A Line in the Sand: Atheists versus Theists . . . Or, Pick a Camp, Casual Theists!

I’m drawing a line in the sand today. As of now, only two camps exist in the world of religious views: atheists (my camp) and theists (the other camp). A theist is anyone who believes in a higher power—a “god,” so to speak. This group includes Catholics, Zoroastrians, Hindus, agnostics, Protestants, deists, Jews, Muslims, and non-practicing or non-denominational believers. While I could spend a great deal of time from here attacking and criticizing each of those groups, I have a specific subset in mind I’d like to tackle today, although it’s really an amalgam of a few groups. So, I’m going to give them a new name, a new categorization: the “casual theists.”

A casual theist may be agnostic, a deist, or a non-practicing believer. What they all have in common is that they believe in a higher power (or, in the case of agnostics, don’t rule it out as a good possibility) but either do not believe in or do not follow any of the organized religions. Simply put, their stance is that god exists but he is not the god of any religious creed standing, although he most certainly shares many characteristics ascribed to him within them.

The problem comes in with where the idea of god comes from in the first place. Granted, it is impossible to know with any certainty its origin, but speculation and clearheaded, disinterested consideration lead to a fairly likely theory: God is a human fabrication.

Let’s look at things another way. If the concept of god did not exist, but god himself did, then nobody today would believe in him, regardless. Even Christians would have to agree with this logic—their belief is based on scriptures, the revealed word of Yahweh. It would be impossible to believe in a god without his (or her . . .) intervention, any more than a child could believe in Santa Claus if the familiar myth did not exist. It is simply not a belief that would even be an option.

Similarly, let’s say Santa Claus did exist, but it was becoming trendy amongst certain skeptical circles to deny his existence. Sooner or later, someone would get a photo of jolly old Saint Nick. Or an expedition to the North Pole would ensue, resulting in his capture and, quite possibly, relocation to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation. With proof of Santa Claus’s existence, nobody in his or her right mind would be able to say that Santa Claus is “made-up.” But, of course, Santa Claus is made-up. So, in the real-world, upon reaching a certain age, children are told the truth, and nobody in their right mind still believes he exists.

But let’s push the Santa Claus analogy a bit further. Imagine if some very sadistic parents went to great lengths to keep their unfortunate little son—we’ll call him Simplicio (Latin for “stupid”)—from ever discovering that Santa was not real. All through Simplicio’s life, his parents sneak to his house and deliver presents, even when he’s a grown man. They stage elaborate bits of evidence (reindeer tracks in the snow outside, letters from Santa, etc.) and point to them constantly as proof that Santa is real, knowing all along that it is not true.

These three scenarios describe the three major groups of believers: the first, where a child believes in Santa without the idea ever having existed, is like what deists believe. These are the believers of the so-called “watchmaker creator,” an idea literally invented during the Renaissance (more than likely, at least, but possibly slightly earlier) and popularized in the Age of Enlightenment (the 17^th and 18^th centuries). The basic idea is that a creator exists who made the universe (like a watch), then stepped back from his creation and let it do its thing. He has no involvement in daily life, he doesn’t listen to prayers, he doesn’t judge people. He is simply the creator, and that’s it. But this idea was simply fabricated during a time of enlightenment and reason when people were becoming disillusioned by organized religion but uncomfortable with the idea of a world without a creator. That is, deism was “made-up.” The idea did not come from god himself, but from the human imagination—just as the idea of Santa Claus would not come to a child from Santa Claus himself (who does not exist), but from the human imagination. As such, it carries no weight.

In the scenario where Santa does exist but nobody believes in him until hard proof is given, we find the atheists. The point is, until someone goes out and pulls God aside and proves that he is in fact real, atheists will not believe in him—even if the vast majority of people still do so. It is simply irrational to do so without hard proof—of which not a single shred exists.

And the final scenario, the one where poor Simplicio is being tricked by his malevolent parents into believing in Santa Claus, well . . . those are all the people the whole world over who ascribe themselves to any religious institution. Simply put, they are being tricked through false evidence (miracles are the big one), forged letters (religious texts), and an abhorrent abuse of trust. To discover the truth, they really need only look and see that Santa’s handwriting is the same as their parents’ (just as the book of Genesis is the same as the Enuma Elish or the Epic of Gilgamesh); that presents are a distraction from the truth (like the promise of an afterlife); or even consider the ridiculous notion of an old man, complete with toy-making elves, delivering presents all over the world in one night based on his personal judgment of people’s morals, a highly-subjective subject (sort of like thinking about talking snakes, virgin births, burning bushes that can talk . . . or maybe just an omnipotent old being, complete with messenger angels, delivering people to an afterlife based on his revealed judgment of people’s morals, a highly prescriptive subject). But, alas, they proudly wear the shutter of “faith” to block their gaze from the truth, thereby remaining blissfully unaware that their lives are based on fiction.

Yet another group exists, though. This group is the group of first-graders who hear from one or two friends that Santa Claus is not, in fact, real. They at first reject the judgment, offering all sorts of “evidence”: the letters, the sound of bells on the roof on Christmas Eve, the time their father got coal, etc. These same youngsters inevitably go home and ask their parents, and are told they were lied to, that Santa is most definitely real. So the children go on believing, trusting their parents. But the more they think about it, plenty of reasons exist for why the evidence is faulty and insufficient . . . sooner or later, they stop believing all together. They become atheists. But what if some people continued believing in Santa Claus, despite no good evidence? These are the casual theists, waiting to grow up.

But enough foolish talk of Santa Claus—my overall point is, of course, belief in a god is as reasonable as believing in Santa Claus. Hardly a new idea, this notion has recently been popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the Pastafarian Movement with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What I’m getting at is the danger of being a casual theist. If you wish to suspend all disbelief and submit to the scriptures, believe in any denominational god, that’s your decision. It’s a bad one, I posit, but not even so bad as being a casual theist. Here’s why.

Casual theists have no evidence to support their suspicion. After all, without regard for and faith in the scriptures, the revealed, divine word of a god, what proof is there of his existence? If the real god is something entirely different from the way he’s portrayed in all religions, then we have no real portrayal of him at all. Indeed, the truth is, we are simply hoping, insecurely, that he exists while mentally conceiving him to be something different from the scriptures in existence. But, do we see the catch here? If not for the preconceived notions of god given through religion, we wouldn’t be considering the conundrum at all. Casual theists are the hurt first-graders, recently confronted with the truth that they’ve been lied to by their own parents, but who continue to believe in Santa nonetheless. Well, it’s time to grow up.

From my experience, two major forms of religious mobility exist. Theists can become atheists and casual theists can become theists. Rarely do atheists move to either camp, and rarely do casual theists move to the atheist camp (perhaps they are simply too indifferent about god in the beginning to move further to the point of erasing him from their lives entirely?).

The reason casual theists tend to move toward theism is for the same reason they cleave to a belief in a god to begin with—as I say above, insecurity (so often, this pathetic emotion is the cause of life’s mistakes . . .). Insecurity with the idea of a world without a creator, insecurity with the notion of life being finite and death being the end, insecurity with a world without absolute morality, insecurity with a life without higher purpose or meaning. Rampant insecurity. As a result, the false promises of various theist organizations (that is to say, churches) invariably begin to sound downright appealing—especially considering the “evidence” presented and the crooked historical/theological scholarship backing it. Churches have a way of convincing members to join, and their method is simply telling them what they want to hear. They know it’s hopeless trying to convert atheists, so they go after the casual theists instead. And traditionally, atheists were happy to lump themselves alongside the casual theists (how many surveys have a check box next to “Atheist/Agnostic,” as if they were the same thing?). But I’m no longer happy to do so. To quote Ken Kesey, “You’re either on the bus or off the bus.” No in-between exists.

To all you casual theists out there reading this rant piece, pick a side. Choose a team. Either come join the atheist camp or join the theist camp. But if you join the other team, be warned: We atheists are growing, we are spreading, and we are tired of being silenced. Tread carefully.


Note: Thanks to Kari Kohler for the image. I use it without permission. 

Change

The overweight bum holds out his pampered hand

and requests, unabashedly,

“Change.”

So I stop and snap, politely,

“The election’s over;

you can stop campaigning.”

I’d normally toss him a buck,

but they’re getting harder and harder

to obtain, impossible to retain

since the record companies sued me —

175-zillion Monopoly dollars

for pirating “The Times They Are a-Changin’” —

and the bank’s demanding I repay

that $100K loan I took out

to cover tuition when I was 18,

too young for a cold one,

but ripe for credit crunch

exploitation.

But I guess I’ll find a job someday

with my BA

in Contemporary American BS:

diggin’ for dimes

but pickin’ up

pennies.

This whirlwind black-hole avaricious

economy

has sucked all the Change out of me,

leaving the bitter copper taste

of pennies, like phlegmy blood,

lining my throat with a pinch.

Phantom

Phantom fetters Love

in obstinate darkness

revealing foundational cracks

where I built my world

her vacuous stare flashing

as she slips away unheard,

fodder for my fantasy

as it all crashes around me

but I no longer yearn

for that arbitrary palace,

long ago settled in and settled for,

but cleave to the shudder

Phantom scratched down my spine

with a hissed, "Goodbye."

Some notable books from the last 365 days

2011 was a year of change for me: I finished my master’s degree in January, moved back to Maine in February, went back to waiting tables for a spell, and then ultimately landed a job teaching English and Spanish at a boarding school in Arizona. On September 5^th, I moved to Rimrock, and since then, have met some incredible people, been amazed by the mind-staggeringly-beautiful atmosphere all around me, and even got to spend a few days with my dear friend Andrew LeTellier, whom I hadn’t seen in way too long.

But in between all that excitement and change, I have managed to read some interesting books. So here’s my roundup and discussion of the five most note-worthy tomes I've read in the last year, in no special order.

Tom Wolfe, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test

Having long been a fan of the Beat Generation and the hippie movement, it is fascinating to see how one led to the other. Indisputably, Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters, driving around the country in their psychedelic Day-Glo school bus “Further” and indiscriminately handing out LSD to anyone willing, were the link between the two. Under the expert driving of Neil Cassady (who else?), the Pranksters were able to influence an entire generation of people seeking mind-expansion, peace, love, and art. Although the book is no easy-read—it’s not very linear, often opaque, and does require some background knowledge going into it—it offers an opportunity to experience one of the most volatile eras of recent history as it unfurls.

Haruki Murakami, Norwegian Wood

I’ve never read a book by a Japanese writer that didn’t take my breath away. Reading Murakami gives the same experience, but tenfold—Norwegian Wood is, hands down, one of the most remarkably stunning works of literature I’ve ever encountered. The book overflows with vivid character portrayal, unforgettable dialogue, sharp descriptions, and a touch of the angst resulting from the human condition with which we’re all familiar. It is more than the clichéd “coming-of-age” story it purports to be; it strikes me more as a cautionary tale about the dangers of human interaction and relationships. Yet simultaneously and paradoxically, it celebrates those same entities. Read it.

Mordecai Richler, Barney’s Version

This book piqued my interest for a few reasons. First of all, I’ve said endlessly already how much I admire Canadian literature and wish that my brethren in the US would give it the attention it deserves. Secondly, this novel won the Giller Prize, which (up until very recently) is traditionally a good indicator of an excellent piece of literature. And finally, it was written by a Montrealer and set in Montreal! So it was a pleasure to read if only because all Barney’s haunts are places I’ve been many times myself. But aside from that one very superficial reason to enjoy a book, I truly loved reading Barney’s Version; Barney Panofsky is pretentious, cranky, senile, and lovable. He has a sharp wit and a keen eye for comedy in any situation (including a situation where he may have murdered a close friend in a fit of rage after that friend slept with his wife, whom he’d wanted to divorce anyway . . .). The book, despite its fairly light-hearted, seemingly sardonic tone, carries a touching and poignant undertone that leaves a bittersweet taste in the reader’s mouth. Be warned, though, this is a heavy book—Richler/Panofsky (the two are hard to separate in this one) intentionally attempts to be dense, wordy, and pretentious, so it reads a bit like a conversation with a senior-citizen hipster.

Alan Watts, Tao: The Watercourse Way

I was recommended this book by a new friend from Flagstaff, so I made it a priority and found it full of information and wisdom. Watts is the seminal figure for the introduction of Eastern philosophy to the Western world, and this, his final book, does a great job of fully explaining why he devoted his life to this cause. His discussion of the Chinese language alone made it a fascinating read (particularly given my career choice!), but he also echoes many of my worldviews throughout. His topics range from aesthetics to role of government, and he gives a lively discussion based not on spirituality or metaphysics, but on ancient Chinese philosophical texts that, he argues, give all the information for how to live that one can possibly need. This is no true metaphysical text, but really one of common-sense advice for everyday life.

Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto

Yes, yes, I’ve spoken voluminously already about this man. As you already all know, I’m sure, I’ve been an avid Ron Paul supporter for the better part of a decade. I’m thrilled at how well he’s doing in the current campaign for presidency and at his bringing notions of liberty, freedom, peace, and prosperity back into the political realm for the twenty-first century. I read this book not really expecting to learn anything new, having been following Ron Paul for so long and seen virtually every interview or debate the man’s ever been in. How wrong I was! On top of having fluid, concise prose with an unmistakable voice, this book is a veritable cornucopia of wisdom. Argumentatively, it stands high upon an unshakable foundation of good sense, historical knowledge, economic understanding, and respect for the Constitution. Even if you think the man is a quack (but how could anyone realistically think that, unless all they know about him is what Bill O’Reilly has told them?), you would learn a lot about contemporary politics, economics, and overall US history by giving this book a quick perusal. Do it today.

Empathic Musings

A funny thing happened yesterday, and it has prompted me to write a new blog post about a subject near and dear to my heart. I was talking with my parents on Skype, as I’m wont to do on Sunday afternoons, and my mother was telling me about how she used a “big word” that day at work and was very proud and excited to tell me about it. She laughed and suggested I should teach her some new “big words” that she could use from time to time. Naturally, my first thought was Ernest Hemingway’s famous rebuttal to William Faulkner:

Does he really think big emotions come from big words?

That said, I am a bit of a logophile, so I do have a penchant for admiring the savory goût of an unusual word. In fact, just a few days prior to my chat with my mother, I had raided my classroom for tools I could use in my ESL classes, and therein, I found a promising old box of “English Vocabulary Cards,” proudly containing 1,000 useful words.

Well, that box had been sitting on my desk up until Sunday, virtually unopened. But the moment seemed to proscribe its perusal, so I suggested my mother and I dive into its contents together and see what we’d find. I lifted the dusty lid and reached somewhere into the middle of the cards, ultimately selecting an unpresuming one from their midst. I was shocked at the word I randomly selected!

Why so surprised? Well, empathy has long been one of my favorite words and a concept I often discuss with people. Truth be told, I think it may be the single most important faculty we have in order to be good human beings. Here’s how the card defines empathy:

Of course, I’m not much of a person for the metaphysical or to think about crazy ideas such as fate or destiny. But I have to admit, it seemed rather fitting that, of 1,000 cards, I’d randomly be drawn toward this one, wonderful word. Yes, pure coincidence, I know. But still, cool.

So, what’s the big deal about empathy? I first began thinking about it in college, when I came to realize that a writer’s most useful tool is empathy. If you cannot actually experience the emotions—good or bad—of another person, as vividly in your mind and heart as that person experiences them, then it becomes a great challenge to ever effectively (and affectively!) write about the human experience. One of my favorite examples is the following poem, “She dwelt among the untrodden ways,” by the great Romantic poet William Wordsworth. Chances are, if you’ve spent any real time talking about literature with me, I’ve suffered you to hear a reading. So, here it is:

She dwelt among the untrodden ways

Beside the springs of Dove,

A Maid whom there were none to praise

And very few to love:

A violet by a mossy stone

Half hidden from the eye!

—Fair as a star, when only one

Is shining in the sky.

She lived unknown, and few could know

When Lucy ceased to be;

But she is in her grave, and, oh,

The difference to me!

In all honesty, every time I read this poem, I feel a shudder down my spine when I reach the final two lines. My cheeks grow flush and I feel a distinct flutter in my chest. That’s how powerful, how affective, this poem is. Wordsworth is famous for his slightly cryptic “Lucy poems,” and this is by far the finest. He praises this girl he loves, this girl whom nobody ever bothered to notice, with the most fittingly delicate imagery. But the kicker is that she has died, which has had no impact on anyone—expect for its having made all the difference in the world to the poet. He loved her, but he never got the chance to tell her. Lovely, simple, and harrowing. This poem is about unprofessed love and untimely death, and if your sense of empathy is sharp enough, you will feel (even if only for a mere moment) the exact heartache of the bard. Simply put, empathy allows us to connect and share. Empathy necessarily requires creative thinking and a certain openness with one’s sentimental side. Yet while it demands that openness, it also enhances it in the process—it acts as a cyclical process. The more you allow yourself to connect with people, the easier it will become, the more you’ll want to do so, and the more open others will be to empathizing with you. Instant karma.

I invite everyone who reads this to consider how open they are to feeling empathy toward fellow human beings on a daily basis. You’ll perhaps find it remarkably refreshing!

Understanding Polyamory

            Polyamory is the practice of simultaneously engaging in multiple meaningful, committed, loving relationships. It is a rational, beautiful alternative to the traditional monogamous relationship paradigm that has dominated the western world for centuries, and it is distinct from polygamy, open relationships, and swingers. Polyamory is a lifestyle, even a sexual preference, and it is the next movement in the sexual and relationship revolution currently taking place. I am polyamorous, and I would like to take some time to explain what exactly that means—and what it does not mean.

            To start, you have to understand the causes that led me to a polyamorous mindset. I do not consider it something I’ve chosen to live, but simply the route I have been supposed to take all along. Although there have been hurdles along the way, the same would be true of a monogamous relationship, so I don’t consider the difficulties I’ve encountered particularly salient detractions. Simply put, I look around me and see so much anger, jealousy, and negativity in the world. After a war that has dragged on for over a decade and a society that has come to take the word “terrorism” as a fact of life, I have wondered if an alternative exists. One does.

            Since polyamory is the act of loving multiple people, it stands to reason, then, that it is also the act of cultivating more love and positive energy in this increasingly hostile world. For that reason alone, it is worth considering.

            But more powerful is the knowledge that love is far from a finite resource. It is an emotion, a feeling, like so many others. It would be absurd to tell someone not to get “too happy” or “too sad”; these emotions, like all others, come in varying intensities and are instigated by various things. Indeed, the more things we have in our lives that make us happy, the happier we are. The same works for love. The more people we have in our lives whom we love, the more love we have to give and the more loved we feel. It’s really that simple.

            If you have ever found yourself wishing to connect with a friend at a more intimate level—be it holding hands, a hug, a kiss, or even sexually—then you probably have already felt what I’m describing. If you’ve ever had that feeling while already in a loving, committed relationship—without thereby lessening the already existing feelings toward your lover—then you have definitely felt what I’m describing. Take a moment now to think about that feeling.

            In a polyamorous relationship, these feelings are encouraged because the returns are great. Do jealousy and insecurity pop up? Initially, yes. But once we learn to acknowledge and then disregard these negative feelings, recognizing their petty, self-centered nature, we are able to break free of the yoke of social restraint and begin to develop something bigger

            As I already said, polyamory is distinct from polygamy, open relationships, and swingers. Polygamy is a typically religion-based practice of multiple spouses—often, one husband with multiple wives. Polyamorists typically are very hostile and skeptical of religion and marriage both, and they are certainly interested in having a level playing field rather than a male-dominated one. So polygamy and polyamory are clearly very distinct. Open relationships involve a committed couple allowing one another to engage in sex with other partners (often as a result of being geographically distant). Open relationships do not seek additional loving partners, but merely the gratification of sexual desires. And swingers are similar. Swingers are couples who swap partners or even engage in sexual acts all together, but they do not form loving, committed relationships. As soon as additional loving relationships are added to the open relationship or swinger format, it has actually evolved into polyamory.

            Sex, it would seem, is not a part of the polyamorous lifestyle, then. But to think that would be a huge misunderstanding. Of course sex is a part of the lifestyle! It is simply not the focus. However, most polyamorous people have healthy, open attitudes toward sexuality, are comfortable discussing it, and they do choose partners based in part on sexual attraction. Sex is a part of life, and we accept and embrace that rather than shun it. But it cannot be the motivating factor behind relationships in order for them to last.

            As an additional result of the polyamorous mindset, bisexuality is extremely common. Once a commitment to love more people has been made, it is a natural step to tear down any arbitrary gender-based boundaries, thus in effect doubling the number of prospective lovers.

            These points undoubtedly raise questions in the open-minded reader and skeptic alike. The most common: How many partners is enough? Similarly, how does one find enough time for all those partners? The answers to those questions are highly specific to individual needs, time, and polyamorous motivations. Polyamorous communes do in fact exist, harboring groups into the double-digits of people all living together and loving each other. But these scenarios are rare. More common are relationships based around three to five members, their relationships sometimes intertwining but sometimes kept separate. Imagine a web of relationships. Regarding the issue of time, that depends on proximity, levels of connection, and individual needs. But when you have multiple people fulfilling different relationship roles for the same person (as well as that person fulfilling different relationship roles for other people), then you are likely to find an economy of love that simply works its way out in the end—just as some traditionally monogamous couples are together constantly, and others spend lots of time apart. Both are functional, healthy relationship styles.

            A final question is, what about the children? Well, since homosexual couples have had to field responses to that same inane objection for decades now when trying to start their own families, it makes sense that polyamorous people have to do the same. The answer is simple; when children are involved, how can it ever be a bad thing to have those children surrounded by more people to love and influence them? If anything, they grow up with much healthier ideologies about love and sexuality and are overall happier people.

            To conclude, I am not trying to persuade anyone to my lifestyle. Anyone who knows me well and has heard me talk about these issues knows that my sole goal is to raise awareness and, with any luck, reveal to a few like-minded people that there is an alternative out there. I’ve done it many times already, so I hope this article continues with that success.

            Peace and love!

Suggestions for further reading:

http://www.planetwaves.net/compersion.html - article discussing the feeling of pleasure polyamorous people feel knowing that their partner receives pleasure being with another partner.

http://www.polyamorousmisanthrope.com/ - a cool polyamorous blog that offers an unapologetic look into the lifestyle.

http://aphroweb.net/nre_faq.htm - discusses “new relationship energy”—the impact on an already existing relationship exacted by falling in love with another person openly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html - discusses both the social rise of polyamory and the many challenges it faces in gaining acceptance.

http://lovingmorenonprofit.org/faq.php - a famous polyamorous online magazine.