can't possibly be for the sake of existing because that doesn't go along with our romantic idea of human purpose. Cows exist to give us meat, but don't tell the cows, they'll just lose all hope. I'm oversimplifying and paraphrasing, of course, but I think I'm giving you the broad strokes. I think that its far more reasonable to say that because soil exists, its possible for grass to grow, and because grass grows, its possible for cows to eat, and because cows die, its possible for grass to grow, etc. Its a system that sustains itself, see?

In the first chapter, for Dr. Bierle, he's satisfied with a god as long as it meets two requirements:
1: God must be infinite.
2: God must be personal.

He has to be infinite because he's the one thing that is OK without a purpose and he has to be personal because he has to be able to reciprocate affection. Why we NEED god to be personal to be relevant, he doesn't say. "Eastern" religions' gods are infinite but not personal and "western" religions' gods are personal but not infinite but there is one bowl of proverbial porridge that's just right. Somehow, just because Christianity meets the needs that this "scientist" has laid out for himself, that is proof that it is the religion that 3 out of 3 celestial beings prefer.

I'm only about 1/4 of the way through this book and I'm not sure if he's building evidence for a big picture or if he's attacking skeptical issues one by one. It certainly seems to be the latter as all the chapters are titled and geared towards a particular problem. So far, the section "What am I here for? The Crisis of Purpose and Meaning" fails to make any headway in proving or rationalizing anything other than the fact that the good doctor can't fathom a world where things simply exist.

I know that there are religious people out there who live every day like they're on a mission and spend their time and their money working towards a better world, and they feel like they're doing god's work and believe that god gave them purpose in life and rightly so. Most people I know aren't like that though. They get up, go to work, come home and hopefully spend time with loved ones or work on whatever it is they're passionate about...or maybe just veg out and watch TV until its time to do it all over again. This is the day to day for people of faith and people without any, alike. If god gives us purpose, I have a hard time seeing what it could possibly be, unless its just to do this: exist. I said that I believe we have purpose, but I believe we make it for ourselves. I love being a husband, a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, a friend and I love making music. Those are the things I'm passionate about and I feel like those are the things that give my life purpose. It really makes me sad when religious people that I love say that without god we'd have no purpose.

We'd still have each other.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

So today, I am feeling patriotic again. I just got off the phone with my senator's office and now I want you to pick up your phone and call yours. If you don't know who your senator is then go here and find out. There's a "find my senator" widget at the bottom of the page.

Remember a while back when Rick Perry nominated Don McLeroy, an ultra Conservative dentist, for chairman of the board of education? Well, luckily, he was defeated. But, remember how I said that I was concerned that Perry would just nominate someone worse? Well, its not official yet but its looking like he's going to. Her name is Cynthia Dunbar and she's very open about her disdain for public education, which to me is a giant red flag when you're looking for someone to be chairperson of the Board of Education.

In a book published last year, Dunbar argued the country’s founding fathers created “an emphatically Christian government” and that government should be guided by a “biblical litmus test.” She endorses a belief system that requires “any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern.”

Also in the book, she calls public education a “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.”

The Establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even “tyrannical,” she wrote, because it threatens the authority of families, granted by God through Scripture, to direct the instruction of their children.

Dunbar home-schooled her own children.

First off, there are few things more annoying than when right wingers imply that our founding fathers were saintly men who wore their devout faith in Christianity on their sleeves. It takes about 10 minutes of research to figure out that most of our founding fathers were Deists, and had quite a bit of disdain for religion. Take the George Washington approved Treaty of Tripoli, for instance. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."
Here's a quote from Ben Franklin's autobiography, "But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns several points as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of the Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
And then there's Jefferson who called himself a Christian from time to time but only because he got down with the moral philosophy of Jesus. However, he took a pair of scissors to his bible and hacked out all the things he considered to be superstitious, miraculous or mystic. When speaking of god he was known to, more often than not, use the popular Deist term, "Nature's God."

I digress. If you want to get a clear view of our founding fathers religion and skepticism, its pretty easy to find.

The real problem at hand is this Dunbar lady. Can we not, honestly, find someone better for this job? Someone who doesn't already think the very idea of public education is morally wrong? Someone who isn't, very clearly, intending to use the position to push their ideals into the education system?

It doesn't matter if you have kids now or not, because this is a fight that will affect how our nation's future leaders are educated. The biggest, most important thing that parents and schools can teach children is how to think, not what to think.

ps. Here is some more crazy shit Cynthia Dunbar said. Apparently, Obama is plotting with terrorists to attack the U.S. and he's going to institute martial law. Yeah...that sounds reasonable.

The only magic I believe in is love / The only religion I belong to is music.

I've realized something about myself today. Something that I've known for a while but today, chosen to embrace. Everyone has something that they don't like about themselves and I think I've figured out what my least favorite trait is.

As you may or may not know, I was raised in a devoutly Christian home that was full of both love and support. My parents, believing in Christianity themselves, obviously thought it best to make sure my brother and I were in church as often as possible. I completely understand why they thought and did this so I'm not in anyway questioning their intentions or love for us, its just part of the story. So from an early age, the church teaches you that nothing in the world is as important as your salvation and faith. Only you can be responsible for your salvation and it is more important than your friends or your family or, literally, anything else in life. Because it lasts forever, right? Its the one thing that you'll have forever. The importance of faith was so ingrained in my mind, that by the time I was in high school, I was constantly thinking about religion. It made sense though, because I believed that it was that important and I lived my life by it.

Now its several years later and I don't believe it anymore but now I just think about how I don't believe it all the time. Its maddening and I really hate it about myself. But I guess if we've learned nothing else from the apostle Paul, its that zealous people will always be zealous no matter what side they play for.

I think its admirable and necessary for the faithless to be vocal and if I've made anyone question their faith by what I've written here then I'm very proud of that. I started this blog because I wanted to try my hand at writing and knowing that I would talk about religion because, as I said, I think about it way more than I would like to. Also, religion provides me with a seemingly endless supply of topics with a lot of different angles to discuss. But the Internet is a strange place to talk about heavy issues, and its especially difficult to try and talk about things with a bit of dry wit and have it come across the page the way you intended. Things I write and think are funny, someone else reads and thinks they're inflammatory. So it goes.

So people get offended and while that was certainly not my intention, I'm not a moron, I knew it would happen. Most of the people that get offended are my family, but I told myself (now I'm not so sure), that in the long run this would be good for us all because I haven't felt like my family has really known me in a long long time. Which is my fault. I act differently around them because I know that I think and say things in my normal life that would be gravely offensive to them. So its a labor of love, this censorship. Its the same reason I never told them when I was having faith crippling doubts or flirting with suicide because god's silence had convinced me that he had abandoned me. You just don't want to trouble them, you know?

So I guess, if I have any resentment towards the church, or god, or Christianity, its not towards the people, its towards the belief system and the years I feel like I wasted thinking that god had a plan for me. But I don't think I'm going to write about religion anymore, at least for a little while. I don't feel like I've said too much, in fact, I don't feel like I've said enough but I'd like to try my hand at being a normal person for a little while. I'm not the only skeptic in town though, so if you feel like you'd really like to be offended or agreed with, might I recommend PZ Myer's blog Pharyngula.

One of my favorite songs from 2006 is "Rise Up, Rise Up!" by Cursive, where at the climax of the song Tim Kasher sings "Do you want to hear my confession, my greatest sin? OK, here it is: I wasted half my life on the thought that I'd live forever."

Who do you like better, Belle or Sebastian?

I've heard a lot of people say that the birth of their children solidified their belief that humankind is so beautiful that it could only have been intentionally designed by some higher power, i.e. god. I certainly understand the sentiment when I think about how amazing and beautiful my daughter is. That being said, since she's been born, its only served to further convince me of our evolution from the same family that produced the ape. She's adorable as hell, and sometimes, especially when she's sitting up kind of slumped over, I think she looks very monkey-esque.

Once, when we were on tour in Washington, D.C., Leah and I visited the zoo there and spent the lion's share of our time at the gorilla exhibit. Everything about them, from their facial expressions to the way they move and interact with one another, is so "human" and amazing. I don't understand people who are, essentially, insulted by the idea that we could possibly share almost all of our genes with them (incidentally, their indignity doesn't stop it being true). I guess they would rather believe that god instantaneously created us in his image, because we're arrogant and that belief elevates us above nature. That's one of the biggest problems in the world, if not the single biggest problem. Here's the god's honest truth: if god exists, then you are no more important to him/her/it/them than the mice in the field or the termite in the wall. He/she/it/they don't care if your basketball team beats someone else's basketball team, and it doesn't matter how much you pray for that victory. There's probably someone on the other team, who may or may not have more faith than you, praying for the same thing. When you get badly injured in an accident and seemingly miraculously pull through, its the doctors that worked tirelessly on putting you back together that are the heroes. God's not hanging out above the hospital bed, impressed with himself about how dramatic its about to be when he saves your ass.

The flip side of that, of course, is that while we're no more important, we're certainly no less beautiful.

Our culture has made us so insecure that we have worked diligently to convince ourselves that we exist outside or above nature, but in actuality, we most certainly do not. For some people, the idea that god isn't particularly interested in your day to day is disheartening and they might say that religion is good because at the very least it gives us purpose. Well, I say that I've got no religion and oodles of purpose. For instance, tonight my purpose will be to have a nice dinner with a beautiful lady. As my personal hero, Kurt Vonnegut, so elegantly put it, "We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anyone tell you different."

Also, I haven't heard it yet, but our friends Jets Under Fire released their second free EP and its available for download here. As I said, I haven't heard it yet but I'll be downloading it as soon as I get home. Their last one was fantastic and was a notable improvement from their impressive debut record.

What choice do we have?!?!?!

In the recent weeks, in the discourse about my faith, someone referred to the "choices" I've made about religion. I was thinking about that word and how its used incorrectly in a few hot button issues. Are the things we believe or don't believe the result of us choosing to believe or not believe them? And if so, is that really believing? Where religion is concerned it opens up a lot of other issues about motives and why you're choosing to believe in the first place.

While you can certainly choose to shelter yourself from ideas you know will contradict what you believe, I don't believe you can choose your beliefs, really. There have definitely been times when I was confronted by a truth that clearly contradicted my belief and at the end of the day the only reaction really available to me was, "Well, shit, the damage is done." In my experience, for the most part, things either make sense to you or they don't. Simple.

You also hear the word "choice" thrown around when you're talking about homosexuality with people who don't know any homosexuals. While no one is sure (yet) whether gay people are born that way or if sexuality is shaped by experiences, or more probably a combination of the two, one thing we are sure about is that no homosexual will ever tell you, "I weighed my options and I opted for homosexuality." Its really quite absurd and ignorant to think anyone chooses their sexuality.

I think in the case of homosexuality people like to believe its a choice because it makes the gays responsible for what's "wrong with them," and therefore, easier to hate or at least be weirded out by. By the way, we're not the only animals that do it. Apparently, there's at least two penguins who are going straight to hell.

Anyway, if you believe that it is possible to choose what to believe then that choice is certainly necessary in the task of believing impossible things. I'm sure that believing in gravity is no chore for anyone, whereas, believing that a man fit at least two of every kind of animal on a boat or that a baby was born speaking requires some hefty faith. I guess faith is the right word for things we choose to believe. So why do we bother? I think "faith" is a word that gives a lot of intelligent people an excuse not to think about things that they can't explain. Why can't we just be OK with not knowing for sure?

Personally, I think the bulk of it stems from the whole "fear of death"/"what if we're wrong" thing. What if I'm wrong and Christianity is completely right? I guess that's as valid a question as any. I guess the answer to that is that I'll go to hell. Shit. Of course, that question begot other questions. What if Christians are wrong about Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Judaism, or Deism, or Islam, or Zeus, or Scientology? Better choose wisely.

Does anyone remember Columbine? One of the things I remember the most in the aftermath of the tragedy is the "She said 'yes'," shirts. If you're unfamiliar, a story surfaced about a girl who was confronted by the killers and asked if she believed in god. We'd all like to assume that if she'd said "no" then she would've lived, but she was brave and courageously said "yes." Who knows, maybe they would've shot her anyway. They clearly weren't the most stable of kids in the first place. I was in high school at the time and more Christian than I have ever been. I remember thinking, if someone put a gun in my face would I say "yes?" I felt secretly ashamed of myself because the honest answer was a definitive "NO." It made me think, do I really believe this or do I just want to, and is there a difference? If Christianity was right and I got to heaven would Yeshua be more likely to say "Hey there, friend! Great job with the faith!" or would my reception go more like, "Sorry man, sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make you a chicken. You pretended to believe and I knew the difference."

I maintain that nothing is my fault (with the exception of a lot of things).

"Wherever my foot falls... "(in which we discuss Joshua)

I have a really cool brother in law named Brad. Right before I moved to Nashville in the summer of 2002 I went and hung out with Brad one night and as a going away gift he gave me a book he thought I'd enjoy. It was called "Skinny Legs & All" by Tom Robbins. I didn't like it and put it down pretty quickly. I was a very different person then (a republican even) and I had never really questioned my beliefs up to that point.

A year or two later I decided, for one reason or another, to give "Skinny Legs & All" another shot and this time I finished it. Its pretty good but this is not a review. In the book one of the characters, a rabbi, tells the protagonist that Old Testament Israel perpetrated what he considered to be the first Holocaust on the cultures of Phoenicia and Canaan. I thought this was interesting so I dived into my copy of the old testament for some investigation. I think this was the first big step in my de-conversion from Christianity.

I'm not going to go through the story in detail because you can find your own copy to reference, but I'll summarize the big points for you.
Moses had been leading the Israelites around in the desert for quite some time, because they weren't quite ready to enter the land that Yahweh had promised them. But then Moses died, and made Joshua their leader. Whereas Moses was content to wander around in the desert until Yahweh, in his wisdom, deemed it the right time to move into the promised land, Joshua wasn't so patient. Did I mention that the "Promised Land" already had people living there? It did. They were the Canaanites and Phoenicians and they had their own cultures with rich, creative, full lives and if our holy text can be relied on, they didn't pick this fight.

But Yahweh told Joshua that "wherever the sole of your foot falls, I have given to you." So big Josh decides its time to take the land they were promised. He sends spies into the city of Jericho to scope it out but the authorities get wind of it and start looking for the spies. Thank god for whores though, because one of them hid the spies in her house and lied to the cops for them. She basically sells out her own people to save her ass and makes a deal with the spies to spare her and her family when the onslaught comes. What character! What integrity!

So according to the good book, Josh and his crew march around the city seven times and then when they do their battle cry the walls fall down. Then they proceed to murder every man, woman, and child in the city. They also kill the donkeys and steal all the silver and gold because that's important to Yahweh. I guess the 10 Commandments should read "Do not murder.. except people that aren't Hebrew...I don't care so much for them."

Some people will say that the miracles are proof that Yahweh wanted this done. Oh yeah, he also parted another river so they could get there. But I say that history is told by those who win. Who was left to contradict them? They perpetrated genocide and infanticide on the opposing culture. They could've written that Yahweh himself came down and ended the fight with a sawed off shotgun and a flaming baseball bat, if they'd wanted to. And what was the Canaanites' crime? Not being Israelites? Living on land that was someone else's even though they were probably the first to inhabit it?

Then the book of Joshua also makes sure to mention how famous Joshua became and how everyone thought he was such a badass. Yeshua makes a big deal about humility and the meek inheriting the earth. I'm wondering how he would've worked this invasion.

I don't even honestly know if this happened at all. I mean, I'm pretty sure all of the miracles are made up to make it look like a mission from the Most High and not so much a crazy blood thirsty bigot leading his people to commit mass murder. But I think my biggest problem is how the church views this asshole. As a hero.

So to me there are two different ways to view this epic, each as distasteful as the next.
1. This is the story of a sick man who came into power over a nomadic people who were tired of being nomadic. They committed a holocaust and used a deity to cover their shame with arrogance and self importance. This was ethnic cleansing in its earliest incarnation and if we read about it anywhere other than the bible it would turn our stomachs and rightly so.
2. Let's suppose that every word of this is true and Yahweh really did request these things of his humble servant Joshua. If that is the case, then Yahweh is simply not a loving god. He is a monster; a primitive, sadistic, blood thirsty, racist, monster to whom we are all playthings. I wouldn't want him living on my street let alone bow to him.

The church could look at this story and say, "Let us never forget how we have inside us all a potential for evil, as Joshua did. Let us learn from his vanity." Instead they look at it and say, "He had to wipe them out or else their cultures would influence the Hebrew culture and they were God's chosen people, they had to stay pure. So its good that he did that. Yahweh has a plan." The whole thing is silly. If someone came up to you and said with conviction, "God has given me your house." What would you honestly think about that person? Would you move your shit out that day to make room for God's servant? Or would you call the cops because this person is clearly deranged and makes you feel more than a little uncomfortable? That's the one I'd do. If god wants someone else to have my house he should at least run it by me first. I'm sure the Canaanites would've appreciated the courtesy, as well.

I know a lot of the people that read this blog are Christians and Jews and it is certainly not my intention to offend you in anyway. It is my intention to share my journey in the hopes that it makes you take a little closer look at your god and your faith. I've talked to a lot of believers lately and to me it seems that the only difference between me and several of them is that they still have a desire to believe these things and I do not. But wanting something to be true or good and something actually being true and good are not the same things.

I hope we all find what we're looking for.

Why I honestly don't want your prayers.

This is a touchy subject I know, but I did say I was going to be honest from here on out, and since my blog a few days ago has several people feeling inclined to recommend Lee Strobel books to me, I might as well talk a little more about my religious views or lack thereof.  

One thing I have always hated, even when I was still tucked neatly into the fold, was when people say that they're praying for you.  I don't know why exactly I've always hated it, but I've certainly never taken one iota of comfort from people's pledge to pray for me.   Nor have I seen any results from my own prayers that lead me to believe that events occur or don't occur based on our ability to change God's mind.  I've been taught that God gives one of three answers: yes, no, or wait.  Which is a really convenient way of saying "things happen or sometimes they don't happen," or in other words, "god may or may not have heard your prayer but I can't see how it would've changed things anyway."  I've also been taught that God knows what we need regardless of our telling him.  So what then, is the point of prayer?  I've been taught and I've told others, "prayer doesn't change God, it changes us."  That sounds almost poetic enough to make me not mind that it doesn't really make sense.  God's either going to do something or he's not, right?  What does it matter if we change other than on a personal level?  It doesn't change the reality of the situation.  

While I'm on the subject, one of the more disgusting things to me, especially when I was a Christian, is public prayer.  There's few things less like a pharisee than the Christian that fought to keep prayer in school.  What you really wanted to keep in school is people's opinion that you're a godly person.   It made my skin crawl then, and today is no different.   I don't remember the last time I bowed my head at a dinner table or at church when I went.  Because those places were not "my inner most room."  

So here is my confession:

If, at some point, I ever told you that I was praying for you (and this would've had to be years ago), I'm sorry, I didn't get around to it.  But hey, it looks like you turned out alright after all, what a surprise.

Here is another confession:

Shortly after the preacher gave a sermon about Hell and successfully scared the shit out of young Taylor, convincing him to run down the aisle and give his life to Jesus,  Young Taylor made another decision.  Everyone was so happy about his salvation that he wanted more and ran down the aisle a second time, this time to accept the "call to the ministry."  Here's the confession.  I lied.  I lied through my overly large front teeth and I knew I was doing it.  I've never felt called to do anything.  If I told you I was, I lied to you, and I knew I was doing it.  I'm not saying I didn't have faith then.  I did, but to be fair, I hadn't given it a lot of thought.  Probably wasn't capable of giving it the kind of thought it deserved.  I just bought in without shopping around.  All that to say, I've never once in my life heard the undeniable voice of Jesus that everyone else seems to have heard.  But I did pretend to, because I am a weak willed liar, apparently. 

So in conclusion, pray for me if you really feel like you have to, but I would rather you didn't.  I would rather you got up and did something productive with your life.  Create something, volunteer in your community, that sort of thing.  

"Its not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, its the parts I do" - Mark Twain