Posts Tagged ‘Religion’
Putting childhood things away as a child because of religion
How I open my apostasy story has stuck in some people’s minds:
I was nine years old when childish things were put away.
I watched my toys being packed up and sealed into a cardboard box. Presents from Christmas, like my treasured Millennium Falcon and X-Wing fighters, bought after watching Star Wars for the first time and my given-for-birthday Spectrum games where I fought valiantly against hordes of ghosts and monsters to save the damsel in distress.
The selection was made by an elder who would decide if the toys were to be buried or burnt. They were chosen on the basis of whether they suggested a power beyond that of Jehovah – blasphemy for Jehovah’s Witnesses like us – or evoked the occult and satanic machinations. Even Pacman could not escape this moral maze.
The full story, as part of the Apostasy Project can be read here.
A commentator has kindly shown a video produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses that demonstrates how to reason with a child to give up playing with a toy that goes against Jehovah.
It is a typical “role play” like style we did at Theocratic Ministry School to learn to convert people to our way of thinking.
This is childhood indoctrination. This is child abuse.
Please support the apostasy project.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Buffet Style Religion – cherry picking
Literalist interpretations of sacred texts are a rarity in serious discourse in the United Kingdom. Bible bashing would be a sign of no serious argument as much as resorting to ad hominem ignoring what the discussion is about.
Video above from “The West Wing” a great bible rant about the need to cherry pick for a humanist religion
President Josiah Bartlett may have been in the back of the mind as Neal Donald Walsch’s article Buffet-Style Bible Believers about reactions to Boy Scouts of America decision on allowing membership to openly gay youths. He uses different bible quotes regarding killing rebellious offspring, killing brides that have no virginity, women avoiding the groin in a fight, the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals.
So with respect, I ask you to excuse me, Pastor Reed, if I am not totally convinced that humanity’s infallible answers will be found in the Bible. You may not agree with all of the above verses, either. But if we are going to be Buffet Bible Believers, rather than a Literal Word of God Believer, than might you please tell us which verses of the Bible we are advised to ignore, and which we should apply to the letter?
Thank you, sir. That would be very helpful. We would not want to be called hypocrites for citing some verses of God’s Word when they support our personal prejudices, and ignoring others when they do not, now would we?
In my post about Islam I mentioned concern with cherry picking verses in Koran and Hadiths – not because I and others may be misrepresenting the true nature of Islam as believers live their faith – but because extreme radical Islamic political ideologues use those same verses to legitimise their wanton acts of coercion either through the state or by means of terror.
That is a different thing to respond to. Spin those verses were for a particular context that do not exist today, that they were one off commandments not applicable now, other verses make clear not right thing to act on in the way they do.
Tied down by parchment, the need for revisionism and winning with your interpretation becomes the battleground of ideas. Over a millennium later it really is a matter of life and death how Iron Age texts are read. That private belief can be enforced on the populace to deny their own pursuit to happiness while living a good life.
Whether you believe in God or not, this is a rather sorry state of affairs for humanity to still find itself in.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The dehumanising done by Islam
I have written that we should not dehumanise Muslims. However, we can be critical of religion and certainly those that try to be the apologists of it. Mehdi Hasan in writing “Woolwich Attack: Demonising Muslims Won’t Help” does not help by trying to rewrite the history of Islam. It feels like he is trying to take advantage of the solidarity we show Muslims by trying to get us to swallow that Islam has been misunderstood.
Perversely, it was the non-Muslim cub scout leader who, in trying to save the soldier’s life and standing up to his alleged attackers, was acting in accordance with Qur’anic principles. Let’s be clear: Islam, like every other faith, doesn’t permit the killing of innocents.
I have asked him via twitter what could possibly be perverse about a non Muslim going to help someone she thought was injured in the road, and verbally challenging the attackers? He may be wanting to contrast her actions with the killers. That is not what perversely means. Rather it sounds like a Freudian slip that Ingrid Loyau-Kennett showed heroism and compassion without needing to be a Muslim – how out of character for a non-believer, how perverse.
In case you think I am being too hard read what Hasan had to say in 2009:
“We know that keeping the moral high-ground is key. Once we lose the moral high-ground we are no different from the rest of the non-Muslims; from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfil any desire.”
The problem Hasan has is the belief the Koran must be right as the Word of God. As such, if we find anything there which is an anathema to us we must be mistaken in our interpretation. That does not work. The translation is very clear, and how the Koran and Hadith are applied in the world a testament that followers of Islam can think that too.
If Islam does not want us ever to harm the innocent, it becomes most important to know who qualifies. Clearly the following people are not as innocent as we would like them to be.
-
Apostates
Qur’an (4:89) – “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.
Hasan suggests apostasy is only a sin awaiting punishment in next life
Speaking of dehumanising:
Our rights in Egypt, as Christians or converts, are less than the rights of animals,” El-Gohary said. “We are deprived of social and civil rights, deprived of our inheritance and left to the fundamentalists to be killed. Nobody bothers to investigate or care about us.” El-Gohary, 56, has been attacked in the street, spat at and knocked down in his effort to win the right to officially convert. He said he and his 14-year-old daughter continue to receive death threats by text message and phone call. (Source)
-
Homosexuals
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 – Muhammad said “Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver.”
Speaking of dehumanising:
Citing the Qur’an, Javadi-Amoli said politicians who pass laws in favour of homosexuals are lower than animals. “Even animals … dogs and pigs don’t engage in this disgusting act [homosexuality] but yet they [western politicians] pass laws in favour of them in their parliaments.” (Source)
-
Unbelievers
Sura 9:29
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Speaking of dehumanising:
The restrictions placed on non-Islamic faiths, and enshrined in law in some countries different legal status of non believers.
-
Women
Quran 4:34
“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them.”
Sura 2:223 – Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like.
Speaking of dehumanising:
“The passage of a law in Afghanistan asking Muslim women to unconditionally submit to the sexual whims of their husbands once in four days is a shocking piece of legislation that seeks to dehumanise women reducing them to mere chattels devoid of human rights.” (Source)
My secularism means no Muslim should be threatened or denied their rights and must be treated equally as a citizen. An issue that I want Hasan to go further on is promoting acceptance and equal rights for gay Muslims. I know humanist Muslims that condemn the verses above. But the rights we give apostates, unbelievers, homosexuals and women are not because of Islam.
It is in spite of Islam.
UPDATE 1pm: The article above is concerned with how cherry picking is used, indeed by all faiths, or a different interpretation given to fit in with enlightenment values. All can quote mine, but my point above is not just that detractors of Islam quote mine – extreme Islamists do too to legitimise their actions, by law or by terror.
The key difference being I want Muslims to live in peace and harmony. Jihadists want us all, believer or not, to accept their version of faith and will do this by all means they can.
Because of how they view a book written over a millennia ago.
Is it too much to ask we move beyond one ancient book to work out how we should treat one another?
Follow up blogs: Hasan replies – perverse meaning of words
Buffet Style religion – the cherry pickers
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Critical Thinker Gives No One a Free Ride
There comes a point when we realise that being charming is not about agreeing with everyone or trying too. The last thing is to be someone that has absorbed the last viewpoint exposed to them in company, like a sponge sucking up any affluent soaked in for long enough, or a parrot regurgitating what your chosen master of thought has espoused without conjugating on it critically first. Be passionate about what you think as well as discerning. A Spartan of the mind looking for someone that can be the better opponent. Contrarian know thyself as well as the enemy.
New atheism is not a political machine where criticising each other is letting our leadership down. Whilst the secular letter suggested we keep our internal disagreements private if it was in danger of becoming uncivil with each other, debate is something to be celebrated and encouraged because nothing else sharpens the sinews of the mind so.
Exposing the Jehovah’s Witnesses with my own experience, for ruining childhoods and risking children’s lives for Bronze Age superstition over blood is important. Free thought was not only discouraged in the Society but had sanctions against it in place: shunning being a particularly unpleasant experience.
Islam needs critical examination, just suit up for the mud slinging of colonialist and islamophobic that follow. The legacy on slavery, how non believers are viewed and apostates threatened with death. Children beaten into memorising the Koran. Bangladesh atheist bloggers arrested. All issues dealt with on this blog. When it comes to twitter follow @CEMB_forum for how to truly take on the Islamists out there.
The idea that atheism leads to bloodshed – not communism – needs challenging because it gives birth to the lie atheism is a religion in all but name willing to murder those opposed as a blood sacrifice to it’s battle cry there is no God. Hence my argument on twitter with Peter Hitchens.
Secularism and pluralism
The one thing I keep coming back to is secularism being more important than atheism. Human rights, and liberty are part of the concept that the state does not enforce religion on citizens. Further, that people are left to their conscience by freedom of religion, thought and speech. Pluralism in action attacks the core of religious extremism, allowing us to be autonomous individuals contributing to civil society.
Yet the word secular has become synonymous with atheist. Atheism is a counter view that theism does not prove the existence of god. I don’t believe there is no god – rather I believe no satisfactory evidence has been brought forward to say theism knows there is a god. Religion knows not who this god is and what they want you to do on earth, nor what happens after death. To say you do know is conceit beyond arrogance.
For me secularism is the public issue compared with my atheism as a personal conviction. Many wear atheism on their sleeve in all public discourse for religion is at the heart of everything that needs countering as it becomes involved in all human decision making.
Yet in public policy debates the religious look out of touch, ill informed and human rights deniers when they play the faith card. I’m suggesting we don’t play their game in kind as atheists. When we stick to facts, research, science, welfare of citizens and human rights we are true to our humanism and more likely to win the public policy debate. Even Bill O’Reilly gets that is the lesson theists have to learn on gay marriage. Bible thumping is as ridiculous as faith bashing when talking about gun control. We have better trump cards when faith heads act as divine appointed spokespeople for their sky fairy – than saying back atheism is only rational logical conclusion.
We have to challenge the idea that religion is benign, that somehow if only properly implemented on us all would make the world a better place. That separate debate from a particular public policy matters because the religious impose their views on the rest of us without our consent. The four horsemen – Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and the late Hitchens were right to see this was important and to take it on. I honour the charge they made. The anti-theist attitude of Hitch was crucial not just because of the learned educated erudite oratory. It was not petty ad hominem, but took what was served to him by a sincere self-righteous speaker; Hitch quickly chewed and spat back at them the poisonous insidious garbage it really was for all to see.
Not rocking the boat by shouting steady as she goes!
I would like to see the OutCampaign website fully functioning and RDFRS funding research as was the original goal of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. I would like Dawkins to go for the belief without personal attacks on the voice of a rabbi sounding like Hitler, a woman wanting to wear a cross having a stupid face, and a Grandma speaking in grief being an idiot.
With Richard Dawkins the three recent critiques I have felt warranted – the Mein Kampf/Koran tweet showed an ignorance of historical context comparing the two works, the winged horse belief ruling out hiring someone as a serious journalist, and most recent calling a grieving Grandma an idiot.
This allows people to paint Dawkins as aloof, insensitive, rude – an angry learned professor lacking the patience to deconstruct an argument because believers are idiots. These are not the impressions I had meeting him multiple times when helping out at conferences, talks, and talking to him at restaurants and receptions, or hearing his public speeches. As I mentioned in comments when asked what he was like:
Very affable more a listener than a talker in conversation. For example when involved in filming an event in Oxford (with Sir Paul Nurse) invited myself and friends to a VIP reception afterwards.
Also, some people misunderstand when I criticise or dare to correct Dawkins (in fairness this is very rare). He welcomes that challenge, and knows how to defend himself if he disagrees. At a conference I was volunteering at, he suggested Americans should not get worked up about money having “In God We Trust” printed on it.
When delegates explained how that was used to reinforce the idea of America founded as a Christian Nation he accepted that, and changed his mind that it was worth pursuing after all.
I admire the writer, that intellect, how Dawkins shows intelligent design to be a fraud, and his advocacy of public understanding of science. I despair of the tweets and sound bites Dawkins has used, which even by his own admission have been ill worded and needed an apology. He is better company, and a better man, than this suggests to a wider audience.
Having grown up in a cult which controlled your every thought and deed, the freethinking community is a much better group to be in. I owe it to all to talk about my experiences, and share them in the hope people realise the impact faith can have on people.
Yet those faculties will also be brought to bear on my own side too, which hopefully may sharpen and refine our arguments, and make us more effective in promoting reason and science.
The debate is too important to stay on the sidelines, let alone be silent on. This contrarian will keep up the discourse. Being critical is not the same as being negative. As freethinkers sailing the sea of faith, we will plot our course. It is not subversive to suggest checking our bearings, and ensure we focus on the right targets.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Covering should not be cowering
As a man, who has never been a Muslim, it may be quite easy to discount what I have to say ad hominem discussing the hijab, attitudes towards wearing and experiences in US and France – until you realise that the Jehovah’s Witnesses I studied with have a head covering requirement for women. My perspective is based on actual observation and experience from a different background.
1 Corinthians 11:2-15
King James Version
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Based on this if a sister led a prayer with a brother present she had to wear a head scarf. Usually this practise did not happen because a brother would always lead a prayer. The one occasion this did not happen, was in my presence, a few days after the elders were happy that I was ready for baptism. The sister that was to lead my mother and myself in prayer felt obliged to wear a headscarf when I was the only male present before we did a home bible study.
Then there was the time years before when a ministerial servant felt my hair was too long, and that it should be cut shorter. To be on the safe side I went for a crew cut. That should keep me on the right side for a few months I thought.
These experiences feel ridiculous now – if a woman could be a prophet why could she not lead a prayer without resorting to a piece of fabric on her head to be the equal of men? Long hair for a man – a matter of culture through the civilisations rather than a matter of divinely graded measurement.
The worse that could have happened? Disciplinary procedures, which could have resulted in shunning and being disfellowshipped. That would come under apostasy for rebelling against Society teaching of scripture.
The link above goes into great detail regarding the whole process this involves. We can say that religion is a voluntary process, but the impact is very real when part of such a community. Even though I chose to leave before going through with the baptism.
The baggage is real, and getting out of it a new way of thinking. Becoming chess school captain, main actor in school play, vice chair youth council – these things would be seen as commendable for a young person to be involved with. It would have been frowned upon or not allowed with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Issues of free choice, and lack of compulsion are at the heart of thinking about specific laws to prevent coercion – for example wearing the hijab in public. It misses that women may voluntarily choose to wear such items. The sister at the home study did not have to wear – I was a child and not yet a brother – she wanted to do this as her expression of faith.
Religious freedom means for me you may voluntarily choose to be part of a faith and there is no legal remit to follow religious doctrine. You can ask me to leave your church if my hair is too long, but you cannot deny me the right to walk the streets with my hair long.
The ability to speak for change should be open without reproach, yet the sect provision means you will be out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses for daring to suggest Society is wrong, or could do with a rethink. We were told to wait regarding women entering senior levels of ministry – rather than discuss.
The laws of the land should protect women from reprisals that endanger them. Specific laws targeting specific religions aimed at a specific gender homing in on a specific garments – suggest peculiar special treatment. We need to think carefully when thinking of such a law the liberty of someone that freely choses to practise their faith or express cultural identity is not affected on our streets.
Sisters should be choosing it for themselves. That is the bottom line.
We can still challenge the ideas that lie behind misogynistic thinking as expressed by Paul.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Bibliophile Insult for Ray Comfort
Ray Comfort, the evangelist that tried to stick it to atheists with a banana, has learnt the meaning of the word bibliophile to publicly add to his ignominy, on Facebook. Bless.
The bananas video is here in case you missed the slap stick argument:
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Carey On Gays
Lord Carey has criticised aggressive secularism as threatening the benefits of marriage in society by pursuing gay marriage to the point of persecuting Christians who are against such people and peccadillos taking place in everyday life whether staying at a Bed and Breakfast or professing their love in a legally binding way. In the Daily Mail article, he has chosen the weekend of the redemption and salvation of humanity to suggest that we are in danger of societal breakdown as a transmutation of heterosexual marriage occurs if gay people can say “I do”.
Lord Carey was Archbishop of the Church of England from 1991 – the same year that marital rape became illegal in England – to 2002. In that most sacred of unions a husband did not need full consent of his wife to have sex with her – it was a right before 1991 to rape her. I doubt that Carey argued at the time this would change the nature of marriage to it’s detriment. However, consenting homosexuals marrying now apparently will:
As David Cameron knows, I am very suspicious that behind the plans to change the nature of marriage, which come before the House of Lords soon, there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society together for time immemorial.
By dividing marriage into religious and civil the Government threatens the church and state link which they purport to support. But they also threaten to empty marriage of its fundamental religious and civic meaning as an institution orientated towards the upbringing of children.
How the glue will come unstuck if gay people marry is unclear – it is true that their union may not produce genetically their own children – though as “Milk” says God knows they try. However, this misses another crucial reason people marry: recognition both civically and legally of the relationship between two people. The rights such as to see your loved one in hospital, inherit an estate, if the relationship breaks down legal address. In this sense the recognition of gay long term relationships is about understanding human nature and equality of citizens in legal situations. That supersedes the right of anyone to discriminate on basis of sexuality or moral authority on what nature should be.
Carey wants registers to be able to refuse to marry same sex couples. This misses crucial part of current legislation that allows religious protection (say on serving alcohol) if not part of job description without being sacked or disciplined – I am using that as a real life example in an entertainment leisure setting. If the state redefines marriage than it has changed the legal definition rather than the job description. This is not about creating a new institution – it is about espousing the institution of marriage as the union of two people.
Churches do not have to perform same sex marriages, but civil authorities will and there is no opt out for their register employees. Just as there is not if an interfaith or interracial marriage they may disagree with for religious reasons. Some are trying to argue that line of argument is wrong because gay marriage is a new institution; rather as I argue extending legal rights to same sex couples that different sex couples already have, but within an existing institution. Civic officials have no right to refuse citizens what they are legally entitled to. If that is aggressive thinking, perhaps you are being too defensive in being against rights.
The only way to argue gay marriage is so different is to suggest there is something perverse about same sex couples wanting legal means of recognition for their relationship in the way different sex couples can. In the telegraph link above the blogger recognises as I do this is the main point to stress in the debate rather than a direct comparison to interracial marriage struggle in the USA. If you call homosexuality wrong, unnatural, a sin against God, then you have revealed your fascination with this sin makes you want to stop others who rather enjoy it being happy. The pursuit of happiness is a natural right that trumps others’ bigotry preventing.
Perhaps some may want an accommodation made: registers can refuse same sex weddings, not call gay unions marriage but civil partnerships, not give same entitlements (eg pensions and welfare benefits) to gay couples. The crucial point in staying the course is that two people that love one another and want their relationship recognised with legal protections and rights they would otherwise not have, and publicly declare the status of their relationship, should be allowed. With or without giving birth to children.
That Lord Carey did not even try to address that point, or suggest how Christians should feel about the love that dare not speak it’s name, is one reason why he does not just lack the authority of office. Stressing the idea of fertility at this time suggests a more pagan idea to human rights at Easter.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Jehovah’s Witnesses benign?
A recent comment suggested that I should leave Jehovah’s Witnesses alone as they do not hurt anyone. My retort:
You mean like refusing a blood transfusion in a critical blood loss situation (including children) never hurts anyone?
Shunning of family members that leave the faith never hurt anyone?
Not automatically reporting child abuse to secular authorities, or having in place child safeguarding practises, never hurt anyone?
Changing dogma, prophecies that are false, women covering heads in submission to men should they lead over a brother in prayer, and women having no position of authority never hurt anyone?
Suggesting the United Nations, government agencies, non governmental agencies, are part of the evil system of things while not actively helping in humanitarian action for those outside the faith – never hurt anyone?
Everyone is free to have their religion and conscience. No one is entitled to cause harm and get away with it without comment.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Life after Jehovah’s Witnesses
Leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses is more than just losing your religion. When you are prepared to die for something, mentally geared up for the end of the world, it is more than culture shock. The ground giving way beneath your feet as you fall down a rabbit hole is more apt. This blog is summing up that experience with links to further blogs that cover that aspect.
Why people leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses will differ (you can read my experience here) yet there will be similarities in the readjustment to life outside of the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society – hereafter called Society.
The first, and most telling, is you are cut off from the people you would have socialised with 2-4 times a week at various meetings. The conversations and socialising outside the Kingdom Hall and study groups are very different. Plus having been warned “bad associations spoil useful habits” it takes time not to have an inner feeling that you will be led astray if not ever watchful.
That leads on to the habitual energy that comes from being a Jehovah’s Witness. To defend teaching against any line of argument and to think what the Society said on matters is second nature. Always on the lookout for the evil one. This mindset takes time to cast off.
So what to believe now? I remember reading a book that had all the photocopies of old Society publications that proved past prophecies were not only wrong but down right ludicrous. Yet after such excellent source material it tried to convince that the Trinity was true. Attempting deprograming in preparation for another belief system is not what you are after. Ideally you want support to come to terms with your past and how you feel now.
The advice I can give there is within the Society we were taught only everything published by them was true. Their false prophecies made me more skeptical of the printed word. I thus advocate a healthy skepticism of what something really proves, ask how do they know, and what would prove them wrong. This is not a negative outlook, but looking at the validity of claims and counter claims.
Leaving can mean being bereft of company, family members, even perhaps the presence of Jehovah in your life. This is what can haunt long after you have come to terms with the world and what you now believe or do not believe. Talking to those that have gone through the same experience may help. The Internet and social media is a tool, which may give the confidence to actually get back into real life like never before. There is no substitute for a family that accept you, but we have to move on with our lives. We need to recognise that as social beings best not done alone.
Being a Jehovah’s Witness is a full time job in terms of study, let alone how you think and what you do. You cannot just push that to one side. Take your time, and use those study skills to find out about life, the universe and everything.
Above all have fun. Cook yourself a lovely meal, buy that dress, rest on the couch and do nothing without feeling guilty. Whatever helps you get back in touch with yourself, community activism, water painting, or writing a blog, pursue and see where it takes you.
A purpose driven life, that does not involve the end of the world, awaits you. You have the right to find it. All the best on your onward journey.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Sublime is For Everyone
Why should religion have all the good words to describe how we feel?
Apparently atheists should not use words like sublime, awe, wonder, or miraculous when looking at the universe, and in particular those of nature. So an article in “The Guardian” implies accusing documentaries of inspiring something that is at best stealing the language and hierarchy of religion and at worse trying to make humanity just another bunch of cells making up a mammal of less significance.
The crucial question, though, is who is doing the worshipping. Cox and co make much of their own humility in the face of natural marvels. They express wonder and we are meant to follow suit.But it’s too easy for the meekness we feel in the face of extraordinary facts to blur into deference towards popular scientists themselves, with their public profile and their privileged access to those facts. Like priests, they occupy an elevated position in relation to the phenomena they admire. While putting on a good show of being amazed, they function as powerful gatekeepers to a mystical beyond. Cox may not look like a boffin, but it’s telling that he’s always called professor.
The article does not consider that the credentialed presenter is not a new phenomenon. Think AJP Taylor as a talking head on history fifty odd years ago. That they are professors, dons, experts in their fields which is preciously why they are worth listening to. These facts are available to anyone that can read, go to a library/bookshop, surf the net, enrol on a science course or use a remote control. The only barriers are imagination to be curious.
Clearly though, Elaine Graser (a BBC producer) is suggesting that atheists are lauding such people for not believing in God. Yet atheists maybe, as all genuinely curious people are, passionate about science, how things are, and want to actually listen to someone that can explain to the best of our knowledge how things are. Beating a sermon reading from Genesis on a Sunday as to why.
The old chestnut that the more we know the less mystic about what makes us human means we less see us reflecting the image of God is also a subtext of the article:
While all this reinforces the status of scientists, it downplays the extraordinary uniqueness of the human mind. Could it be scientists’ inability to explain why we are so different from other animals that leads them to minimise this genuine wonder of life?
Thing is the more we learn, for example that the eyes of squid are far superior to our own, suggest that calls on considering us superior (which is what unique means here) are without the foundation that traditionally are used. The biblically inspired caveat that we are stronger, more capable and have a God given right to make this world as He wants us to.
Gradually, and yes Darwin did help in making this possible, we are seeing ourselves as a product of the universe. Of the stars, chemical reactions, organic bio-chemical electrical cells made up entities getting to grips with our environment. Most of humanity, and not enough of it, has moved beyond hand to mouth existence. We choose to use our time to stop and stare. To marvel at the world and universe we live in – and to make sense of it. We were probably doing this long before we learnt to paint in caves. Our understanding has moved on since then.
The article in suggesting humanity is unique, and religion has a central place in describing human ecstasy at creation, is reinforcing the very religious monopoly it accuses public profile scientists of usurping. Thing is we want to know the “how” and increasingly the clergyman is not the first port of call anymore, just as witch doctors are not when we get sick.
If moved by watching such things, that is not only because I am human. It is also good quality television.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
