Faith or far from it
A few days ago, my dear friend silentnumbsmoke made a post about how she wishes she didn't feel the need to censor her entries, how she wishes she could post what she feels and not worry about what people think of her. Well, so do I. I've got more filters than I'm really comfortable with, weeding people out based on what I know they'll be offended by. I don't like those filters, but I still feel they're necessary sometimes. It's not that I believe myself important enough that a bunch of people are going to read my entries, but the few that I know will read them I really care about, and respect and admire their opinions. When we differ, I just want to make doubly sure that we can agree to disagree and move on. However, in order to be positive no one will get their feelings hurt, I tend to just stop my mouth, or only speak to those who I know will agree with me. I suppose this is silly, but it feels safe in so many ways.
Today I'm going to be bold and post something that I wrote today in frustration and introspection, but even after nearly twelve hours have gone by, I still find it to be a valid representation of my opinion. It's nothing radical, but for someone whose posts usually consist of things like "Watched House/Lost/CSI. It rocked/sucked/was confusing. I wanna jump Wilson's/Sawyer's/Grissom's bones," this is a bit harder to write. But I'm going to give it a shot anyway, in attempts to make my journal something I might actually want to look back on in the coming years.
This past week or so my science class has been devoted to Darwin, learning about The Origin of Species and natural selection and all that. In what is commonly regarded as a conservative college, with the main club spectrum dominated by Christian organizations, it's a dangerous subject to leap into. This, of course, was further complicated by the guest speaker we've had the past two days, a former minister who now teaches a course in science and religion. Stephanie and I have both regarded this as a Bad Idea, bringing a speaker like this into class. While I understand the importance of learning as many sides of the issue as possible in order to make informed decisions, this speaker was already extremely biased and passing on his biased ideas to the class. Also, this topic is too large and highly complex to be tackled in two class periods. Of course, one could make the same argument about Darwin's theories, that there's enough material about Darwin to cover in course after course, and this would be true. However, the difference between talking about the basics of Darwin and the basics of religion are that the laws of Darwin come from one man, one opinion, one viewpoint, whereas in discussing religion, in order for the topic to be examined fairly, one must take into consideration multiple viewpoints, hundreds upon hundreds, which is implausible. Darwin is simplifiable. Religion is not. Of course, that could be the scientist in me speaking.
In discussing this speaker with her, Stephanie brought up the idea that pretty much everyone who walks into that class to hear that speaker has already made up their mind about Darwin and religion, that the speaker is only going to reaffirm their ideas or alienate them further. Yup.
I try so, so hard to keep an open mind when it comes to religion. All my life I've tried. I was never raised in a religious household. My parents supposedly believe in God, but I've never seen the evidence. We never went to church. I'm fairly sure the first time I even opened a Bible was when I was in sixth grade and one of my school friends bought me one for Easter. When that happened, my mother had a fit. She called the girl's mother. Obviously it wasn't that she didn't approve of the Bible. But my mother, like myself, believes that certain things (like sex, drugs, and violence on television) should be left out of a child's life, that they shouldn't be exposed to concepts as grand as religion until they're old enough and have lived long enough in the world to have at least a vague concept of the way the world functions. I was never kept from religion. I knew what it was. But it was a grey area in my life from when I was very young, and still is.
I suppose one could make the argument that my "lack of God" as a child is why I can't find religion now. Had I been brought up with it, I would understand more, be able to embrace it more in my life today. But I would rather live without any god in my life whatsoever because it felt right than be following a god simply because it was what I already was accustomed to, what was engrained in my life and my mind. I'm not saying that every child brought up with Jesus was brainwashed. But you tell a child something enough times and they'll come to believe it, whether or not it's true. Why else would the tooth fairy or Santa Claus be so effective? It's not from any sort of rational understanding or proof. A child who's never heard of the Easter Bunny before and wakes up with an Easter basket filled with chocolate and toys isn't going to assume some giant pink monstrosity hopped into his or her room in the middle of the night to leave presents behind. The child will look to the parents, the ones with relative proximity, the likely candidates. A simpler explanation than a huge rabbit is present, and the child will logically take it before reaching for other alternatives.
You don't teach a kid calculus before you teach addition. The natural learning style is building upon what you know, teaching the basics before moving on and expanding on concepts, drawing individual conclusions. Why should the rules of religion be any different? There is simply no point in educating about a higher world before educating about this one. Without the rudimentary understanding of how nature works, the questioning results in self-appointed answers in magical thinking. This is a lame example, but I think back to Master and Commander when Blakeney is talking to Maturin about the insects they're looking at, about their defense mechanisms and phasmid qualities and Blakeney asks, "Does God make them change?" And Maturin answers, "Does God make them change? Yes, but do they not also change themselves?" or something along those lines anyway. I've always wondered whether that would have been Maturin's natural answer had he not known that getting into an intellectual discussion about evolution with a ten or so year-old aboard a vessel of a religious oriented group like the Royal Navy was a bad idea. And on the other hand, I also wonder would that have been Blakeney's natural question had he not been raised in such an institution?
Here's my segue back to Darwin, since Master and Commander is such a nice metaphor for Darwin's excursions (we even watched a clip in class, much to my delight). What would a child's natural inclination of belief be, if he or she remained untainted as to theories about religion and evolution? Could it ever be possible to allow a child to grow up so unexposed? I suppose the answer to that is an obvious no, because if a child were to grow up without such exposure, he or she would have to be virtually untouched by humans, which would result in growing up in the wild, which would not only bias such a child but would make it difficult to later find out just what they believed anyway, heh. And to allow a child to grow up in the presence of other humans would just almost inevitably prejudice them, one way or another. In the end, it's cavalier to believe that every child would come out with the same conclusion, anyway. I am in no way implying that religion is a crock and anyone with half an unadulterated brain would push aside the idea. No. But how many could go on and find their answers in the natural world instead of in the Bible?
I've heard this position criticized by the idea that God is in the natural world, that by finding beauty and wonder in the world of nature one is finding beauty and wonder in the creation of God. And that's a wonderful notion. But I don't find a tree any less beautiful by knowing the process through which it grew from a seed into a sapling into a full-grown plant. And the same goes for any creature in nature that hasn't always been on this earth, that was derived and formed off a branch in the evolutionary tree rather than was created when God made all the birds and the beasts. Just like a little kid doesn't appreciate the presents left under the Christmas tree for him any less by knowing they're from his parents instead of a fat man in a red suit. They're still gifts, and I for one am still thankful.
Today the guest speaker talked about Genesis, the most appropriate book to couple with our discussion on evolution. He talked in depth about Gen. 1.26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." What the question he put to us was what's with all this "us" stuff? Who are "we?" Isn't God the only God in this monotheistic religion? I hadn't a clue. I'd only read Genesis once, and that was last October. The class bantered for a bit, coming up with the notion of possibly the Holy Trinity, possibly the Angels, maybe it was just the author pulling that kingly bit and making God speak in royal speak. But what the guest speaker eventually confessed was that he had a theory that God was talking to the Earth and the Waters, that had previously brought forth all the creatures and plants. So God asked the Earth and Waters to bring forth man, and so it was done.
In the end, at this point in my life, I take God out of that equation. Maybe it comes down to me being lazy, but I see enough in nature to convince me of its existence, and I don't have to go hunting for answers or waiting for miracles to believe. I don't deny that everyone has a right to believe in whatever god they choose, and that those of you who believe in God may very well end up correct in the end. Which is why I'll most likely remain agnostic until the day I die. At this point in my life, there is very little doubt in my mind that one day science will be able to explain everything that goes on in this world, that there will no longer be anything "unexplained," but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I will not live long enough to see that day. So at this point, it's understandable that people want to have something to hold onto in their lives, something constant and not always shifting like scientific beliefs. There may come a time when I join their exalted ranks and sing Hallelujah from the rooftops, or at least in church on Sundays. But for now the force that seems to soothe most people only makes me ill and irritable, twitchy and nervous. So for now I'll pass on the prayer, for it only gives me heartburn, but save it for the day when a little shaking up is all I've got left.
Heh, I feel a little silly making a big deal out of this, now that it's all said and done. *is sheepish*
Today I'm going to be bold and post something that I wrote today in frustration and introspection, but even after nearly twelve hours have gone by, I still find it to be a valid representation of my opinion. It's nothing radical, but for someone whose posts usually consist of things like "Watched House/Lost/CSI. It rocked/sucked/was confusing. I wanna jump Wilson's/Sawyer's/Grissom's bones," this is a bit harder to write. But I'm going to give it a shot anyway, in attempts to make my journal something I might actually want to look back on in the coming years.
This past week or so my science class has been devoted to Darwin, learning about The Origin of Species and natural selection and all that. In what is commonly regarded as a conservative college, with the main club spectrum dominated by Christian organizations, it's a dangerous subject to leap into. This, of course, was further complicated by the guest speaker we've had the past two days, a former minister who now teaches a course in science and religion. Stephanie and I have both regarded this as a Bad Idea, bringing a speaker like this into class. While I understand the importance of learning as many sides of the issue as possible in order to make informed decisions, this speaker was already extremely biased and passing on his biased ideas to the class. Also, this topic is too large and highly complex to be tackled in two class periods. Of course, one could make the same argument about Darwin's theories, that there's enough material about Darwin to cover in course after course, and this would be true. However, the difference between talking about the basics of Darwin and the basics of religion are that the laws of Darwin come from one man, one opinion, one viewpoint, whereas in discussing religion, in order for the topic to be examined fairly, one must take into consideration multiple viewpoints, hundreds upon hundreds, which is implausible. Darwin is simplifiable. Religion is not. Of course, that could be the scientist in me speaking.
In discussing this speaker with her, Stephanie brought up the idea that pretty much everyone who walks into that class to hear that speaker has already made up their mind about Darwin and religion, that the speaker is only going to reaffirm their ideas or alienate them further. Yup.
I try so, so hard to keep an open mind when it comes to religion. All my life I've tried. I was never raised in a religious household. My parents supposedly believe in God, but I've never seen the evidence. We never went to church. I'm fairly sure the first time I even opened a Bible was when I was in sixth grade and one of my school friends bought me one for Easter. When that happened, my mother had a fit. She called the girl's mother. Obviously it wasn't that she didn't approve of the Bible. But my mother, like myself, believes that certain things (like sex, drugs, and violence on television) should be left out of a child's life, that they shouldn't be exposed to concepts as grand as religion until they're old enough and have lived long enough in the world to have at least a vague concept of the way the world functions. I was never kept from religion. I knew what it was. But it was a grey area in my life from when I was very young, and still is.
I suppose one could make the argument that my "lack of God" as a child is why I can't find religion now. Had I been brought up with it, I would understand more, be able to embrace it more in my life today. But I would rather live without any god in my life whatsoever because it felt right than be following a god simply because it was what I already was accustomed to, what was engrained in my life and my mind. I'm not saying that every child brought up with Jesus was brainwashed. But you tell a child something enough times and they'll come to believe it, whether or not it's true. Why else would the tooth fairy or Santa Claus be so effective? It's not from any sort of rational understanding or proof. A child who's never heard of the Easter Bunny before and wakes up with an Easter basket filled with chocolate and toys isn't going to assume some giant pink monstrosity hopped into his or her room in the middle of the night to leave presents behind. The child will look to the parents, the ones with relative proximity, the likely candidates. A simpler explanation than a huge rabbit is present, and the child will logically take it before reaching for other alternatives.
You don't teach a kid calculus before you teach addition. The natural learning style is building upon what you know, teaching the basics before moving on and expanding on concepts, drawing individual conclusions. Why should the rules of religion be any different? There is simply no point in educating about a higher world before educating about this one. Without the rudimentary understanding of how nature works, the questioning results in self-appointed answers in magical thinking. This is a lame example, but I think back to Master and Commander when Blakeney is talking to Maturin about the insects they're looking at, about their defense mechanisms and phasmid qualities and Blakeney asks, "Does God make them change?" And Maturin answers, "Does God make them change? Yes, but do they not also change themselves?" or something along those lines anyway. I've always wondered whether that would have been Maturin's natural answer had he not known that getting into an intellectual discussion about evolution with a ten or so year-old aboard a vessel of a religious oriented group like the Royal Navy was a bad idea. And on the other hand, I also wonder would that have been Blakeney's natural question had he not been raised in such an institution?
Here's my segue back to Darwin, since Master and Commander is such a nice metaphor for Darwin's excursions (we even watched a clip in class, much to my delight). What would a child's natural inclination of belief be, if he or she remained untainted as to theories about religion and evolution? Could it ever be possible to allow a child to grow up so unexposed? I suppose the answer to that is an obvious no, because if a child were to grow up without such exposure, he or she would have to be virtually untouched by humans, which would result in growing up in the wild, which would not only bias such a child but would make it difficult to later find out just what they believed anyway, heh. And to allow a child to grow up in the presence of other humans would just almost inevitably prejudice them, one way or another. In the end, it's cavalier to believe that every child would come out with the same conclusion, anyway. I am in no way implying that religion is a crock and anyone with half an unadulterated brain would push aside the idea. No. But how many could go on and find their answers in the natural world instead of in the Bible?
I've heard this position criticized by the idea that God is in the natural world, that by finding beauty and wonder in the world of nature one is finding beauty and wonder in the creation of God. And that's a wonderful notion. But I don't find a tree any less beautiful by knowing the process through which it grew from a seed into a sapling into a full-grown plant. And the same goes for any creature in nature that hasn't always been on this earth, that was derived and formed off a branch in the evolutionary tree rather than was created when God made all the birds and the beasts. Just like a little kid doesn't appreciate the presents left under the Christmas tree for him any less by knowing they're from his parents instead of a fat man in a red suit. They're still gifts, and I for one am still thankful.
Today the guest speaker talked about Genesis, the most appropriate book to couple with our discussion on evolution. He talked in depth about Gen. 1.26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." What the question he put to us was what's with all this "us" stuff? Who are "we?" Isn't God the only God in this monotheistic religion? I hadn't a clue. I'd only read Genesis once, and that was last October. The class bantered for a bit, coming up with the notion of possibly the Holy Trinity, possibly the Angels, maybe it was just the author pulling that kingly bit and making God speak in royal speak. But what the guest speaker eventually confessed was that he had a theory that God was talking to the Earth and the Waters, that had previously brought forth all the creatures and plants. So God asked the Earth and Waters to bring forth man, and so it was done.
In the end, at this point in my life, I take God out of that equation. Maybe it comes down to me being lazy, but I see enough in nature to convince me of its existence, and I don't have to go hunting for answers or waiting for miracles to believe. I don't deny that everyone has a right to believe in whatever god they choose, and that those of you who believe in God may very well end up correct in the end. Which is why I'll most likely remain agnostic until the day I die. At this point in my life, there is very little doubt in my mind that one day science will be able to explain everything that goes on in this world, that there will no longer be anything "unexplained," but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I will not live long enough to see that day. So at this point, it's understandable that people want to have something to hold onto in their lives, something constant and not always shifting like scientific beliefs. There may come a time when I join their exalted ranks and sing Hallelujah from the rooftops, or at least in church on Sundays. But for now the force that seems to soothe most people only makes me ill and irritable, twitchy and nervous. So for now I'll pass on the prayer, for it only gives me heartburn, but save it for the day when a little shaking up is all I've got left.
Heh, I feel a little silly making a big deal out of this, now that it's all said and done. *is sheepish*