Belief-O-Matic

A few days ago, Andrew from Hackman's Musings (an awesome blog by the way), posted a link to the Belief-O-Matic, a quiz which asks you 20 questions about your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and determines how close your beliefs are to 27 different religions or belief systems. I found it to be quite fun and interesting, so I thought I would share my results.

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Reform Judaism (98%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (95%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (90%)
5. Baha'i Faith (85%)
6. Neo-Pagan (84%)
7. New Age (81%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (74%)
9. Sikhism (74%)
10. New Thought (65%)
11. Secular Humanism (64%)
12. Jainism (61%)
13. Orthodox Judaism (60%)
14. Theravada Buddhism (56%)
15. Taoism (55%)
16. Scientology (55%)
17. Islam (54%)
18. Orthodox Quaker (53%)
19. Hinduism (50%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (42%)
21. Nontheist (35%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (30%)
23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (29%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (26%)
25. Roman Catholic (26%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (25%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (14%)

Overall, my results didn't surprise me too much. The only unexpected part was the 55% for Scientology. I guess that is mostly because I have just never thought of myself as having anything in common with Scientology, but I only know about some of their more controversial beliefs. 

The Destructiveness of Religious Judgement

Last week, I accompanied my mother to a doctor's appointment. While she was back in the exam room, I hung out in the waiting room. It was a typical doctor's office waiting room and I got bored rather quickly. As I looked around for some magazines to read, a shelf near the check-in counter caught my eye. I walked over and realized it was display of different books you could buy. Most of them were rather small and looked like they had been printed by a local budget publisher. Not poor quality or anything, just plain. These books mainly dealt with medical issues, like healthy meal ideas for diabetics or an exercise guide for people with arthritis. However, on the middle shelf of the display, there was a thin book of inspirational stories.

Just for the record, I usually avoid books like that. While I generally consider myself to be an optimist, I generally find these types of books to be just a little irritating. The stories always seem either too good to be true or totally cheesy and unrealistic. But, since I had nothing better to do, and was suffering from neither diabetes nor arthritis, I grabbed the book (unfortunately, I do not remember the title), opened it to a random story, and began to read. The story I ended up with was about 12 pages long, so I've written out a short synopsis. Before I begin, I want to note that, while the exact Christian denomination the couple in the story belongs too is never disclosed, I think it is safe to assume they were conservative Christians, possibly even fundamentalists. You will see why I believe this as you read my synopsis, but please feel free to disagree with me.

The story begins with a devout Christian couple. This couple had a son who became extremely unhappy and increasingly distant during his teenage years. He rejected his religious upbringing and refused to continue attending church, which greatly upset his parents. As soon as he graduated high school, he left home without reveling where he intended to go.

Over the next few years, they had sparse contact with their son. During his rare phone calls, they attempted to convince their son to come home and return to the church, saying that no matter what his sins were, Jesus would forgive him. Not surprisingly, their son spurned their invitation to return home and declined to give them any information about why he had disappeared or where he was. Soon, the phone calls ceased all together.

Sometime later (I forget exactly how long, but it couldn't have been more than a few years), the phone rang in the middle of the night. It was their son. He confessed to his parents that he was gay and that he was in a hospital in San Francisco, dying of AIDS. He said he wanted to tell them so that they would know what happened to him, but that he did not wish to see them. He had directed the nurses not to allow his parents to enter his room if they appeared at the hospital. He said goodbye and hung up.

Being devout Christians, the parents instantly called their pastor, who agreed to meet them at their church. Once at the church, the parents explained what their son had admitted to them over the phone and asked their pastor what he thought they should do. The pastor told them that they needed to immediately fly out to California and attempt to see their son. He said that their son was still unsaved and that it would be their final chance to preach the Gospel to him and save him from his life of sin.

At this point, I should note that his homosexuality is never explicitly mentioned as being the reason for his "life of sin", but that was the vibe I got from the story. I would not have been surprised if the pastor had interpreted the son's AIDS as a punishment from God for the son's homosexuality.

The parents promptly left for San Francisco, arriving that evening. Once at the hospital, they requested to see their son. A nurse showed them to a waiting area and then departed for the son's room. She returned several minutes later and informed the parents that their son had refused to see them. This news deeply distressed the parents. However, they asked the nurse to tell their son that they would not leave and that if he changed his mind and desired to see them, they would be waiting for him. This entire exchange was overheard by another nurse. She approached the parents and offered to go talk to their son for them. She thought she might be able to convince him to see his parents. Of course the parents were happy to let her try and persuade their son. 

The nurse was gone for quite a while. As the parents waited, they prayed to Jesus for their son's salvation. When the nurse finally reappeared, she told the parents that their son had consented to see them. The parents rapidly made their way to their son's hospital room. When they saw him for the first time in numerous years, they were shocked. He was pale, thin, and appeared incredibly ill. His arms were covered in bruises and needle marks (I believe the point of that observation was to show the reader that the son had been using drugs). Despite this, the parents were overjoyed to be with their son. 

At this point, I would like to note two things. First, while not much is mentioned about the nurse who goes to talk with the son, it is implied that she is a Christian with beliefs similar to those of the parents. Second, I believe the comment about the son's arms was meant to inform the reader that the son was a drug addict, another "sin" on top of his homosexuality. While the bruises and needle marks could have been from medical treatment, the tone of that passage suggested otherwise.

Over the next couple hours, they talked with him. Their son told them that he had left the church because he was gay. He had tried many many times to change, but each time he failed miserably. Because of that, he loathed himself and was tremendously angry at God for creating him this way. He could not go back to the church because he thought Jesus would never accept him, since he had led such a sinful lifestyle.

His mother listened to her son's story with tears running down her cheeks. After he was finished, she told him that it was not too late; Jesus still loved him and would accept him. All he had to do was ask for forgiveness, renounce his former lifestyle, and let Jesus into his heart. Then he could die in peace, knowing he was saved and that he would be granted eternal life in heaven. The son, with his mother's support and encouragement, did just that. He prayed the sinner's prayer and became a Christian in the final hours of his life. He died later that night, happy in the knowledge that he was saved through his faith in Jesus Christ. 

When I finally finished the story, I was in almost a state of shock. This was supposed to be one of those inspirational, feel-good-about-the-world stories. But I didn't feel good at all. Quite the opposite. I felt sick. I felt angry. I wanted to cry. It took every ounce of self-control I had not to chuck the book across the room. My first rational thought was "I hope to God this story isn't true". But I had a nauseating feeling that it was.

Throughout the story, the assumption is that the son was so miserable because he was gay. But I think the real reason he was miserable because he was raised in a religious system which judges homosexuality to be a sin and condemns homosexuals themselves as immoral and depraved. This religious judgement convinced him that God both hated him and was disgusted by him. He was an abomination. Even worse, when he died, God was going to throw him into hell to endure horrendous, conscious torment for all eternity. Of course, if you truly believe that God hates you, you are going to hate yourself. I am sure that is what led to the drug abuse and other problems not mentioned. 

From the story, it is obvious that the parents loved their son very much. I met conservative Christians who, if they found out their son was gay and dying of AIDS, would have just hung up the phone. But these parents did not. They desperately wanted to save their son. Yet they were absolutely clueless it was their own religious beliefs that had done so much damage.

This story breaks my heart so much because those same beliefs, which had produced so much destruction in his life, were being shoved down his throat while he laid on his death bed. What he actually needed to hear was that his homosexuality did not make him evil or wrong, that God loved him completely and unconditionally, and that he had nothing to fear, for God would never abandon him to hell for being gay. Instead, once more he was reminded of how evil and wrong he supposedly was by being told he had to beg God for forgiveness and renounce his former lifestyle in order to be saved. My only hope is that he was able to die peacefully without fear. It was the least he deserved after the hell he lived through on Earth.

This story demonstrates the reason why conservative Christianity's (or any other religion's/denomination's/sect's) beliefs in an eternal hell and an angry, petty, and conditionally loving God makes me so angry and why I am so passionate about universalism and God's unconditional love. Despite the parents best intentions and their substantial love for their son, their conception of God totally destroyed him.

These beliefs must be challenged and changed. Even in the hands of good, loving people, they can cause immense suffering. In the hands of depraved, power-hungry, and manipulative people, they can wreak entire families, tear apart whole communities and utterly devastate an individual's soul. 

People often act like the God they believe in. If their God doesn't love unbelievers and either tortures them forever or annihilates them, why should the believers in that God act any differently? How could it be wrong to harm or kill someone whom God is just going to torment and/or exterminate anyway? Their souls obviously have little value to God, so why should their lives be valuable to other people? But if their God is genuinely a God of unconditional love who will not stop until every single one of His children is saved, everything changes. Suddenly, harming an unbeliever becomes equivalent to harming a believer. Suddenly, life isn't about how many souls you can "save", but about self-sacrifice in service to others. Suddenly, unworthiness and fear are replaced by trust and love. Suddenly, the world becomes a better place for all of us.

Religion vs. Science (Part 3)

The past two centuries of human civilization has brought about a myriad of scientific discoveries and technological inventions. As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, the pace of progress is only accelerating. However, these advancements have incited some profound and contentious questions. Many of these questions arise from the discrepancy between ancient religious ideologies and recent scientific theories. These disparities have instigated religious, social, and political animosity, particularly in the United States. Why has this conflict developed? What is the most controversial issue? Most importantly, can religion and science coexist?

I will endeavor to answer these questions in a three-part series. Today, I will examine “Can religion and science coexist?” Note: Because I will be concentrating substantially on the United States, the primary religious doctrine scrutinized will be Christianity.

Religion in the United States, and Christianity in particular, is extremely diverse. There are thousands of denominations of varying sizes, each of which has had to confront the questions produced by modern science: Is the Book of Genesis in the Bible a literal guide to the creation of the universe and humanity? If so, how do you explain the contradictory evidence presented by science? If not, how do you understand the Book of Genesis in light of modern science?

In my experience, the conflict between science and religion has been "solved" in three distinct ways, with a majority of Christians advocating for one of these three solutions.

The first solution is a rejection of all scientific theories which contradict a literal reading of the Bible. Christians who advocate this position tend to be the most conservative and incredibly anti-cultural. They believe the Bible is inerrant and the literal word of God. Science which does not disagree with Scripture, such as the theory of gravity or atomic theory, is usually accepted. Obviously, theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are resolutely denied and dismissed. Evidence for such non-Biblical theories is discredited in a multitude of ways. The most prevalent explanation is simply that the scientists are wrong and that the evidence has been misinterpreted. Another, much less common, explanation is that the scientists are being tricked by Satan, who plants the evidence in order to deceive them and lead them away from God.

The second solution also rejects all scientific theories which contradict a literal reading of the Bible. However, these Christians do not just dismiss the scientists. They actually attempt to prove them wrong by concocting their own scientific theories, such as Intelligent Design. These Christians tend to be conservative, but not completely anti-cultural. They believe that the evidence for non-Biblical theories is being misinterpreted, oftentimes on purpose by scientists who (they believe) are striving to disprove God. Reinterpreting the evidence into a theory which does not contradict the Book of Genesis allows these Christians to compromise between keeping their religious tradition of an inerrant Bible and continuing to be relevant in the 21st century.

Unfortunately for them, this method has been largely unsuccessful outside their churches. Only a handful of school boards across the United States have voted to include, in varying degrees, Intelligent Design in the standards for high school biology. Of those, several school boards later had elections which ousted the members who voted to include Intelligent Design, and the new board promptly overturned the modified standards. Even worse was the court case I discussed in the second post of this series, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which the judge determined that:

"overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory" and "the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, [is] in violation of the Establishment Clause." 

Since the United States Court system relies heavily on precedent, it is unlikely another court case would find in favor of Intelligent Design.

The third solution holds that the Bible does not necessarily have to be interpreted literally and that the Book of Genesis is a metaphorical story about how the universe, Earth, and life was created. This view tends to be held by moderate and liberal Christians. Not being restrained by a literal Genesis allows these Christians to believe in the validity of scientific theories such as evolution. These Christians are often criticized by their more conservative counterparts for believing parts of the Bible are metaphorical. They (rightfully) claim this begs the question "How do you decide which parts of the Bible to take literally and which parts to take metaphorically?" (however, that is a debate for another day). The most common justification I have heard for taking the story of Genesis metaphorically is that God gave the ancient Hebrews a creation story they could comprehend, since the reality was too complicated for humans of that time to understand.

As a scientist myself, I am closest in view to the liberal Christians. I believe religion and science can coexist. For me, they are complementary, not contradictory, because they are answering different questions.

According to the Britannica Online Encyclopedia, science is:

"any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation"

Basically, science answers questions like: What is the universe?  How do galaxies form? Why does the Earth have liquid water? How did humans evolve? All of these questions concern the physical world which we live in, and all can be answered through observation and experimentation.

Religion, on the other hand, asks questions like: Does God exist? Is there something beyond the physical world? Do we have an immaterial and immortal soul?  What is the meaning of life? Science cannot answer these questions and others like them because they do not concern the physical world. You cannot observe and measure such things in a laboratory. These questions are completely meaningless to science.

However, they are not meaningless to us. These questions, and others like them, reveal the deepest hopes, dreams, doubts, and fears of humanity. We have endeavored to answer them in nearly countless ways through religion. At times, this has led to violence and death. At other times, it has led to peace and progress. Obviously, the very nature of these kinds of questions means we can never have incontrovertible answers. Yet, these questions are one of the few universals of human life. We have contemplated them before and we will contemplate them time and time again, no matter how far scientific progress takes us.

Religion and Morality

One of the first religious beliefs I questioned as a child was the concept that only Christians possessed morality and that atheists and agnostics were sinful and depraved. To this day, it is a belief that I continue to find bewildering, since it is so obviously incorrect. Yet, it is still a widespread notion within fundamentalist Christianity. Why? For the same reason fundamentalist Christians hold most of their beliefs: fear.

A quick note: I am well aware that agnosticism is not the same as atheism, and that it is quite possible for an agnostic to be either a theist or an atheist. However, in my experience, a majority fundamentalist Christians do not distinguish between the two, which is why they have been lumped together in this post. 

The entire system of fundamentalist Christianity is established on the few being entirely right and the many being completely wrong. There is no wiggle room. They vigorously insist that the only way to procure a genuine relationship with God and enter into heaven is through their religious system. All other methods are an illusion. Of course, as humans, we frequently judge the merits of a belief system on the actions of its adherents. Fundamentalists know this. That is why they advocate the position that they solely exhibit morality. First, it lends credence to their particular beliefs. Second, it disparages non-believers. From the outside, this accusation seems obviously ludicrous. But to a believer, it merely confirms their convictions.

Most fundamentalist Christians were raised in the faith. Despite claims to the contrary, long-term converts are relatively rare. Because of this, it is in the church's best interest to retain as many of the children as they possibly can. Fear of losing members forces them to assert the immorality of atheism and agnosticism. Even if a person is entertaining doubts, they are less likely to renounce their beliefs if they assume that all non-believers are corrupted by the devil. Church leaders regularly promote their moral superiority by highlighting some predicament currently effecting the world and connecting it with godlessness. Even troubles within the church are attributed to nonbelievers masquerading as Christians.

Fear of an individual's ultimate fate another rationale for alleging moral supremacy. In fundamentalist Christianity, the fate of an individual, in theory, is relatively simple. If you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior and you have followed all the beliefs of the church, you will progress to heaven. Everyone else is condemned to hell. Of course, as I have written about previously, fear of hell is an excellent motivator. In my experience, many fundamentalist Christians felt prompted to be "good" because of their fear of hell and their desire for heaven. They presumed that, if you took away the threat of punishment and/or the reward of paradise, there would be no incentive for an individual to be a good, moral person.

Personally, I find this motive for morality to be exceedingly immature. If your only rationalization for behaving well is your dread of punishment, you are not an authentically good person. To truly be a moral person, your motivation should be your knowledge of right and wrong, and an eagerness to be good just because it is the right thing to do. You should treat people compassionately because it is proper, not because God might punish you if you don't.

The perception that religion must be the basis of morality is utterly absurd. For several years after I left the Southern Baptist church, I considered myself an agnostic with a slight leaning towards atheism. It is during this period of my life that my personal system of morality developed. I desired to be a good person because I longed to help people. I did not require a God or the threat of punishment to justify that aspiration. I still don't. Although I do now consider myself a theist, my moral convictions and my basis for them have not substantially changed.

Religious hostility has done nothing except allow for increased conflict in the world. If we concentrated on assisting our fellow man instead, we could make our world a better place. Personally, I believe God would much rather us feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and comfort the suffering than argue about whose morality is inherently superior.

Fear and Organized Religion

Fear is one of the most basic, primitive, and powerful human emotions. It comes in a variety of distinctive nuances, including anxiety, paranoia, dread, terror, phobias and panic. It can be rational or irrational. No matter what form it possesses, fear is frustrating, for it cannot be easily dismissed or ignored. We all experience fear at times, although most of us are not inclined to admit it. Some fears are universal: fear of death (either our own or of a loved one), fear of the future, and fear of punishment. Others are more individual. For example, before I became ill a year and a half ago, I was absolutely terrified of hypodermic needles. Anytime I saw one, even on TV, I had a panic attack. Just thinking about them could make me break out in a cold sweat. The fear was so intense that it became a danger to my health. The only vaccines I got were those required by law for school. Despite having asthma, I refused to get the annual influenza shot. The first times I had blood drawn and an IV inserted was when I began showing symptoms of leukemia, just after my 20th birthday.

When I reflect on these facts now, after hundreds of needle sticks in the past 18 months, I feel rather foolish. Of course needles are not pleasant, but they did not deserve the fear I had attached to them. Luckily, the object of my fear was a relatively insignificant part of my life and could usually be avoided. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. The universal fears I mentioned earlier are neither minor pieces of our lives, nor can they be circumvented. These profound fears leave us open to manipulation and abuse by organized religion.

Organized religion in its most conservative forms, such as fundamentalist Christianity and Islam is guilty what author and counselor Boyd Purcell calls "spiritual abuse" or, in extreme circumstances, "spiritual terrorism". Basically, spiritual abuse is the use of fear to control and manipulate members of a church. Since a majority of fundamentalist believers were raised within their sect or denomination, ideas are instilled at a young and impressionable age. This is where the fear originates. Children are instructed to believe certain doctrines and to comply with specific rules. They are then warned that questioning the doctrines or violating the rules will result in severe divine punishment.

Within fundamentalist religion, the fear results from the perceived negative characteristics of God. Although God is often attributed positive traits, such as being all-loving, fatherly, merciful, etc., fundamentalists tend to believe that God exhibits negative traits, such as being wrathful, judgmental, and cruel. Fundamentalist leaders describe in great detail the ever-lasting torment awaiting unbelievers in hell. Believers are threatened with a supposedly all-loving God's condemnation to hell eternally for even minuscule infractions. This fear stifles intellectual curiosity and spiritual growth. For the leaders, however, this fear ensures them constant power, with an army of loyal believers too scared to even consider challenging the status-quo. Depending on the individual's personality, this fear can cause immense damage. To honestly believe that God will send billions of people to hell and torture them eternally is horrifying. Although many are able to bury this teaching in the depths of their mind so they do not have to actually contemplate its true significance, some cannot. Of course, this leads to skepticism of their beliefs, a forbidden activity which ushers in even greater fear.

I have written before how I myself was caught in this perpetual cycle of fear and doubt and doubt and fear. Escape took years and I suspect the wound will never totally heal. I am left with one nagging question: Why has such fear of God been allowed to propagate?

Much of the fear can be traced to an aggressive thirst for power. During the late Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, Christian kings and emperors used Christianity to justify the conquest of vast territories in order to convert the pagan inhabitants to Christianity. Of course, there had to be an incentive for the pagans to convert. Fear of eternal damnation in hell coupled with the promise of eternal bliss of heaven persuaded conversions by the thousands. God was subverted from a redeemer of broken souls to a political tool.

That power grab continues to this day. Churches fight for members and political influence. Fear allows church leaders to control the rank and file. If any of them cease to toe the party line, a warning is conveyed, usually thinly disguised as concerned advice, that God is not pleased with their actions and that their soul is in jeopardy. This happened to me several times. Once, I asked a question in Sunday school class about how ancient cavemen fit into the story of Genesis. My Sunday school teacher later pulled me aside and in a “concerned” voice told me that God was upset and angry that I was reading such books because it showed that I lacked faith in Him. She admonished me to dedicate everything I did to Jesus or risk being left behind when the Rapture came (which we believed was imminent). It was all I could do not to burst into tears right then. I cried myself to sleep for weeks in terror.

As a universalist, I now discern what this fear genuinely is: toxic and soul-killing. I believe that the doctrine of hell has wreaked incalculable devastation on humanity. It has created a god who is astonishingly cruel and shallow. Is it not shocking that so many have rejected this god as an impossible monster? Regrettably, when this distorted version of God is rejected, many abandon hope for God at all. I did so myself for several years.

Universalism does not just reveal the love of God. It reveals that God is Love. Fear of God, fear of hell, fear of death, all are vanquished, for "perfect love drives out all fear" (1 John 4:18). God loves every human being He has ever created with an unimaginable intensity. To feel God's infinite love is beyond indescribable. It is as if all the fear and all pain are erased in an instant. But it's not just the love that is moving. It is the sorrow. The deepness of the sorrow God feels for His children's suffering. Every ounce of pain and every drop of misery His children endure is acutely felt by Him.

Fundamentalist religion is so caught up with doctrines, laws, and absolute perfection that they miss the point entirely. It should proclaim the love and closeness of God. Instead, it declares that we are separated from God by our own sin and weakness. It tells us God gives us but one chance to get it right while living on an Earth filled with hardship and pain. If we fail, God will throw us away like garbage. But this is a lie. God is always with us. Nothing could keep God away from us. He desires so intensely for us to see Him as He really is: our Creator and our Father whose strength more than makes up for our weakness and who will never abandon a single soul he has made. He aches for us to trust Him so He may heal the destruction fear has caused. Although the first step away from the organized religion which has ravaged us is scary, we have nothing to fear from the God who loves us.

Religion vs. Science (Part 2)

The past two centuries of human civilization has brought about a myriad of scientific discoveries and technological inventions. As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, the pace of progress is only accelerating. However, these advancements have incited some profound and contentious questions. Many of these questions arise from the discrepancy between ancient religious ideologies and recent scientific theories. These disparities have instigated religious, social, and political animosity, particularly in the United States. Why has this conflict developed? What is the most controversial issue? Most importantly, can religion and science coexist?

I will endeavor to answer these questions in a three-part series. Today, I will examine “What is the most controversial issue?” Note: Because I will be concentrating substantially on the United States, the primary religious doctrine scrutinized will be Christianity.

In my first post of this series, I touched on the scientific theories which have caused the most friction with religious belief, namely heliocentrism (historically), evolution and the Big Bang. I mentioned that the two latter theories are routinely dismissed by those who hold a conservative religious philosophy because they can provoke intense fear and an agonizing identity crisis. Of all the controversial scientific theories, evolution is currently the most contentious, since most high-schoolers in the US take a biology course which includes evolution. In today's post, I will examine the specifics of evolution which incite the fear and the identity crisis and attempt to determine why they do so. I will also detail the countermeasures conservative Christians have taken in the United States in an effort to combat the influence of evolution.

Evolution is the gradual change of organisms over extended periods of time due to natural selection, which initially leads to variation within a species and then eventually leads to an entirely new species. Because of this, it is logical to assume that all organisms currently alive share a common ancestry. Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution in his book On the Origin of Species, published after his now-famous journey on the HMS Beagle. It was immediately controversial, both in the scientific world and the religious establishment.

In the century and a half since the publication, evolution has grown to be the accepted theory on the origin of the diversity of life within the scientific community, especially with the discovery of genetics as the mechanism of natural selection. However, the religious debate still rages on. This debate is centered on the origin of humans. Evolution proposes that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors about 200,000 years ago. Conservative Christianity, however, believes that God created humans about 6,000 years ago. This belief is based on Genesis 1-2, the absolute beginning of the Bible, which describes God's creation of the heavens, the Earth, plants, animals, and finally, Adam and Eve, the first humans. A large majority of conservative Christianity believes this story is a literal and true description of events, a belief called creationism, for they believe in the unconditional inerrancy of the Bible.

Conservative Christians seem to be threatened by evolution because, in their mind, it takes away the "specialness" of humanity. The Bible specifically says God created the first humans from the dust with His own hands. It also alleges that God granted humans superiority over all the plants and animals of the Earth. However, by claiming that humans are just descendants of "lower" animals, conservative Christians evolution makes us equal to all other life forms on the planet. They also believe that evolutionary theory removes the possibility of God, which they find offensive. As I stated in my last post in this series, denying God or their beliefs about God is threatening not just to their faith, but to their very identity. It is why their negative reactions towards evolution and other controversial theories are so intensely fierce.

The debate between evolution and creationism comes to a climax with the issue of which theory should be taught in public schools. In the early 1900's, many Southern states in the US passed laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. In Tennessee, it was the Butler Act, enacted in 1925. This law was infamously challenged the same year in the Scopes Monkey Trial, where John Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution and fined $100. For several decades, the controversy died down. By the 1960's and 70's, many public schools were teaching evolution as scientific fact. However, in the late 1980's, Louisiana passed a law requiring that creationism be taught alongside evolution. The controversy was reignited and a lawsuit progressed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that creationism cannot be taught in a US public school. They determined that the teaching of creationism violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution because it attempted to advance a particular religion.

The outrage from conservative Christians was enormous. In response, they formed a new theory: Intelligent Design. Basically, it is a pseudo-science claiming "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". Throughout the late 90's and early 00's, local school boards in conservative areas of the US began to advocate a policy called "teaching the controversy". This would often entail Intelligent Design being added to the high school biology ciriculum, despite that there are extremely few scientists researching and advocating Intelligent Design.

Once again, the controversy came to a head during a court trial, this time in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in Dover, Pennsylvania. In 2004, the Dover Area School Board passed a resolution requiring that all high school biology classes be read a short statement claiming that "[g]aps in the Theory of Evolution exist for which there is no evidence". It also informed the students that a textbook advocating Intelligent Design, called Of Pandas and People, was available to any student interested in learning more. Understandably, quite a few parents in the school district were upset, and a group of them sued the Dover School Board. The verdict of the lawsuit was in favor of the plaintiffs. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design was just creationism repackaged and, therefore, it violated the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

This debate personally effected me as well. Several months before the ruling in Kitzmiller, the school board of my hometown passed a similar resolution. I was in 11th grade and taking AP Biology. My biology teacher was extraordinarily irritated and refused to read the statement. This caused a minor scandal in the school district. Parents on both sides of the debate were complaining. There were several deeply religious students in my class, including one I considered a friend, who were upset when our teacher blatantly insulted creationism and Intelligent Design. She and the students who defended her, including myself, were threatened with hell and violence. The true passions involved in these conflicts are difficult to capture in a news story or a documentary.

Although Intelligent Design has faded somewhat from the national consciousness, the movement is still strong. In 2007, Answers in Genesis opened the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which presents an account of the origins of life consistent with creationism. Homeschooling is becoming more popular with religious families, especially now that textbooks advocating either creationism or Intelligent Design are easily available. The movement has shifted focus from legislating its beliefs into public schools to withdrawing their children from society and educating them with a narrow worldview which does not include information that contradicts their beliefs. Honestly, I feel that is a testament to the strength of the scientific theories. The evidence is so compelling that these people refuse to allow their children to study science for fear they will reject their religious upbringing. Unfortunatly, this leaves their children woefully ignorant in areas such as science and history, and places them at a remarkable disadvantage if they decide to attend a non-religious college. It is also contributing to the decline in the scientific and technological relevance of the United States and the so called "dumbing down" of America.

The conflict between science and religion bothers me for a multitude of reasons. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I had quite a few friends who were fundamentalist Christians. As an astronomer who studies theories rejected by conservative Christianity, there are times when I have visited back home and been condemned just for discussing my work, including by friends and family. I am automatically assumed to be an atheist and my research is taken as a personal attack. Although it pains me to admit it, this is quite painful, especially because I do believe in God. However, I am also encouraged by the increasing numbers of religious believers who are able to reconcile their faith with the facts of science. It gives me hope that science will win the day.

Religion vs. Science (Part 1)

The past two centuries of human civilization has brought about a myriad of scientific discoveries and technological inventions. As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, the pace of progress is only accelerating. However, these advancements have incited some profound and contentious questions. Many of these questions arise from the discrepancy between ancient religious ideologies and recent scientific theories. These disparities have instigated religious, social, and political animosity, particularly in the United States. Why has this conflict developed? What is the most controversial issue? Most importantly, can religion and science coexist?

I will endeavor to answer these questions in a three-part series. Today, I will examine “Why has this conflict developed?” Note: Because I will be concentrating substantially on the United States, the primary religious doctrine scrutinized will be Christianity.

The antagonism separating religion and science is not a contemporary phenomenon. It originated during the Renaissance. Western civilization exited the Middle Ages and underwent a resurgence of scientific curiosity and exploration. This exploration included the new science of astronomy. Discoveries in this young field would thoroughly subvert humanity’s perspective of the universe and our status within it. The revelation most significant to this change in perspective was the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus, which postulated that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the universe. This theory was enhanced by Johannes Kepler, but it was popularized by Galileo Galilei. In 1609, Galileo learned about the device we now call the telescope, and constructed one for himself. That he originally invented the telescope is a prominent misconception. The observations Galileo made with his advanced contraption, including the phases of Venus and the four largest moons of Jupiter, supported heliocentrism.

Unfortunately, when Galileo published his conclusion, he was summoned by the Inquisition on suspicion of heresy. He was found to be a heretic and sentenced to house imprisonment for the remainder of his life. Why? Because, the Catholic Church asserted that the Bible proclaimed the immovability of the Earth: it could not revolve around the Sun (Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30).

The situation with Galileo demonstrates the authentic foundation for the contention between religion and science- the inerrancy of scripture or dogma. Within Christianity, each discrete denomination has its own doctrines, either from the Bible or from their distinctive analysis and interpretation of the Bible.

So, if the inerrancy is stimulating the hostility, what is the rationale for the inerrancy?

During the first centuries of Christianity, there was a dilemma over what books should constitute the Bible. However, by the time the Roman Empire finally disintegrated in 476 AD, the Catholic Church was instituted as the prevailing political force in Europe, the canon of the Bible had been settled, and the Middle Ages had commenced. This period in Western history is frequently designated as the Dark Ages. This is due to the relative deterioration in education and literacy. The citizens of Europe were split into two categories: the few of the aristocracy (which included a majority of the clergymen) and the many peasants. Only the aristocracy was literate and educated. Since Europe was devoutly religious during this period, almost everyone attended church. For the illiterate peasants, this was their only source of religious knowledge. At that time, the Catholic Church taught the Bible as if every passage was a literal description of reality. Of course, with science as we understand it not actually existing, and general knowledge about the world making relatively inconsiderable development, there were no challenges to that perspective. They had no reason to question their assumptions.

Once the Middle Ages concluded and the Renaissance arouse, there was a reason to start rethinking the literal interpretation. Multitudes did. But many more multitudes did not. Why? One word: tradition.

Tradition dies hard. Religion is transmitted through families from the older generation to the younger generation; parent to child. Customarily, religious beliefs are instilled in children at a young age, usually before the child is able to comprehend the intricacies of or rationally analyze those doctrines. Even once their mind has matured enough to examine their beliefs and make a logical decision whether or not to affirm and comply with them, the beliefs have been instilled so deeply that the concept of investigating them is too terrifying to contemplate.

Because of this, anything that contradicts their religious faith is usually instantaneously disregarded. There are two dominant justifications for this, one conspicuous, the other, often unconscious. The obvious reason is fear. Believers, especially within more conservative traditions, are frequently persuaded that doubting, questioning, or investigating their faith could be punished by God with tragedies on Earth or eternal condemnation to hell, and that "true" or "sincere" believers never entertain questions or exhibit doubts. The obscure reason is identity. A majority of believers regard their faith to be intimately intertwined with their identity. To doubt their faith is to doubt themselves.

Currently, the theories causing most of the dispute among religion and science are evolution and the Big Bang, both of which are more complicated than heliocentrism. This complication can amplify the problem, since these theories are often misunderstood. Misconceptions about what the theories actually assert have become quite widespread. Take, for example, the prevailing conviction that evolution indicates that humans evolved from monkeys. Of course, anyone who has seriously studied evolution understands that humans did not evolve from monkeys, but instead that humans and monkeys share a particularly recent common ancestor.

Despite evolution and the Big Bang being more elaborate than heliocentrism, they offend identical religious precepts. In the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis, God creates the Earth and the whole universe for a sole purpose: man. The Big Bang threatens this notion by revealing billions of stars and planets not only exist in the universe, but were indeed spawned before our Earth and Sun. Evolution endangers it by postulating that God did not create us ex nihilo (out of nothing), but that we gradually emerged from the "lower" animals. Yes, these theories also invalidate other Biblical tenets, such as the age of the Earth. Utilizing the Bible, dozens of theologians have dated the Earth at roughly 6,000 years. On the other hand, evolution requires billions of years to fabricate humans, and the geological record establishes the precise age at approximately 4.5 billion years. But, threatening the centrality of mankind is much more offensive than threatening the age of the Earth.

The modern world has inevitably generated an environment hostile to tradition in two notable fashions. First: the quickening pace of scientific development. Second: the expansion of education, both basic and supplemental. Basically, as science invalidates more Biblical principles, and more individuals obtain an elementary science education, tradition will not only increasingly be assaulted, it will be assaulted in regions of the Earth where it has endured, unchanged and unfazed, for thousands of years. Without a transformation by a majority of religious believers to a more metaphorical method of interpreting their sacred scriptures, I anticipate the repercussions of this will be a dramatic expansion of conflict between science and religion. Regrettably, I do not envision this transpiring unless religious followers realize their beliefs do not have to exemplify their entire identity and existence, and that it is acceptable to make modifications without being tormented by threat of eternal consequences.

The Religious Ignorance of Americans

The Pew Religious Quiz has been making headlines today. To be honest, I did not find the results surprising. When debating with Christians about theology, I have been utterly shocked at the lack of knowledge of their own tradition. I can at least understand being ignorant of other religions. While sad, I do not necessarily expect people to be experts in ideas they have never been exposed to. But how can you be so ignorant of your own beliefs? Frankly, it's pathetic. How do you expect people to take your beliefs seriously when you yourself don't understand them?

The worst part for me was when I was looking at some of the details of the study. The first chart breaks down how different religious groups did on particular kinds of questions. Protestants as a whole got 6.5 out of 12 questions on The Bible and Christianity. Wow. Barely over 50% competence on subjects their entire life is supposed to revolve around.

A short quiz with 15 questions was also included. I got all 15 right. Taking it made me even more incredulous of the results because I found it incredibly easy. That level of ignorance in a country so diverse as the United States is scary.

Children and Religion

Earlier today, I had a discussion with a good friend of mine from school. Although she grew up in Louisiana, which (according to wikipedia) has the 2nd highest rate of church attendance in the United States, her family was not religious, and she currently considers herself to be an atheist. Our discussion centered around children raised in religious homes. She feels quite strongly that children should not be exposed to religion until they are old enough to logically and rationally consider religious beliefs for themselves.

I must admit, part of me agrees with her. Young children are impressionable. They are taught to listen to authority figures, including their parents, teachers, and religious leaders in the community. When growing up in a strict fundamentalist denomination or sect (the religion of the denomination or sect is irrelevant, although in the US, fundamentalist Christianity is the most common), questioning is taken as a sign of weakness or a lack of faith. "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" is a common example I constantly see on bumper stickers.

Is it safe to expose children to such rigid thought when they do not yet have the metal capacity to make their own decisions? Especially when such thought sometimes promotes hated of other groups (nonbelievers, homosexuals, etc.) or denies scientific realities? For me, these question have an easy answer: yes. I feel it is a disservice to these children. Because these religious ideas, and the command not to question these religious ideas, are programmed in at such a young age, they are not likely to be examined rationally even as an adult. Even worse are the children who, for some reason, do not fit into their religious community. Rejection at a young age is extraordinarily damaging and I personally find a person who puts their unyielding religious beliefs before their own family disgusting.

I call my blog "The Scientific Universalist" and fundamentalism violates both aspects of that stated belief. I believe in inclusion and I reject a literalistic interpretation of religious scripture written thousands of years ago. I believe in evolution. I believe in the Big Bang. I believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. And I believe every person has the right to examine these scientific findings and form their own opinion on them without feeling trapped by the fundamentalist beliefs they were raised in.

At the same time, fundamentalism makes up a minority of religious belief. A majority teaches love and respect, even if there is disagreement. Using religion, children can learn to be compassionate for those less fortunate and forgive those who harm them. Programs run by churches keep at-risk children off the street or allow children to help their community. Although all of these things can be accomplished without religion (since religion does not have a monopoly on morality and good deeds), it is no less valuable to society than secular programs of the same nature.

As long as children are encouraged to question and change their faith, and even explore opposing ideas, I believe religion can become a positive influence in their young lives. The same is true of any kind of belief system, such as political beliefs. Children should not automatically be assigned the beliefs of their parents. Allowing them to discover their own beliefs will teach them to think critically about the world and themselves and make them into better adults.