incipit vita nova

We Only Have One Book In Our House

My daughter Meredith attended a Christian school. When she was in third grade, I was waiting outside her classroom for parent marching orders, and thought I’d make small talk with another mom, a lady whose child had attended school with my daughter since kindergarten. I and Meredith’s dad were splitting up at this time. I had already been branded with a slutty career woman “S,” at school, and even worse, Meredith’s dad . . . wait for it . . .

Picked his daughter up after school on a Harley.

Even though I’d marked myself as headed for Perdition, I foolishly thought there’d be no harm in a few words of small talk. I had started writing for younger readers and was asking everyone remotely connected to a child about the type of books they enjoyed. “Have your kids read any of the Harry Potter books?” I asked.

“We only read one book in our house,” she said, her nose wrinkling as if I’d bathed in eau de Brimstone. No — a spritz of Burberry Brit. Satan’s own fragrance.

“They’re pretty good,” I said. “Why don’t you –”

“They promote witchcraft,” she said. “He rides a broomstick and they do magic.” This last word was spat out like two watermelon seeds.

As the tone and the whole thing sank in, I thought, this woman would gladly burn every book that is not The Book. I cannot let her in my house. Although I owned three versions of The Book, I also had 2,000 other books. Dear Lord, I thought — what must she think about the library? Bookstores? Even the Christian bookstore! There were books in there covering Satan, sex (within marriage), or even witchcraft . . . at least, “Here is what to look for if cats start disappearing in your neighborhood.”

It’s a kind of strange karmic justice that the things people most fear, or that they most try to prevent, end up being certainties.

My husband and I were the first couple to get divorced in the small parent circle at the school; we were hardly the last. Our breakup due to growing apart, that we tried hard to handle properly for our daughter’s sake, was painful for her. Over time, it became clear that this was a walk in the park compared to the dad who was caught having “relations” with the church secretary, a child’s false sexual molestation allegations, the garden variety drinking and drug problems and affairs, bankruptcies and other financial disasters, and of course, kids coming out as gay. The stricter the house and more sanctimonious the parents, the worse these things were.

The interesting thing about the ALA’s frequently challenged books lists is how many of them I’ve read. What a ridiculous rebel I am, for I have read many forbidden things. Perhaps the choice is between Hell later for eating of the forbidden fruit and riding Harleys, or Hell on earth, which is what we would have if we only read one book in our houses.

You didn’t think I was really wearing Burberry Brit, did you? It was eau de Brimstone all along.

Why Are Atheists So Stupid?

I saw somebody state yesterday that "there were more Atheists in the U.S. than African-American or gay people."  This person said "homosexuals," but they sincerely were comparing unbelievers to a race and/or a sexual orientation.  Yes, the implication was that now that the numbers of Atheists are increasing, they too can bid to be a class eligible for protection under anti-discrimination laws.

If you Google "Why Are Atheists so Stupid?" you'll get 134,000 results.

Like this: motorcycle rider forums - 68 pages to date, mostly filled with Atheist cartoons and insults, like the up-to-date pictures of former Pres. George W. Bush and chimpanzees. Godlike Productions (new age, 2012 type message boards) more hundreds of identical messages.  English language learner message boards - yet more messages.  This gentleman has some spelling and grammar issues, but experienced the same phenomenon.  This atheist was shocked to find the thousands of Google entries for "cowardly atheist" and tried to explain the phenomenon.

This spring's Sean McDowell/James Corbett debate shocked students, regardless of their background and beliefs, because Corbett was so woefully unprepared.  I could only interpret Corbett's lack of preparation as contempt for his opponent and his position.  However, I found a sophisticated atheist commenter who was able to state what Corbett should have:  rational arguments to show why morality is not derived from God.  Here's a whole post about why Atheists think Christians are stupid.

I just completed grading this semester's papers, and numerous students chose to write about freedom of speech in the classroom, inspired by Jim Corbett's 3-decade rant against Christ (he's the "Jesus Glasses" teacher from Capistrano Valley High).  Twenty separate classroom statements against Christianity made by Corbett were put on trial in Federal District Court, and his "Jesus Glasses" statement was not the one found to have violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.  Instead, it was a justification of Corbett's participation in a lawsuit in 1991. At least four of my students were former Corbett students, and all had stories to tell based in real classroom experiences.  Despite Corbett's fairly numerous defenders, these students said he was a bad teacher, and that his combative style of teaching hindered their learning.  Most telling was all, each student described separate incidents where Corbett mocked students for their pro-religion statements, and other statements, in class.

To paraphrase Corbett, when you put on your Godless Glasses, you can't see the truth.  It continues to be all over the internet that Corbett was put on trial because he was opposing "Intelligent Design."  That is not the case.  Student Chad Farnam taped multiple anti-religious statements made by Corbett in Advanced Placement European History class.  In Corbett's mind, he "won," because only one statement was found to be unconstitutional - and after reading the statement, it was merely one of the typical "bad teacher going on and on about themselves" statements.

Which brings me to Corbett's soulmate, Joseph Smigelski.  Smigelski is a community college teacher and blogger for the Huffington Post and wrote "Why Tiffany Can't Write," last week.  In summary, Smigelski's article stated that a community college student that he named "Tiffany" asked in response to an in-class writing prompt, "Does this need to be a 5-paragraph essay?"  Smigelski took this as evidence of Tiffany's stupidity, and of the total failure of K-12 schools to teach students how to write.  He supported this assertion by re-telling a Harlan Ellison story from the recent documentary film about his life.  

I confronted Mr. Smigelski on his assertions, because I believe that they are false, based on my own experience, and upon our national writing associations.  In response, Mr. Smigelski made one boneheaded error after another.  He confronted me on my expertise, and asked if I had published any work - and, when I stated I was a friend of Harlan Ellison, he and yet another typical message board rat questioned that, too.  His last error was to state that the Naomi Campbell quote he used as evidence for all college students being developmentally disabled and unable to write, was from Dreams With Sharp Teeth, the Harlan Ellison documentary, and therefore, of course my broader interpretation of the meaning of the story was untrue.

I broke down yesterday and Googled Mr. Smigelski, and all the puzzle pieces fell into place when I saw that the guy was a sniggering Atheist.

This isn't about belief or disbelief, it's about a common behavior pattern and attitude.  Of course there are highly-religious people who are close-minded and who would make poor teachers.  However, the number of outspoken loud-mouthed and tone-deaf Atheists seems pretty large, because Smigelski is a chip off the old Corbett tree.  For the Atheists who hate Christians so much, it's quite ironic that they exhibit the same behavior patterns as seen in the Salem Witch trials or other incidents of religious persecution.  And I don't think it's possible to have that fixed and rigid a thought process, one that precludes other information at all times, and be a good teacher.

O Death

Many, many versions of this song, that is said to date back to the 1600's.  I think it's older than that.

O, Death
O, Death
Won't you spare me over til another year
Well what is this that I can't see
With ice cold hands takin' hold of me
Well I am death, none can excel
I'll open the door to heaven or hell
Whoa, death someone would pray
Could you wait to call me another day
The children prayed, the preacher preached
Time and mercy is out of your reach
I'll fix your feet til you cant walk
I'll lock your jaw til you cant talk
I'll close your eyes so you can't see
This very air, come and go with me
I'm death I come to take the soul
Leave the body and leave it cold
To draw up the flesh off of the frame
Dirt and worm both have a claim
O, Death
O, Death
Won't you spare me over til another year
My mother came to my bed
Placed a cold towel upon my head
My head is warm my feet are cold
Death is a-movin upon my soul
Oh, death how you're treatin' me
You've close my eyes so I can't see
Well you're hurtin' my body
You make me cold
You run my life right outta my soul
Oh death please consider my age
Please don't take me at this stage
My wealth is all at your command
If you will move your icy hand
Oh the young, the rich or poor
Hunger like me you know
No wealth, no ruin, no silver no gold
Nothing satisfies me but your soul
O, death
O, death
Wont you spare me over til another year
Wont you spare me over til another year
Wont you spare me over til another year

Is Morality Purely a Function of Physical Survival?

Mr. James Corbett did take time to read and visit, and I believe he reiterated and restated or possibly just copied the transcription or ground from his debate with Sean McDowell at Saddleback College last Friday evening, February 26, 2009.  Again, the debate topic was to answer this question:  "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?"

So, this is Mr. Corbett's specific ground, in support of his claim that "God is NOT the Best Explanation for Moral Values."

1) Is there another explanation for morality? I’m sure there are many, but I’m not an expert in ethics or religion.

This was a serious debate attended by hundreds of students and highly-advertised, turning out to be very popular, and instead of snarfing my coffee, I say, "If this is so, with respect, Mr. Corbett, why did you agree to debate this specific topic?"

2) Still, I doubt that If there were no belief in God, the relationship between parent and child would become savage?

Many might debate the "morality" of the parent-child relationship.  Nearly everyone is aware of the biological components of human child-rearing and the relationship between the big-brained baby's lengthy dependency on mother and the adult human capacity for many forms of communication, thought, perception and creation.  Parent and child relationships have a very strong biological component, on a physical, emotional (hormonal) and survival basis (of one's individual genes, and for humanity as a species).  So - parent-child relationships definitely exist, definitely can be very positive, and parents may eagerly sacrifice their own lives so that their children will survive - it is a selfless and unselfish decision, but possibly, not moral at all - and thus, would not change if there were no belief in God (also, Sean did make one clear point that's hard to disprove - there is a difference between "belief in God" and God.  Just saying.  If God is real, He exists even if not one person believes in him.)

3) Animals tenderly care for their young, without understanding God, why must mankind invoke God to explain what animals do by instinct?

See above.  Also, how does Mr. Corbett know that animals have no awareness of the Divine?  Yes, some nuns have told children that their puppy or kitty who just died is either in Hell, Purgatory or nowhere because as an animal, they "had no soul."  Bzzzt!  If Alex the Parrot can communicate by speaking and obviously had a personality and feelings, and Chimpanzees clearly have ideas of right, wrong, self-recognition and affection and loyalty, then these animals may well sense their part in God's creation and know that God is present. There is quite a Christian tradition of acknowledging animals' relationship to God's creation (St. Francis).

4)  Would mankind never have learned to care for the aged, injured or sick, the value of honesty or truth without God? Of course, we would, not because God wills it, but because it is in our rational self interest.

Funny movies like "The Truth About Lying" point up the humor in this type of commentary and thought.  Imagine if there were a world where lying really hadn't occurred to people.  As with my comments above about the parent-child relationship, caring for the aged, injured and sick, and being honest, are not exactly the most stringent, highest moral values and concerns.  But granted, doing these things is common sense, and above all, decency. 

5)  Humans know what animals do not, that, sooner or later, survival for the individual or the tribe depends on the caring of another.

Bzzt!  Wait - was it not asserted earlier that animals did show caring behaviors?  (It's been shown by a number of researchers that a variety of species show behavior that seems to indicate altruism).  Again, is ALTRUISM a "moral value" or is enlightened self-interest . . . just that?

6)  Morality grows out of self and tribe preservation, not faith.

This is a very common a-religious misunderstanding about Christian belief, as well as beliefs of some other religions.  Faith and a concept like morality (the concern over one's individual behavior and right and wrong actions as the individual relates to society) are two different things.  Faith refers to one's belief in religious teachings.  It is separate from beliefs and actions about one's own attitudes and behaviors.  If one has faith in Christ, YES this does influence behavior and moral attitudes.  But faith doesn't create the behavior.  One chooses to do or not do, of one's own free will.  However, Sean McDowell's statement was very simple and pure.  He said God had created or set forth morals - i.e. morals were literally created by God.  Like "God created the heaven and earth" - and morals are a part of it.

7)  Humans learned to care for each other because, as a weak defenseless animal, cooperation and caring means survival.

Again, there is a confusion between cooperation and caring and survival.

• Stealing as in "Les Miserables" for survival - immoral or moral?
• Shoplifting like Winona Ryder for the "thrill of it" and not the need - immoral or moral - and anything to do with survival?  Like, those who somehow resist the temptation to steal large amounts of expensive clothing, sunglasses and jewelry are contributing to "survival"?  How about just plain common sense, some decency, and dignity?
• Bernie Madoff - most would say immoral, but how many would trade with him hoping to "get away with it" - for their own survival?  Actually, "Darwinian" approaches to society include - be just like Madoff, as long as you can get away with it.
• The man who stood on the back of the train and used a Gatling gun to shoot thousands of American Bison down to the last herd of 100 - moral, immoral, and "survival?"  Or maddog bloodthirsty killer anybody would stop out of decency - that is a brutal, indecent behavior.
• Prostitution is widely regarded as immoral, yet it is also the "world's oldest profession," it is featured in the Bible and portrayed as something to not be judgmental about or to bar participation as a Christian, and what does it have to do with "cooperation and caring" although, it does have to do with survival - for the prostitute (see "Les Miserables").

8) Humans see a universality in morality only when they embrace the universality of the human condition----when they begin to see the stranger as not so different from themselves.

Now, I do not believe that it is terribly valid to connect "the universality of the human condition" with morality.  That's kind of like the children's book I'm linking to here.  However, let's see what Christ did have to say about "the universality of the human condition" and "seeing the stranger as not so different from themselves."

Luke 10:30 - the Parable of the Good Samaritan.  This also contains "love thy neighbor as thyself."  A good discussion here, including scripture explication.

Actually, this guy's got a lot of the good ones - Romans 12:10 - brotherly love (and he doesn't mean those who are literally related, it is meant "all are brothers").  Ephesians 4:25 and 26: speak the truth, all are neighbors, do not be angry - "let not the sun go down on thy wrath" - i.e. forgive others readily.  Ephesians 4:31 and 32 - go and read.

And, at the ballgame and on the truck, hat and T-shirts, we see one of these verses, but seldom, the three together - John 3:16-18.  I will use the KJV because that is what I have always read, and having studied the Renaissance, I recognize that it was written by a committee using the highest level of English elegance yet achieved; Shakespeare's contemporaries and peers.  Brethren refers to all people, and brother to one's brother in Christ, which is any living person and I accept the universal "he".

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

9) There are barriers to understanding the universality the human condition and Sean’s view that morality is based on one particular view of the nature of God and on one holy book does little to tear down those barriers, and much to create fear and mistrust.

People do a lot to hurt others all the time, Mr. Corbett.  It is in the news every day.  Some of them probably attend church.  Some of them might even be in charge of an individual church or congregation or maybe even a large ministry.  These scandals come out all the time.

But what I just reprinted from the one Holy Book?  It seems very clear to me, in fact, almost impossible to misunderstand.

Here is the NIV version - more clear and simple:

¹⁶This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. ¹⁷If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? ¹⁸Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

What you were stumbling toward, it was clearly stated there, was it not?

And Christ did not invent charity, nor love toward one's fellow man, nor these simple guidelines.  He stated them, here in these verses.  It is what he DID that was unique, but which has been repeated many times since and will continue to be repeated.  What we Christians believe, and commit to if we believe on this word (this is what being a "Bible Believing Christian" is, Mr. Corbett, you believe these exact words and their meaning as I wrote above - John 3:16 is this.) We believe that we should do as Christ did for us.  We believe that if it comes to it, we should copy His example - not just the first, the only such example from any religion.  We believe On Him because we believe that he died for us. Here, he tells us to give up our lives for others - any other person who needs it, not randomly, but on their behalf, just as Christ did for us. 

Now, is this morality?  Or is this something different?  I think it is different.  I believe that the deed, and deeds that Christians are charged with doing, represent these three things:

1 Corinthians 13:13

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

And for every example you gave, such as John Calvin persecuting Catholics -

I give you this example:  June 9, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. walked onto his hotel balcony in full knowledge his life was at immediate risk, with many death threats and warnings building up day after day after day.  Why would he have done that?  Or why would another who inspired Dr. King, and who incorporated Christian thought with his other religious thoughts and traditions, did as he did here, in 1948?  By their deaths, by the deaths of everyone who has died to advance the cause of loving intelligence in this world, all of us have a better chance to live - better lives.  John 3:16-18, the full thing. And - in the long run?  Yes - survival. And this isn't just about "life," it is about something greater than our small, little individual lives.  It is about the life and spirituality that we all share.

To me, that is a little bit more than a mom taking care of her baby or people getting up the gumption to refrain from stealing.

And I am the least of the little ones and it was not at all difficult for me to do this. 

Morality in the Absence of Religion

Last Friday, Christian apologist Sean McDowell debated Orange County Atheist high school teacher James Corbett at Saddleback College.  The topic of the debate was "Is God the Best Source for Morality?"  This event was co-sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ and the Freethinkers Club.  Regardless of the outcome, these two clubs working together to open up a dialog represents a great cooperation and a very positive activity.

Many who are not active churchgoers are not familiar with the broad field of Christian apologetics.  "Apologetics" does not mean "apologizing" for being a Christian, it represents a field of rational thought and reason that enables Christians to present reasoned arguments for their faith.  I wasn't aware of Sean McDowell before the debate last Friday, but students have informed me that he's very well-known and I can see why, after listening to him and visiting his website. Other well-known apologeticists that I am familiar with include Ravi Zacharias and Dinesh D'Souza. I've listened to Dinesh, who truly is a powerful, rational presenter for his opinions, and have read Ravi Zacharias' books.  One impressive thing about Ravi Zacharias is that he comes from a Hindu tradition, and thus is able to compare religious and cultural traditions in a reasoned, cultured way.

As a Christian science fiction writer, I've worked in a religion-free area for some time.  I have an audience that may have no familiarity at all with the concepts that my work might be inspired by. Most Christians immediately recognized my story "To Kiss the Star" as an examination of a very basic question of faith - how could a loving God "give" terrible disabilities and diseases to a good, kind, caring young woman, while others who are "bad" are totally healthy, disease-free, and can do whatever they want?  I have readers who are not only a-Christian, they are anti-Christian and completely unreceptive to any type of Christian thought.  They tend to assume that Christians are stupid and ignorant.  They think that Christians know nothing of science, and are resistant to, or incapable of, rational thought.  They actually think that the unsophisticated presentations such as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or this About.com Atheist article about "moral standards" are "smart," while all Christians are knuckle-dragging morons.  There is such a vast gulf of mental acuity between Christians like Sean, Ravi and Dinesh and any of the leading Atheists that I can't find any analogies to match the difference.

There was no contest between Sean McDowell and James Corbett (of "Jesus Glasses" fame) in this debate.  It is not that Sean "won" in presenting that all morality must derive from God.  It is that Corbett was woefully unprepared, and above all, was unable to provide any non-religious foundation for morality or moral behavior of any type.  This entire article seeks to debunk the attitude that Atheists have no reason to have morals or care about others.  The problem is, the author never says what morals are important to Atheists and why they hold those attitudes, except to point up that if people care about dogs and cats, then it's probably a good idea to care about other people too.  This is what we call "enlightened freethinking" I suppose.

I am a Bible-believing Christian, but I can provide some examples and evidence of morality and moral behavior that does not derive from the Bible (or any other religion).  Most people who have studied comparative religions see many correspondences between them.  But let's see what examples there are of non-religious-derived moral concepts and behaviors:

Sharing and community - this is an interesting article that focuses on how obeying rules and the appeal of simple, elegant "memes" of behavior and thought has a strong human appeal.

Utilitarianism - this article presents a "utilitarian" or enlightened self-interest approach to moral values.

Being able to live with one's self - this article covers a fascinating-sounding Korean film called "The Thirst" that tells the story of a researcher who becomes a vampire, and who struggles with his use of others to survive without religious feelings.

Again, the monster egotist Dawkins probably cannot describe a world with morality, but without religious faith probably due to his own personal lacks - he can only criticize the fears of religious people about what may happen in a world without religious faith.

Probably the simplest and most beautiful expression of moral behavior in the absence of religion is "Everything I Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten" by Robert Fulghum.  His simple ideas have been adopted worldwide - this is a Canadian World Peace site.  This would have been such a simple, powerful "argument" that morality need not rest exclusively in religion, nor derive exclusively from it.  Unfortunately, many angry Atheists like Corbett operate solely out of fear and anger, not openness or even common sense.  Letting go of one's unreasoned anger, also, is something that most religions, and also most common sense, will recommend as a way for healthy living, and healthy living is generally considered "moral," in our society today.  Morals are, of course, also derived from society as well.

Now, as to writing, imagining a society that is moral, or a society in which people make choices about right and wrong in the absence of a religion, that is the province of fantasy - or science fiction.  And it is a very challenging task indeed.

St. Francis - First for Animals and the Environment

St. Francis of Assisi is revered by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  His 12th Century life is the stuff of legend, and the very best kind.

Even as a small child, I adored looking at pictures of St. Francis and the animals.  His simple stories and beautiful prayers were so truthful and moving.

Now, I feel more strongly about the environment and the natural world each day, and I completely connect with Francis' understanding of creation.  How precious animals are!

I had been told that Catholic teaching insisted upon telling children that their puppies and kitties weren't going to go to heaven (followed by a rap on the knuckles for good measure).  I think this has to have been Catholic School hooey, because I found this description of how to explain these concepts to children.  Bottom line?  Because animals are part of God's creation, they will be there in heaven.

I suppose my favorite story about St. Francis was how he preached to the birds.  I had no wonderment whatsoever about this; it seemed natural to me that he would want to speak to the birds and that they would listen.  These spiritual stories are a close match for stories of Buddha and the animals.  Many other spiritual traditions also revere animals and teach respect for the natural world. 

The interesting thing about writing about animals or "creatures" is that it's necessary in many ways to "anthropomorphize" them, no matter how much one might wish not to do so.  One way to work against this is to closely observe the animals to which we are close, or to observe animals in nature.  Because we must use human language in writing stories, there will always be some "anthropomorphizing."  However, the traits we give animal characters do not have to correspond with obvious human ones as seen in many fables.  This has been one of the most interesting aspects of my current fantasy books; how these nonhuman characters are genuine, distinct individuals and not "animal-shaped people."  For this, I think, I can thank my early exposure to St. Francis, who taught this kind of respect from the very beginning.

Aspergers and Atheism

As geneticists have begun to discover recently, there are familial relationships involved in Asperger's Syndrome - i.e., entire families that all have Aspergers.  I am of the opinion, after spending a number of years in the science fiction/fantasy community that Aspergers can also be associated with a sort of fussy, cranky intolerance for others' ideas and beliefs.  Sometimes people with Aspergers, or touches of Aspergers, are uncomfortable with, not only ambiguity, but also challenges to their preconceived and firmly-held convictions that may not have a basis in fact.

In selecting what they believe to be an alternative belief system to organized religion (or disorganized religion, I guess), people who are concerned with newer Atheist ideas and movements are particularly fixated on the negative.  They conflate the Bible with all religious belief; to them - the existence of contradictions or uncertainties within the Biblical text instantly "disprove" all religion.  Of course, the Bible, in its multifarious editions, is a book followed by one religion, but historically, encountering contempt and opposition from Christians, Atheists in the West seem to have focused almost completely on providing information that they believe debunks Christianity.  Only now is the American Atheist website beginning to address issues of inconsistency or objections to Islam - a religion that currently has a militant wing that lends literal credence to Dawkins' claims that religion is the "root of all evil."

The biggest question in reading the Bible is right up front in Genesis.  If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, where did the woman who married Cain come from?  That one immediately occurred to me, and I guess I must be a retard, because it didn't shake my faith in Christ.  It just made me wonder where they went wrong - and realize there were parts of the story most definitely lost in the mists of time. There are lots of "official explanations" for this - some people believe that the woman from Nod who married Cain was actually another descendant of Adam and Eve and torturously explain many generations and hundreds of years passing, while others think there were other people around, and that Adam and Eve were not "created" literally in an instant by the hand of God in an isolated garden of Eden (as seen on "Star Trek"). 

Jacob at Contextual Criticism is celebrating Darwin's bi-centenary birthday by saying, "The problem with creationists is simple: they begin with a belief and then attempt to fit the evidence to conform to that belief. They operate in a manner exactly opposite of the scientific method. 

Oh, Jacob, you rationalist!  Everyone knows that REAL scientists ALWAYS follow the "real scientific method"!  First, Creationists literally believe the words in Genesis, and they believe them in a manner that fits the translation at hand, and assumes that the words written down long ago correspond to today's concepts - i.e., days, months, years, etc.  Many people disagree with them, or do not feel that their faith in God is mightily shaken by the difficulties in conforming that account with what our eyes and ears and minds tell us today. 

Point being - the truly rational person views each subject or issue as it comes.  I know that Christ is real due to personal knowledge.  I can't share that with a skeptic or irrational nonbeliever or really, anyone else.  It is my personal knowledge based upon my own experience.  I can read and receive illumination from the Bible.  Neither of those two things means any injury to others whatsoever.  And I am greatly fortunate that I do not, on a daily basis, have to risk my life in the service of my faith, and also fortunate that I live in a nation where my speech is free, and I have the right to worship as I choose without interference.  These are rights that represent rational advances and improvements in how people are best able to live with each other and move forward as a species.

Point being - religion cannot be replaced by "science" and it doesn't do "humanists" credit to ignore the pitfalls inherent in the human condition.  There might be an idealized "scientific method" just as there are Gospels in the Bible.  What people make of either of those things is, by definition, going to be imperfect.  Creationists may well search for evidence to fit their specific interpretation of the words in Genesis.  And people also believed in Piltdown Man for the better part of sixty years, and Clovis First for nearly 80.  There are countless examples of physical evidence being overlooked in service of a dominant scientific theory at various times - and not a single one of them "Creationism."  Mr. Rational Humanist above states that the Theory of Evolution is "proven" and therefore must be taught - he also includes the theory of relativity and "atomic theory" and "quantum theory."  Uh, Jacob - some movement has occurred in these areas.

Clearly, the flaw in each sort of thinking is similar.  Whereas rigid creationists are focused on fixing and pinning down a living faith in a strict definition with no room for change or additional comprehension, fixated Atheists are similarly focused on "proving" a negative.  A true rationalist might call him or herself a "changeist."  A true scientific textbook for students would encourage them toward positive investigation and questioning at all times.  We are never going to know it all, and the biggest blinder that human beings have is their own ego, or their own intellectual limitations.  All those scientific "mistakes" or wrong paths - they are coming from the same mentality that gave Galileo a hard time.  There was solid evidence at Monte Verde in Chile for years that there were native peoples in the New World long before the "Clovis" people - and the French female scientists working there were humiliated and denigrated out of all proportion to their - correct, and beneficial, work.  This is the RULE, not the exception.  By applying the same sort of thinking to religious beliefs, progress can hardly be made. 

And, according to this most excellent book, The Survivor's Club by Ben Sherwood, Dr. Harold Koenig at Duke University Medical Center has discovered evidence that people of ANY religious faith who regularly attend services live as much as seven years longer, on average, than those who do not have firm religious convictions.  Dr. Koenig, a man of religious faith, makes it clear that his studies do not mean that "God is preserving the life" of those who believe and/or observe religious practices.  There are numerous physical and mental health benefits associated with the actions related to religious practice - real and quantifiable - that appear to be related to these results.  You see, there is one great basic in all religious traditions, Eastern and Western, with which I am familiar.  Each teaches us that we are not alone.  It teaches us that we are part of something greater than our own lonely, individual selves.  This, in my way of thinking, automatically encourages a feeling of respect for the world around me, and helps me to understand that my own individual concerns are not where the world begins, and stops, turning.  It makes it easy for me to be an environmentalist, for I understand that it is not my place to despoil and destroy the world in which I live - a simple concept that most animals also innately abide by (Bears do defecate in the woods, but they sure don't sleep in it).  It makes it simple for me to accept and admire others who are different from me, because I can see that we are all part of a much larger, greater creation.

Science, and what some feel is akin to "intelligent design" shows us the same type of thinking - so much broader than our individual prejudices - about growth, change, acceptance and giving.  So there is little wonder I would fight angry, negative, destructive Atheists.  They defend neither science nor nature, and do nothing but discredit upon themselves and others.

Categorization, Classification: Militant Atheist

I wonder if some of the fervor of the New Atheist movement is a response to the human need to categorize and define.  I'll gladly link to this National Geographic special and information, because I think that learning about and looking into the life and studies of Charles Darwin is a worthwhile endeavor.  I'm fairly certain that Richard Dawkins will go beyond the basic points of memorial for the bi-centenary of Darwin's birth and points regarding evolution to re-fighting the "faith" vs. "Darwinism" argument that is so old-hat by now that it makes me want to take a cattle prod to the "faithful faithless."

I believe the rhetorical construct used by Dawkins to make those of faith sound like cretins is called a "straw man."  Yes, there are people who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and many of them do so based on pseudo-scientifical analyses of Biblical texts.  Dawkins indicates that while "ignorance is no crime," it is a negative activity to ignore "evidence" in favor of faith, for which there is no "evidence."  Dawkins calls upon viewers to "think upon four billion years of slow, gradual evolution," which is in itself, a difficult concept considering that the average person probably doesn't know much about his or her own great-grandparents - where they lived, how they lived, and who their friends and other relatives were.  Multiply that by 500 million generations (check my math), and the scales of time being considered are truly vast and inconceivable except by abstraction.  I have myself, as a teacher, received papers fervently defending "creationism" using pseudo-scientific methods.

Point being, these two approaches are of equal rigidity and approximately equal invalidity.  Today, there exists no firm scientific proof of how life arose to begin with.  Much is known, and there are a number of theories, each with its own good points.  It occurred to me while in graduate school and reading the works of brilliant naturalist, writer - and sincere, thoughtful and non-militant Atheist - John Fowles, that what he was attempting to communicate in the natural history portions of The French Lieutenant's Woman is also communicated in its own way to those of faith through the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, verse 13.  I actually wrote a critical text comparing the concept of "as through a glass, darkly" to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

I just wrote about the Tarsiers, bush babies and last week, the Aye-Aye.  Each of these species, with the possible exception of the "bush baby," is under some taxonomical dispute, with morphology, biology and DNA all indicating different interpretations of how these animals should be classified or viewed in relation to other animals, and from an evolutionary perspective.  In the real world, the existence of these animals is a wonder, as is the entirety of creation.  Some of us have a natural or innate sense that the wonder of life that is our world, is a precious thing, a miracle, and by its very nature of combined simplicity and complexity (as the fractal arises from a single mathematical formula). 

All that faith really is, is a natural comprehension that there are things that people cannot know right now, and that they may never know, and that there is, in fact, something greater than all of us - something more.  It is sometimes said that women find faith "easier" than do men, and this possibly arises, as in the case of nuns willingly becoming the "brides of Christ," because women receive consistent cues from girlhood onward that they are not the "top of the heap" as far as social relations are concerned.  Men, on the other hand, may find the thought that there is something "more" and "greater" more difficult, because their biological and social history tells them that they must be in control, be the providers, and be the ones in charge.  With each new generation in our rapidly-evolving and ever-changing world - this too may change, and may even be changing this minute as I type this.

It is unscientific to believe that we have immortal souls.  It is in Dawkins' opinion, irrational and unscientific to believe in God - yet he cannot "prove" God's non-existence, and I rather think that there is sufficient evidence, for those to see, in addition to the Word of God and the example of Christ, given to us to reveal more than was known before, that there is most certainly a higher power.  God would not have given us minds to comprehend, or hands to work, or the capacity to reason, if He did not desire us to reason - to learn more, to understand, to investigate and search.  I still believe that He has his mysteries, and I believe that based upon the words of Paul.  Everyone who knows the Gospels should know that the letters of Paul are exactly that - letters of Paul written to the different churches to help them all through different questions of faith.  Indeed, there was someone, long ago, who set down the words of Genesis, and set them in a form that fit human comprehension at that time.  One can see the evolution of understanding of behavior, of roles with each other in society, and basic ideas of "right" and "wrong" moving throughout all of the books of the Bible.  The Bible itself was, and is, an evolving document - just as life.

In other words, Dawkins does not disprove my faith nor make me into a cretin by suggesting that the only choices for faith are to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old and to disbelieve the work of Darwin, which so illuminated our world - and to those of faith (as Darwin was himself) - illuminated another corner of the "dark glass," which we are told is to mean a "brass mirror."  Our lives are short.  Some of us believe in reincarnation, while others of us believe that we have one, single life, and one immortal soul.  To investigate, to learn, and to illuminate is not forbidden by God, it is blessed by Him, and as we should all recognize, there is so much that we do not currently "know" due to scientific proof, that the evolution of our knowledge and capacity as human beings is part of a journey that we are all, as a species, taking.  Is there a day beyond which those who follow will not be able to comprehend those who came before - the so-called "singularity"?  As one who by definition, was born "before," I cannot answer that, and by definition, cannot have full comprehension of it.

That wikipedia link actually has the illustration of "the rise of man" at the top - i.e. from hunched australopithecine to "modern homo". The very nature of that picture shows its rigidity and commitment to an archaic view of "progress" that implies that what came before, is somehow inferior to what is to come.  Are animals of today "superior" to their antecedents?  This is not at all a certainty - either from a faith perspective or a science perspective.  The only certainty - is change.  And that is what is wrong with "creationists," because their worldview encompasses a static world, created "magically" in a comprehensible, simple manner, as a child sets up a diorama.  And that is what is wrong with Dawkins as well, because Darwin recognized clearly the limitations of his investigations - he recognized that he had uncovered a portion of the mirror, and a path for others to further investigate and discover.  There is no end.  There is no final stopping point or goal of earthly perfection, where all truths will be known, and there will never be "something more."  Paul was given the ability to reveal portions of the mirror to Christians through his writings.  To the Ephesians:  "World without end."

Try These On for Size

First off, this is not meant to offend my honest Atheist friends who sincerely do not believe in a higher power.  They have the right to their beliefs and opinions in America, which is granted by the First Amendment.  They have the right to express their opinions.

I first noticed the situation with the official American Atheist organization when I was in grade school, because my best friend's father was a card-carrying (signs in yard and on car too) Atheist.  His vehement belief system basically set my friend up for daily schoolyard beatings, tauntings and teasing.  Me?  I spent 3-5th grades basically defending her.  For example, her dad insisted that she follow the awesome example of Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her use of her son to eliminate prayer in schools.  He instructed her to showily stand up and leave the classroom when the Pledge of Allegiance was being said each morning.  That's right - because of "One Nation, Under God." 

Then, a few years ago, I was watching the news, and it must surely have been one of the "One Nation Under God" debates.  A very attractive and pleasant-seeming young woman who was representing the American Atheist position was debating with others.  In response to one person's statements in favor of the inclusion of this phrase in the Pledge, her face suddenly contorted, her eyes bugged out and she screamed, "Jesus said he came with a sword!"

As a Bible-reading Christian, I thought, "What?"  So therefore, as I was teaching at the time and the students were looking into First Amendment issues, I visited the American Atheist website.  That was when I discovered their Bible obsession.  To this day, they still haven't really looked into any other religions other than their twisted misunderstanding of Christianity, and they still use the exact same tired arguments used for years and years.

It's not as though Christians have much better "arguments" (faith is faith - that's basically that). 

However, it occurred to me the other night that the same idiotic argument method incorporated by the Atheists can easily be used against them.  For a supposed genius, Richard Dawkins is really the one that made me think these people weren't just crazy, they were Savonarola crazy. 

At any rate - what would American Atheists replace their view of Christianity with?  Hmn.  Well, let's try science and the scientific method.

Ah.  OK, so the Tuskeegee Experiment proves that science is good, and the scientific method cures all ills.  Forty years of Piltdown Man - awesome!  And of course - the Bell Curve.

I think the superiority of thought and overall movement toward the good of humankind provided through science and the scientific method can easily be seen through these and other fine scientific projects, firmly-held beliefs, and experiments.  Oh!  Yes - scientists are always right.  That's why we have a thorough understanding of the weather and can predict earthquakes and have cured cancer.  And the common cold.

Denvention Day 4 - I Was A Knowitall on a Panel!

I know.  I know.  My first convention was the WorldCon in Los Angeles in 1996. I went to Clarion, I wrote SF, and I corresponded - in those days "for real," primarily - with a few people, both inside and outside of the SF/F community.  I was, at the time, going back to Chapman University to get my MFA, based on the encouragement of two decidedly non-SF writers and teachers, Jerome Brooks from the University of Chicago and Carol Bly, who I recently learned had died last year of ovarian cancer.  Looking at that picture of Carol, tears come to my eyes.  It is a marvelous article.  Yes, Carol was married to Robert Bly - and as the article said, they had four children and did not say anything bad about each other whatsoever - reminiscent of me and Mike (I was married for 15 years to Mike Casil and we are still friends and co-parent our daughter Meredith).  I guess I can look back and say I did at least one thing right, in that case.  As to Carol and Robert - each continued on their own creative paths.  She was - the best.  As to Jerome Brooks, a beautiful writer and human being - Jerry taught me the value of language, and he taught me that I could believe in myself.

So, here I am at the World Science Fiction Convention in Denver twelve years later.  Meredith is about to turn 16.  She'll always be "bal" to me (her baby nickname).  But she's her own person now and, fantastically, her art talent just began to explode when she was fourteen.  As I told my friend Brad Templeton yesterday, she's beginning to get "the dreams" and - I didn't tell Brad, but she's - well, I think she could have more talent than my mother.  It isn't that I'm an untalented artist.  I'm a facile one - and that is not the same thing.  Meredith has blinding talent and it's the real deal.  Nothing can, or will, stop her.

This is John Moore, who was moderating the panel on Genetic Engineering that I participated in yesterday.  I hadn't realized before that John was a chemical engineer - I knew him as the handsome princely author of very funny, cool fairy tale books with a "twist."  Other panel members were Mary Rosenblum and Tom Trumpinski (who I hadn't known before).  Mary has, of course, written for Asimovs for a long time now, and I had met her - on or about that 1996 "these are conventions?" year.  She has a book out that I saw, I think at WorldCon two years ago - an actual Standalone Sci Fi Novel, which makes her one of the very few and proud.  Mary's current book looks to be out from Fairwood Press (yay, Patrick and Honna!).  Tom is a professor at the University of Illinois - Champaign, and has a new nonfiction book of essays.

So, this incredibly long digression is just to say: after twelve straight years.  After at least three "Let the Lady Speak!" panel experiences (this is where the all-male panel talks, all together, all at once, uninterrupted, for forty minutes - until someone on the audience stands up and yells, "Let the Lady Speak!), after any number of other boneheaded panel nightmares (people will fill in the blank here - don't forget that I both get along with and like David Brin, though I know David has chewed plenty of scenery in his day) ----

I was, hold your breath everyone -

THE EXPERT ON THE PANEL.

I was, yes, the most knowledgeable person about genetic engineering.  I get the impression from the panel description that programming wanted us to talk about frog-men and kitkat women, and Mary did mention "glow in the dark" cats from France.  This looks, actually, to be three kittens from Korea.   

However, I don't really believe that people will genetically modify themselves in such freakish ways for a very long time, if ever.  So, I think I was able to answer some questions about the types of research in genetic treatments or techniques that are currently being conducted, such as cancer vaccines and treatments for specific conditions.  There was a nice lady in the first row who was trying to assist me in saying "hypoplastic left HEART syndrome."  Yes, she was right and I just had -

y'all know I'm psychotically shy, right?

Hypoplastic left heart syndrome or HLHS, as portrayed in "Perfect Stranger."  Here is a link to the Biology in SF blog (she lives in Yucaipa - isn't that awesome?) discussing these exact issues. And to "Perfect Stranger," a perfect match for the once-in-a-lifetime - I was the actual expert on the panel experience.  Story is also on the right-hand side of the page and I expect will go up on Book View Cafe (WHUT?  WHUT'S THET? - LEARN MORE IN SEPTEMBER!).  Unlike some people, I actually have material written in recent days, weeks and months, rather than . . . OK, I went to the WorldCon in LA in 1996 as a newbie, just having published a couple of stories, with a few others in the pipeline.

There's people with tip jars who've neither written nor published anything since that time!  And they even have "fans."  Goes to show you there does need to be some cleaning out of the gene pool - I'll say that.  I am certain my bud Brad Templeton would agree with me.  I've known Brad and a great number of other people, such as Kris Rusch and Dean Smith (Dean said he did 2 yrs. of the Senior PGA, but it didn't work out, and then he turned to World Series of Poker - now he's back writing again) since '96.  Some people who haven't worked in the industry since, oh, I guess 99 or so - they thought I was a "fan."

Uh, no.  Sorry about that.  I very much admire and enjoy the field - but I'm a writer.  I never wanted to send my work out too discriminately - considering what I know about some former editors, I thought it was a poor idea.  The Helix disaster was a very public manifestation of this problem.  In private, genuine lunatics have had these jobs here and there, with horrible educations and worse taste.

So, I know exactly what to do now with The Fire Gryphon.  It makes me very happy to know I will be able to work with people with great educations, who are supportive, kind and brilliant.  In the words of the Doctor - "brilliant!"