My Call to a Christian TV Show

A week ago I had to make a 9-11 call. No, thankfully it was not a domestic emergency. I made a call to the nightly, Canada wide CTS Christian Call- In Show " It's your Call. " The subject on that night was ' The Atheist Perspective' and they were discussing  9-11, inquiring where God was on September 11th, 2001 when the terrorist attacks in the US were taking place. It all stemmed from an email the station received from an atheist wondering where the Christian God was on that day, and suggesting that believers just made excuses for their God's lack of action.

I know some atheists  will be asking how I managed to be watching this program , maybe thinking that I just happened to be flicking through channels and stumbled across it. Well, it didn't exactly happen like that. I actually do spend some time listening to various forms of Christian programming, call-ins and discussions. Some of my atheist friends consider that doing this is a strange form of self torture, but I actually find it entertaining and it helps to get an eye into what persons espousing the various flavours of Christianity believe. When I went to channel CTS on the night in question and saw a picture of an atheist logo on the screen next to the host Robert Melnichuk, I dropped what I was doing. I immediately started recording the show on my PVR,  because I knew this was one I couldn't afford to miss.

I have to give credit to  Rob, for accurately interpreting the arguments of the atheist when dealing with issues regarding the problem of evil, which on this night in question referred to events of 9-11.

 "Do we as Christians make excuses for God when  tragedies happen? Are we just making up rationalisations to account for the things we don't understand ?"

Yes yes, yes!! I couldn't believe the host had summed up things so beautifully. No atheist could have done a better job. I thought it was a bold question to put out there. Still, I realised Rob was speaking to his choir. This was 'It's Your Call' not 'Ask an Atheist.' Things were well set up up for his audience to call and declare in chorus that nothing could be further from  the truth. Of course, that's exactly what happened.

" Free will, free will, it's all about free will!" was the cry.

One lady made a statement that had a layer of irony thicker than the rubble left behind when the towers fell in 2001. " God wants us to be free to decide whether we want to choose him or not. If God had intervened to stop the attacks of 9-11 where would our freedoms be?" she exclaimed.

I hadn't during all this time intended to call the program, I just wanted to listen. In typical fashion, although they were looking at the ' Atheist Perspective' it was more a case of considering the atheist perspective from the christian perspective. Jeez, how many times have we heard this? Then something did break the ice, an atheist called in to explain how religion is where people turn to for comfort and that is why so many people turned to religion after 9-11. It was important to make this point as the host had begun to imply that the increase in numbers of people turning to Christianity after 9-11 was testimony to the fact that Jesus was real and had the power to deliver people from their distress. As the call finished Rob asked why the caller didn't believe in God and  the caller mentioned how seeing his son circumcised before his eyes was so horrific that he questioned the overall sanity of religion, he studied and began to look more closely at  the claims religions were making and eventually came to the conclusion that God was not real. The call unfortunately finished soon after.

I thought it was a shame the call ended there because I know enough about Christians to be sure that many would boil down his entire conversation into the statement, "I stopped believing in God because I don't like  circumcision." They would then dismiss the caller by saying that his point doesn't make sense since they as Christians don't believe in circumcision either. The believers would  then go on  to say that the atheist caller obviously doesn't understand that we are now under the new covenant and Jesus has changed all that and it is now about a relationship with God not a religion bla-bla bla, bla- bla bla. At that point I decided I would go for it. I would make the call at least to try to leave something more with the viewers. With any luck it  would portray  more fairly the 'atheistic perspective' and why we don't believe in the  God that they do.

My decision  to  call was late in the show and I knew I would probably have to be on hold behind all the callers in front of me in the line. When I eventually put the call, I received a very enthusiastic call screener . I told him I wanted to get on the show and he asked me if I was aware of what tonight's topic was.

" Yes" I replied calmly." In fact I am an atheist."

" You're an atheist? That's great!!!"  he responded.

I had this image of everyone in  the room where he was punching the air. At that moment I felt as if I knew exactly how the 'Atheist Experience' crew feel when a theist calls in. I realised that I was now 'that  theist caller' in this alternative evangelical universe. Then the phone seem to go dead, no sound of callers talking on the live show, no elevator music, just dead silence. On the tv screen it seemed they were showing a special that lasted about five minutes about a family from 9-11, so I would probably have a long wait sitting through that and then whoever else was waiting from earlier . Then I got a jolt that broke the silence like a thunder bolt.

" And we've got David from Calgary!"

That's when I got the lump in my throat, this was it. Wow, they didn't take any other calls while I was on the line. Maybe they ushered me straight to the top of the queue because I was an atheist. Well, there was no more time to reflect, I had to start talking and get on with it. I had no idea how much time I would have or if and when I would be interrupted. I had written out a few key points I had hoped to hit, I just took a deep breath and got going. The moment was made a bit more awkward because  this was not only the first time I was calling into a Christian show. This was actually the first time I had called in to any call-in program. I had been a frequent listener to shows like 'Tell it Like it Is' and 'Getting Down to Brass Tacks' in Barbados and have done my fair share of radio and TV interviews in my time but for some reason I just never thought that calling in to a live program was my thing. My lack of experience showed when I realised that although the TV was turned down very low it wasn't muted, so I could hear a faint echo of myself in the background. I frantically tried to mute the TV as I was speaking and as a result I paused as I gave  my opening statement, where I was making the point that I was an atheist. I wondered if  viewers would interpret those pauses as being scared of calling the 'A' word. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

I found myself after thanking the host for taking my call,  getting straight into the story of my deconversion. How I was once where he was but had since changed. In spite of having my talking points to hit, I think sub- consciously I wanted to take this public moment to tell the world, well in this case Canada, why I no longer believed.  I felt I just needed to get it all out and to be honest I really felt better having done it. I spoke of how easy it is to see a God in everything  once you believed in him. A sunrise or sunset the sound of a baby laughing, all those things testify to a God once you believe. I went on to say that when things like 9-11 happen ,that seem not in keeping with a loving God, you still accept them as part of a plan, they must be a reason for these things even if you can't understand. It is this type of conclusion that I think leads to the excuses and rationalisations that I thought the atheist writer was alluding to in his letter. I went on to say that I also used to see God in everything when I was a believer but that one time after observing a tragedy unfold in Barbados, I asked  myself for the very first time, " What if God really doesn't exist?" I told him that once I removed that 'faith lens' and started to look at the world without assuming that a God existed it became more and more apparent that God wasn't there.

As I finished these thoughts I heard the host's voice cutting in  and I apologised because I felt I had spoken for a long time uninterrupted. That was a bit of a surprise to me too. But it did seemed the host was listening very carefully trying to take in all I was saying. I wondered how it all went down with viewers though, I was thinking that maybe it just went totally over the people's head. Then the host asked what was a very odd question.

" So David, do you believe in God now?" The only words that could come out of my mouth were " Pardon me?"

Don't get me wrong, I heard his question clear as day, I just couldn't believe that he had actually asked that . Had he not understood anything I said?  After he repeated his question, I followed by saying, " NO I don't!" with as much emphasis as I could without raising my voice.  I added the following,

" I just think that if you want to find truth it is far better to look at the evidence and let that lead you, rather than start by believing something on faith and  investigating from there, because if you have faith then you don't need evidence."

Well,  I am not sure what happened after that because as soon as I got that statement out all I heard was dial tone. I had a nagging feeling that this would be it for my night's contribution. I was right. As I could see the hosts mouth moving on my now muted television set, I figured he was making some comment on the call.He might even be still carrying on the conversation  without me. I felt a bit disappointed because I didn't get to say what I was planning to end of with. A simple question of why God didn't care about the 'free will' thing when he intervened in the lives of the callers who phone the show every night speaking of their personal 'miracles'. Alas, my 'free will' moment  was denied.

I actually had to play over the recording a few minutes later to here what had actually occurred after I was off the line. To my surprise. Rob's  response to my statement that it is better to follow evidence than faith in order to find truth, was met with the answer, " That's a  fair point."

I was taken aback, that's a pretty big concession for a christian TV host to make to an atheist . Maybe he just didn't have a response to give me right there and then and that was the easiest thing to say. Either way I hoped that the viewers would reflect on what the implications of their faith based beliefs would be if I indeed had  made a ' fair point.' I guess I will never know what the results of any such reflection will be. Anyway I thank Rob and CTS for allowing me to make my points and giving me a fair hearing. I don't think one could say that for every christian show.

After acknowledging my point, Rob said that unfortunately it was time to wrap up. Wow, I had just got in before the bell. I smiled to myself as he finished off because the whole scenario seemed so familiar to me. I used to attend a bible discussion here in Calgary where whenever I brought up arguments to challenge the group leader's arguments for God's existence, he would look at his watch and lament the fact that time was running out and we would have to wrap up right away. Curiously, there were other group discussions that took place alongside ours, but the group I was in always seemed to finish first. I know that this time it had to be station schedules, but it still brought back memories of old.

As Rob was signing off the program he held out his hand and pretended that he was holding something round in it. " This is the fruit." he said. "You just have to come and taste it. This is what God  is asking us all to do just come and try it and you will see how sweet it is."

Apart from remembering the devastating consequences that followed  the last time that God was part of a story involving eating a fruit, there were other  things that bothered me about his invitation, presumably aimed at us atheists. It is the assumption that we atheists actually have these spiritual fruits but just refuse to eat them. They think we are well aware that their God is real but we are just stubborn deniers,many Christians really don't believe that we are atheists. It follows, because I have been often called thinks like a "self acclaimed atheist," and a "person who calls myself an  atheist" by believers I have interacted with.

Christians tell us to 'try Jesus' as if he is some exotic dish on a menu at a fancy restaurant. A culinary delight that we are too scared to order because we think it will be too spicy or tangy for our palates to handle.They don't realise that we can't try what we can't see. We have looked over the menu back, front, inside and outside many times and we have not seen the " Blood of Jesus Special."

When we ask why we can't see this divine tasting treat, they tell us it's because we don't bring faith to the table. But how can an atheist bring faith ?  If we had faith to bring, we would not be atheists.  How can we acquire belief, if in order to do that we have to believe to begin with? It's the perfect circle.  It makes it logically impossible for any sincere atheist to ever find God. Faith is needed to find God, and the only way to get it is to have it. So, if you don't start out with it you are eternally screwed. Well, in that case, I can only hope that I am an insincere atheist , because only the pretenders among us non believers have even the faintest hope of finding the God of the faithful.

Engaging with theists online: Trying to be direct without causing offence

I wasn't expecting it to be so impactful, but engaging in online discussions with theists has been quite a learning experience for me.  I am finding out everyday, that it is rather different from both blogging and face to face interaction and it requires a different set of skills. Online discussions are similar to  blogging in that you have time to sit down and craft what you want to say in the way you want to say it. This is something you don't have the luxury of doing in a face to face chat. In online discussions you have to however be even more careful than you are when blogging. A blog is something you throw out to the online world and people are free to take it or ignore it. It is speaking to the general populace rather than a specific individual and  people  can decide 'if the cap fits' as they read. When you are in a discussion with a single person or group online it is a different story. You are speaking more directly to the individual and it makes me feel as though I am speaking personally about his or her God and a related set of beliefs which is often held very dear.

So, as a result I am regularly bending over backwards to not be offensive in tone to a greater extent than on the blog. (Although I try to be sensitive in blogposts too). I therefore try to avoid the humour and sarcasm I would use to get my point across in blog writing, lest it make the person I am talking with feel uncomfortable. In practice, this effort of trying not to upset people makes writing responses online almost as challenging as writing a blog post. Yes, sometimes you feel like a West Indies batsman being fed an 'easy to hit' ball, short and wide outside the off stump. The sort of delivery that you have seen and played many times in your career. But you have to be careful. If you try to hit it too hard the result could be disastrous. A shot hit too ferociously and the opposition will claim you are taking unfair advantage and the game could be over before it's begun. So you have to try and caress the ball delicately between the fielders like Brian Lara used to do rather than go for a savage pull over mid-wicket in the vain of a Chris Gayle. It is so critical to get that balance right.

For the reasons stated above, it is sometimes takes me a few days to respond to a point a believer raises in a discussion. I am sure that they think the delay is because I am just stumped by the great arguments they come up with. Oh well, I am sorry to disappoint the theists out there. It's often that I am trying to decide on the appropriate stroke to play, thinking of the right response that will encourage more engagement and understanding of my point of view. I also take the additional time to try to understand the position of the person I am talking to and put myself in their shoes. This is actually more of a challenge than you might think. It is easy when you become an atheist to forget what it is like to think like a believer. When I say that there is no evidence for the existence of God, for me it's an obvious fact. However, for most Christians the statement is plain nonsense.  Of course there is evidence for God, it's all around us, every living thing including you yourself testifies to his greatness and power. To say there is no God is to turn a blind eye to the whole universe and even deny your own existence. It is not easy to explain to a person who has always taken God for granted why nothing in 'creation' counts as evidence. I am not sure I have always been successful making this point.

In attempting to be respectful, I have especially tried to stay away from comparing their God with leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I know that equating their God with such characters will tend to come across as demeaning. Yet, there are just times when I have to resort to this because there is simply no other way to make the point that the burden of proof for God's existence lies with them.

Photo from www.nationnews.com

Sno- cone with milk or without?

One of the main sticking points I have in these discussions is the idea of belief being a choice. It is often expressed to me how sad it is that the atheists ' choose' not to believe in God. They make it sound as if a decision about reality is like considering whether you prefer to have your sno-cone on a hot day in the Caribbean with our without  condensed milk at the top. They reason that it is irrational to choose a plain sno cone when you can get something  much sweeter without paying anything extra. I am sorry, you don't get to buy your own personal reality from a vendor pushing a cart.

Photo from bbc.co.uk

Unfortunately in this game of exchanging ideas, this playing field is about as level as the slope of the Pitons Mountains in St. Lucia. Whereas I am required to play carefully and watchfully, the opposition players are allowed to treat me as they like. There are no arguments that are not allowed for them, no limits to the number of bouncers they can bowl at me in one over. I recognise the double standard but I must admit that I am not unduly bothered. I am cognisant of the reality of holding an unpopular minority view, in a part of the world where God belief is almost as natural as breathing. However, I have to say that there is one ball which is being thrown at me often in these debates which I think should be deemed illegal. It's the famous quote from Psalm 14:1.

"The fool has said in his heart. There is no God."

I have refrained in discussions from calling believers on this tactic, but I want to say here that this is a definite  'no-ball' and does not represent an argument made in good faith (irony intended). It is basically just 'name calling.' I know the argument will be made that these are God's words and we shouldn't blaming the believers who are simply the messengers. But this doesn't really cut it because  they always make it clear from the outset that there are making their judgements based purely on what the ' holy book' says. So the words, " You are a fool!" are by default coming from their own mouths. This is in no form or fashion  an appropriate statement to say to someone that you want to have a respectful conversation with. I wouldn't dream of saying or implying that anyone was a fool at the outset of a debate , I wouldn't even want to suggest the person I am speaking with is by any means intellectually inferior. Level of intelligence is irrelevant in any case, because the only thing that matters in a discussion is the strength of the argument that is being put on the table. The quoting of Psalm 14:1 is a further insult due to the line that follows that is almost never quoted but would have to be equally applicable if the first line of the verse is to carry any weight.  Here is a little bit more of what God says about those fools who don't believe.

" They are corrupt, they have abominable works, there is none that does good."

Now I can't believe that the persons I have had conversations with actually think that way. If they did I don't see why they  would want to talk to me at all. You see, that is the conundrum you put yourself in when you go to the bible to argue your position. If you want the first part of the verse to apply you have to be comfortable with the second part as well. It's in the same verse of the same chapter of the same book in the same Book. Therefore you can't yell " Context!" So, my advice to the theists who are reading this is to try to refrain from using the Psalm 14:1 line of attack.

Having got that all out of the way, I thought I would leave you with a sample of an ongoing online discussion that I am having with Rachel (not her real name), a Christian living in the Caribbean. The dialogue has been respectful so far and I look forward to further interactions with her and others.I try to be firm and direct in stating my areas of disagreement while at the same time seeking not to disrespect her cherished beliefs. Have I got the balance right? I don't know. You can be the judge.


Hi David,

Let's use some reasoning from mere observation. If there is such a thing as an invention then one can readily conclude there must be an inventor.If there is a creature there must be a creator. The bible has so many truths. Man has questioned its validity because God allowed man to record His account of life. If the bible was strictly man's concoction we would have excluded all the failures and flaws and presented this perfect account to try to convince people to believe in the bible. We would exclude Abraham's lying, David's adultery, Jesus asking him for the cup to pass from him etc, but God has allowed man to see that sin and salvation are very real.

A lot of scientific discoveries were long time mentioned in the bible but the revelation of God's word is with those who seek Him. Even some of us Christians do not fully understand all that is revealed. There are some things God has chosen to remain silent on, but the things he has revealed are enough to keep us in this life. Many of you who claim to be atheists sooner or later call on the same one you say doesn't exist, that's why there are signs up saying " God doesn't believe in  atheists." One writer said " A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I choose to believe in God rather than man. I think it is sad that (you) the creature are now denying the creator. David, God loves you and I pray that you will one day be drawn to God through that love.

Hi Rachel,

You have raised a number of things which I will try to go through one by one. Firstly, you make the argument that just as every invention needs an inventor, every creature needs a creator. This does not necessarily follow. We know having observed human beings , exactly how man creates. We can see the templates, equations, architectural and engineering drawings. We have seen builders and technicians take these concepts from mind and paper to implementation and we can visit the factories and see these transformations take place.

For things that occur in nature we have no such evidence. That is how we are able to distinguish between the natural and the man made; how we know that a skyscraper was built and an underground cave was not. If we posit that a special creator made all the things in nature that man did not, then we are left with the question of where the creator came from and who made him, her or it. This just creates a bigger mystery, because we need an explanation for the creator too.

I don't see how the portrayal of man's failures in the bible counts as evidence that the bible came from God and how we can surmise that man if he made it up would have left out these failings. Indeed, I think those failings help to make the stories more compelling. It shows how the characters in the bible have triumphed in spite of their own personal limitations. Such stories often move us emotionally, as we may even see aspects of ourselves as we read. Why would biblical writers not want to include these things? I consider that the essential point of showing the human failures is to emphasize how much God is needed to make us whole. That idea is what leads people to think that they need God's salvation and that's exactly what anyone that has the objective to spread that belief system would want.

I have heard it said that many scientific discoveries were mentioned in the bible. Yet, so many things in the bible directly contradict what we have discovered through science. Things like a seven day creation, plants created before the sun they would need for photosynthesis, illnesses caused as a result of demon possession. There is nothing in the bible about microbes, DNA,electrons or black holes. Knowledge of these things 2000 years ago would have saved millions of lives and put our development light years ahead. I just can't see how the bible has served as a benefit to science.

I know that many Christians will say that we atheists when we find our backs against the wall will cry out to the same God that we claim doesn't exist today. I have strong doubts about that, but since I have not yet been in that situation as an atheist, I cannot tell you for certain what I would do. So, maybe I would call out to God. But that would make him no more real or unreal than he is now. You consider that my not believing does make God not real and I agree. But the opposite must hold as well. Me believing tomorrow would not be proof there is a God.

Arguments must stand on their own logic. I think that the decision I come to when I have the chance to consider the evidence carefully without pressure is likely to be better than the one I come to when I am under intense stress or in a highly emotional state. It is one of the reasons why psychologists advise us not to make major life decisions when we are angry.

Rachel, I know that your desire to reach out to me to show me God's love is sincere. I know you consider  you have found something precious and you want to share it, that's great. I hope you understand that I have considered all the things you said. I had years of wrestling with these issues and there are even moments that I wish I could believe again just to be at one with many friends and family. However, I just can't. My heart cannot accept what my mind does not.

What I want to let you know is that I am not sad and you don't have to feel sorry for me. Life without my old beliefs is far from unhappy, indeed it is very fulfilling. Since I have left faith I too have found something precious. a sense of being free, not to do whatever I feel like, but to think without fear.

 

Keeping an apartment empty: The perils of embracing a belief too early

When I first heard it I thought it was an unorthodox way of looking at faith. However, over the last few months as I have talked to various believers it has become almost the universal response. " Me, I am not about religion, I don't subscribe to all these creeds and rules and pastors pontificating as if they know it all, I am just about following my God who transcends all of these man made religions."

It is the kind of response that  sometimes  makes  Christians who stumble across my blog consider that we are in agreement.  When they see title ' No Religion Know Reason' they nod and say, "Yes I don't believe in religion either, we would probably be better off without it we should just concentrate on God." I think this is actually quite a remarkable shift in the way people look at things, particularly in the Caribbean. When I was growing up it would have been considered nothing short of blasphemy to decide you were going to just go with your own personal faith, turning your back on the tenets of your church's teachings. So perhaps that makes these persons consider themselves progressive believers within there own environments of conservatives, but to me they still have a way to go.

Often when you ask these believers to describe what THEIR God is like, you get some very vague descriptions.  However, in many cases their God is not so far from the  religion they claim they are free of as you may think. Some I have spoken with still consider themselves to be strong believers in Jesus and many still view the bible as the text that they live their life by. Some will say they are unsure about the Jesus thing, but still say they believe in ONE God who they would often still call HE. Now these people, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, I still consider religious. And when I say   'No religion' I am including them too.

Greta Christina recently talked on this subject about the problem with such believers hoping that atheists will give special acceptance because they are saying, that they don't fall into the neat box of a  traditional belief system. You can read her account here. I feel her a lot when she says that. When they construct or customise their personal belief system they use the building blocks of religions and faith traditions they have been exposed to. Are they saying that Jesus was their own private revelation? What about the one God? It is interesting that everybody I have met who clams to have found God on their own acknowledges one and only one. I have found no one who has told me their personal search in faith has led them to GODS. As vague as the deity they claimed to have found there is always ONE of HIM, just as is the case in the Judeo- Christian - Islamo faith that they claim to have no link to. But why? If you admit you really don't know much about the deity how can you be sure about attributes of gender and number?

The people who  have these very loose God definitions regularly admit that they are not sure at all about many of the characteristics of their God and will concede that there is indeed much mystery about him we have yet to unravel. From this perspective they will consider that they are not much different from the atheist, in that they are not making presuppositions. Their minds are open, unlike many of their colleagues who have dogmatically declared in detail exactly who God is, what he wants and how he will judge our actions. When atheists asks these moderates why they are insistent that there is a God at all, they constantly point out the gaps in science. They rightfully claim that science has not adequately answered questions of origins either of the universe or biological life. They feel that with these gaps they are at least justified in tentatively assuming a God exists  until such time as science finds better answers. They  can't conceptualise a universe without some sort of starter upper and they just throw in God as that entity even if in practice God at this point becomes no more meaningful than unknown variable'X'

Placeholder God

This kind of God belief I see as a ' placeholder' God. The believer is simply putting God in for the time being in the absence of better evidence . This type of approach is not altogether unreasonable. I have done it in my working career  from time to time. There are a lot of software programs particularly that use excel that don't allow you to leave 'cells' empty. So there were times when I had to put in 'dummy' variables to show trends in energy prices or demand when I couldn't get all of the exact data I needed. Electronic surveys sometimes don't let you continue until you have given an answer to certain key questions.  At school, it was considered a 'sin' to not give an answer to a multiple choice question  Even if you had no idea of the answer, you always had a chance of guessing right.

I think putting an idea about God into a scientific knowledge gap in the mind is more like filling the empty apartment than  making that eeny, meeny ,miney, mo determination in a multiple choice exam. For one thing at least the suggested answers in multiple choice have some feasibility about them.Often all are somewhere close to the right answer. The God response on the other hand could be light years away from the truth.

There can be serious consequences for inserting a random belief in your brain where the appropriate response is " I don't know." Just as there are dangerous implications for accepting 'just anybody' into an apartment you have for rent without any background checking. Tenants in a new home, settle themselves in once they are giving the go ahead from the landlord that they can stay, even if they are told they may be one day asked to make way if an estranged family member returns. They pick out their furniture, choose the colour of their drapes and put down their carpets. Soon after their family photos are on the wall  along with the paintings from Egypt that they got on their vacation of a lifetime 10 years ago. Before long they are talking with their neighbours and their kids are running around with the eight year old boy next door. They sing lustily and drink heavily at the annual Christmas party in the avenue. They are a part of the community and feel just as entitled to its benefits as the guy who lived in the area since 1970.

New Beliefs moving in

Beliefs, however loosely held, do the same thing once you give them a place in the mind. They become a part of you and they mix with the other ideas next door and feel just as much a part of you as those others in the area that had to go through a much more rigid vetting process to be allowed in. Yes, faith ideas and scientifically justified ideas run around and socialise in the mind just as the tenants of all different ilk do in the neighbourhood. Not surprisingly, after a while it's very hard to tell different types of ideas apart when they have all been living together for so long. Perhaps many would say it doesn't matter ultimately, but the problem comes when one day that better answer comes along, the one you want to take the place of your 'placeholder' God. You find the tenant you were looking for years ago, the one that will keep the place exactly as you would want it and pay you exactly what you want  for it. But, it's not so easy. What do you do with the incumbent in the place. Yes, you did make it clear that he might be out sometime if circumstances led to it, but how can you just throw a family that was living there for years on to the street? Common decency and humanity just wouldn't let you do that.

Even if you resolved that you would ask the family there to leave, you still at least have to give them time to move out, get their stuff together and find alternative accommodation. Apart from your own misgivings, there will be friendships made in the neighbourhood that will be hard to let go.To me, ideas like 'God placeholders' are no different when we put them into our minds. As much as people talk they will not be able to just let go of them when they find the right answers tomorrow. Ideas have an emotional attachment to the minds they inhabit and there is no way they are just going to get up and get out of there right away. There is always baggage that comes when these thoughts move in and in some cases there may have been a family of ideas that have emerged from the original beliefs  during the period of stay. Getting these ideas out of the mind are difficult. Sometimes  it is so hard you have to reject this ideal tenant, the perfect idea, because it's too impractical to get the old one out. Other times the new one can come in but it has to wait for the moving out process to be complete and this just leads to frustration. By the time the new 'right' idea moves in so much time has been lost its almost not worth it. At the end of it all it would have been so much easier if you had just waited a bit longer and kept the apartment empty until the right tenant came along.

Darwin's Accommodation Woes

 Maybe you are still not convinced that the analogy holds. A landlord might reject an 'ideal' tenant but surely no one is going to hold on to a bad idea when presented with one  better? Well that didn't seem to happen when Mr.Darwin came knocking in the 1800s. Armed with his fossils and finches Darwin tried to checked in to many places but so often it was simply a case of no room in the Eden Garden Inn.  Fossils for many just did not seem to fit with their beautiful paradise apartments, so in many places in spite of his well developed theories and answers to so many questions Darwin just could not find a place to lay his head. Even today he is left out in the cold in many places, and there are many that are so snobbish they don't even want to give him the privilege of coming to one of their tea parties.

Thankfully Darwin has found more places to live as the years have gone on , but it has not always been easy for the bearded biologist. There are many landlords who have recognise the value of Darwin and seek to accommodate him in their dwelling, but for reasons we have talked about earlier, they have not been willing to put out the couple that has been in there since the Genesis. So in neighbourhoods all over the world Darwin has been asked to share the flat with Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve. It has been a relationship, that has not surprisingly been filled with tension. It is bad enough sharing an apartment with a couple that insist on running around half naked but Darwin as the new guy has had to play by some strange rules. There are fruits on display that he is told he is forbidden to eat and he has been told he can only study his fossils if he is prepared to complete all his specimen dating within six days. Sleeping has been no picnic either,  there have been many times he has woken up to find a cold slithery body moving up his torso. Yes, he has had to deal with an in house reptile too. However, perhaps nothing has been more scary in this living arrangement  than the old man that has his bedroom upstairs. He rarely emerges from his  room but he  just shouts  his commands and expects complete  and immediate obedience. " My way or the highway!" is the message Darwin has gotten in this place everyday.

Well, us residents of Atheists Avenue have done or best to help Darwin with his difficulties in finding suitable accommodation. By not yielding to the temptation over the years to bring in the young fig leafed couple, Darwin has been able to settle easily into our abodes and do all of his fossil dating and verifying  of nested hierarchies without bother. He can move all over the apartment without limit and no one will complain about bones left all over the floor. He's been able to expand his work and now DNA models are laid out on tables which in other apartments were laden with forbidden fruit.We have really created a Darwin heaven and we believe it  has made the world better.

Likewise we atheists have a special apartment open for the special creator should that time ever come.

When I was a Christian I was often told that it was important to wait on the Lord. Wait on him to provide the right job, the right spouse, the right country to live in. You just couldn't rush him and try to make a decision before he was ready for you. Well, we atheists have been waiting on the Lord too. Indeed we have been patiently looking out the window for centuries, but no one supernatural has yet  come knocking at our door.  Still, the moment that he, she, it or they show up we will be sure to usher whoever or whatever straight into that empty apartment that we have always kept in mind for them.

Atheists of the Caribbean: So much we can learn from each other

Facebook ' Caribbean Atheists'

If I had the funding I would make the movie. Yes, ' The Atheists of the Caribbean.' I can tell you they are an awesome group. I was fortunate over the last two years to meet a few of them as I travelled doing research on renewable energy sources in the region.

Standing on their own in most cases, these atheists are like islands of the Caribbean in themselves. Tiny skeptical land masses surrounding by a raging sea of fundamentalism that constantly batters their shorelines. Yet, in spite of their isolation they are making a difference and you can see no small measure of resilience wherever they are. It was an inspiration to meet everyone of these individuals. I met with atheists living in or with  roots in Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica and Belize. All of these atheists are active online and speak on issues related to atheism generally through facebook, Atheist nexus and/or blogs. Their thoughts are well worth reading. To Lori, Derrick, Seon, Carolyn, Elayne, Omar and Mr. A, I thank you for taking the time to meet and chat.

It was always a step into the unknown when I met with these persons at various restaurants, bars or coffee shops. They say you can never judge a book by its cover and you certainly can't judge an atheist by their online persona either. It is a funny thing when you get together with a total stranger where the only thing you know about them and they know about you is that you both disbelieve in the same Gods. Sometimes you sit down thinking that the other person is just going to  start up on some anti religious rant, taking up a thread of an argument that you have read on one of their blogs or atheist  posts.

Of course it never happens like that. You  realise quite early that the one who sits before you is a real person, one that has a family they love, groceries they have to pick up, a car they need to take to the mechanic, or an annoying coworker that grates on their last nerve. Often  in these chats it took a while even for the subject of religion to come up. I suppose that religion has so much indoctrinated us that even atheists sometimes have stereotypes of atheists. What I found though as we explored topics and issues generally, is that there was always a deep connection. We often would meet a second time to follow up on discussions. I always left feeling as though I had known the people I was talking to for years. It is true that atheists only necessarily agree on the one issue, but there are inevitably many other similarities that come to the surface. Generally it's an interest to learn more about the world around you.

It was also a thrill for me because I so rarely get the chance to connect with someone with whom I share a bond with both culturally and ideologically. Hearing,  "Man, belief in God don't make no sense, you need to show me de evidence!" stated emphatically  in various West Indian accents was like music to my ears. With all due respect to my my atheist and secular friends in Canada there is something about the mix of intellectualism and joie de vivre that makes meetings of atheist Caribbean minds unique.

Transitioning through the faiths

However, as much as there are obvious similarities between atheists,  it is the differences that really provide the interest. What fascinated me was the different starting points that brought people to where there were. One thing that I discovered was that quite a few atheists had gone through transitions in their religious beliefs. This is quite different from my story. For me, once I came to the conclusion that my Christian God did not exist I became an atheist and had no urge to explore the validity of other faiths or philosophies, even though I still found interest in reading about them. Not so with others. I heard stories of Nuwaubianism, Yahwism and Buddhism that people went through before they embraced atheism. In some cases it was actually people in another religion or sect that first challenged the traditional Christian doctrine the former believer  was exposed to and that's how they made their first move. 

At times the challenge had come through criticisms of the euro centric nature of Christianity and the whole idea of buying in to the 'white man's' religion. One person explained to me how compelling this argument was to them until  one day they turned  the skepticism on their new religion and realised that there was no more evidence for the black man's religion as their was for that of the colonisers. This to me is instructive, it supports this idea, common  in the Caribbean that everybody MUST believe in something.  When holes are shown in your doctrine it just means that you haven't found the right one yet. The true religion is out there you just have to keep searching. In the Caribbean faith game, 'not playing' is never an option.

An interesting contrast to the going for the  more 'black' religion was given by one person who spoke of how during their youth they started to explore different types of music, art and fashion outside that associated with their black West Indian upbringing. This experimenting with new outside cultures caused them to challenge their religious culture too which led to exploring different philosophies, eventually ending at  atheism. It is amazing how often the road to atheism just starts from a simple decision to step outside one's cultural boundaries.

The advantages that these atheists have had in going through the transitions is that they can now  understand religion from many perspectives. It's also perhaps significant that many of the Caribbean atheists have travelled a bit or even left their homeland entirely. Being able to look at yourself from outside appears to have a huge influence on religious belief.

This is one area where I think the Caribbean atheist may have an advantage over some of their North American counterparts. Most atheists I have met in Canada have just been nominal Christians if that. It's hard for such atheists to wear the shoes of the believer. We in the West Indies seem to have a closet full of old footwear at our disposal.

Two roads to atheism

I suppose because the bible is so often presented in  the Caribbean as the inerrant Word of God, it is the discovery of the atrocities, absurdities and contradictions in this book that put the first chink in the armour of many. One person told me that they were reading a bible story to a child one day and after finishing said, " This is rubbish! I can't believe this anymore!"  For this person  religion became something they wanted to resist and withdraw from and the fact that a parent was a pastor just made them want to turn away even more.  Another person told me that it was science that did it. The mere fact of going to school and learning Biology just lit up something inside. For this person religion never really 'took' and it was easy to see the creation, flood stories and the like as the myths that they were. It does seem to me that this illustrates two distinct roads to atheism. One through acceptance of the scientific method another through identifying the dents in the dogma.

The difficulties in  ' coming out.'

This was perhaps the topic that I spent most time addressing with the atheists in the islands. This is a thousand times more of an issue than those atheists that I know in Canada. There are some in Canada that are apprehensive about declaring themselves, but by and large in this country it is not a big deal. Religion in Canada is something you basically just don't talk about much anyway. Fundamentalists tend to keep their doctrine  and rhetoric behind their church doors. A few people will proudly speak in public of their religion as an important part of their cultural identity, but that's usually as far as it goes. If you enquire about how often they go to their place of worship or what rituals they do, they often look at you in absolute horror and make sure to clarify that they are 'non practising.' So, I have met out of practice, Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, Hindus,  Buddhists and Muslims. The way a lot of these non practicers talk they seem  embarrassed about faith even though they feel they have to embrace it for the sake of their families and communities.  Declaring atheism in such an environment may make you appear a bit of a traitor to your people but you certainly won't get arguments regarding the rationality of your choice.

The Caribbean is the opposite of course. Your religion is something you wear proudly like the "S" on Superman's chest. I was in Dominica during Holy Week and I swore there was a competition to see who could wear the biggest cross without spraining their neck. In such environments atheism is simply a ridiculous notion. A caller to the 'Thinking Atheist' last weekend said that in his part of the world, if you don't believe in a talking snake you are the one with a mental problem. The Caribbean is very much the same. In fact one person told me people actually thought their atheism was a mental illness and people wondered how they were able to avoid being locked up in a mental institution and could have the cognitive ability to be able to teach mathematics.

Atheists who have put themselves out there in the Caribbean even in small circles have faced quite a bit of opposition. One atheist married to a Christian told me that their spouse was being encouraged to file for a divorce purely on the grounds that their partner was an atheist. It isn't easy being an atheist in general and in the Caribbean the difficulty shoots off the charts. Every one of the atheists that I have talked to in the Caribbean has revealed to me that he or she is the only one in their family(immediate and extended). My situation is the same. I hear people in North America talking about being second generation and third generation atheists. This is a concept completely foreign to us in the Caribbean. And  so in our islands many who are quite active in the atheist forums and blogs have not come out to close family members. There are two that have told me that they simply will not ever tell their mothers, because the heartbreak would be simply too much for either her or them to bear.

There are concerns over job security and future career prospects. I was hearing a story where someone was asked point blank whether they believed in God in the middle of a job interview. I would say there is considerable anxiety about rocking the boat of religion right through the region although there do appear to be some island differences. I was told in Barbados that a bus campaign like the  'There's Probably no God' ones undertaken in the UK, USA and Canada could be effective. In Jamaica I was told, "Absolutely not!" The buses would be vandalised before they even left the station.

There was also one person who had been living in the Caribbean for a relatively short time and while perturbed by the religious indoctrination of the masses and very supportive of regional secular efforts did not want to be seen as the voice from outside trying to tell the locals how they should live.  This atheist prefers to stick to their online blog where I can tell you that they don't pull any punches.

I understand all these points and respect the fear of victimisation that so many people referred to. I think apart from fear there is not the same desire to knock down religious beliefs as I sense from atheists in places like the US. For my part when I look back at religion it is with a tinge of nostalgia rather than deep animosity. In the Caribbean, by and large religion has not caused the suffering as much as in has in some other places. The mega churches and tele evangelists that swindle their way up north are generally less evident in the Caribbean. Memories of  church from my youth are filled with images of picnic excursions, running about at Sunday School, singing lively action songs and church army ladies beating tambourines There are also memories of intense boredom sitting through services, but being boring is not a crime. Most of us have many dear persons in our lives still very devout and  indeed church is where for many of us our social lives revolved in years gone by.  It is where we would look to find girlfriends and boyfriends. I can think of many couples that met in some form or fashion through the church.

In the Caribbean the main interest by atheists I spoke to is to get the questioning started. Trying to create skeptics rather than atheists. And this brings me to the other main point of the discussions. Should we call ourselves atheists?

Atheists or not?

This is a ticklish one and  views certainly varied. I think we all agreed that whatever the strategy we would have to get our views out into the society gradually. One freethinker that I met who had over 40 years as a humanist suggested that it was better to try to stay clear of the term 'atheist' altogether because of the negative connotation and the history associated. " Atheism doesn't really offer anything, people need something to replace their religion with if you are telling them to give it up." The view expressed was to therefore embrace humanism and promote that.

Other people felt that critical thinking was what really mattered and there was no reason to look at challenging religion at all, just let the Christians be, they may be mistaken but we don't need to be constantly trying to take their crutch away. The other view put on the table was that we needed to put atheism out here because it was important to remove the stigma. The idea of atheism has never even entered into the head of most Caribbean people. Just letting people know that not believing in God is not tantamount to selling your soul to the devil would be a huge step.

I agree to an extent with all these arguments, but I must say from a personal standpoint I think identifying as an atheist is very important.  I believe the time has come  to challenge belief and anything less than an outright " I don't believe you" is going to seem like we are telling religious people that we are fine with you just continuing living by faith. Having said that, I am strongly in favour of letting people be where they want to be as atheists, skeptics, freethinkers, humanists, agnostics or whatever. To me, anyone who is in support of making people think about their beliefs more is my ally.

So, what have I come away with from all of these discussions and interactions? Well, I am thinking that in the Caribbean there is a need for two groups.

1. Critical thinking advocacy group-

 This organisation would be designed to promote general skepticism and critical thinking towards claims both inside and outside of religion. It should also have the general promotion of science as a pillar in its mandate. This group could include atheists and agnostics as well as moderate religious people (yes, believers). I think having a group that contained people of faith and no-faith would take away the fear that our mission is all about taking God out. Yet, it will make it clear that  there are believers out there that respect atheism as a viable position which can emerge from skepticism. Who knows? There may even be some believers that will be attracted to a group like this and lose their faith as they apply more skepticism in their lives. Whatever the case, beliefs of everyone involved in such a group are likely to become less rigidly held as the process goes along.

2. Atheist support group

This group would be purely for atheists and designed to support people who find themselves isolated and perhaps even depressed after letting go of faith. A society that has more critical thinking ideas in its mainstream is invariably going to lead some people to lose their belief in God. It's important to reassure people that this is OK and there are people to support them on this side if they happen to land on  non belief after they have investigated their faith. This would not be a group in any way seeking to make anyone an atheist. The message would simply be , "If you are an atheist, we are here for you!" I think this would help people a lot. I believe the reason people stop short of atheism is because they don't see any way of landing softly on the other side so they think it's  better to go back to that good 'old time' religion safety net that they know. We have to be standing outside holding our trampoline aloft when they feel they want to jump out of the building that is on fire for Jesus.

These  are just preliminary recommendations, I am still processing it all. I have to add that I have had some great interactions with other Caribbean atheists online who have given their views on the topic as well. I thank you guys too, and look forward to meeting you all one day. I have to make special mention of  Andre a well known musician in Barbados who has recently put his atheism right out there. It's such a pleasure to have someone who I admired through music now working on the same team with me promoting atheism and skepticism.

Well, there it is my exploration of the ' Atheists of the Caribbean.' I enjoyed it and hope that one day I can do a sequel. I am optimistic that this opportunity will come when we organise our meet up . I am very committed to this idea, there is so much we could learn from each other. The Caribbean has  generally speaking not been successful in coming together as one, maybe freethinkers could lead the way. Thinking of having all these people I met in the same room is a very exciting prospect. I think it is something that would change us all and encourage us to keep pushing forward. I invite any Caribbean atheists I haven't met out there yet to make contact with me. I encourage you to join the facebook group Caribbean Atheists and the Atheist Nexus Caribbean group as well. I also invite those of you that are not from the Caribbean but have an interest in our region to join us. We definitely need your support. There are many atheists who have been very encouraging when I have spoken to them about promoting secularism in the Caribbean and I am very grateful for that.

I  just have to mention one more thing about my Caribbean sojourn that will always stand out in my memory. I sat with an atheist who said to me they have never spoken with another atheist face to face before in their life. Hearing that made me sit up in shock, since this person was very active on line, and well informed on secular issues. I realised at that moment how different my atheist experience is, having quite a few like minded people in my community in Canada. I gave the person the "A" pin which I myself had worn on my jacket as I left Canada for the Caribbean just weeks before. I  spoke of that experience in an earlier blogpost. It had sentimental value to me, but I felt this atheist should have it. When I gave it, the  atheist looked at it held it securely and gazed down at it in silence for nearly a minute with a smile as broad as the Caribbean Sea. The next day a photo of that actual pin was their profile picture on facebook. That just made everything seem so worth it.

Oh how my head hurts! : Reflecting on a common response by theists to my arguments against God



Photo from Start line Physiotherapy

 I was fortunate enough this week to get another taste of the Caribbean as I went to make a presentation in Curacao. It was a short visit, where the time travelling from Calgary equalled the time I actually spent on site in the island. However, as has now become the norm, the journey itself was filled with meeting new fascinating people and the subject of religion never seemed far away. Once again I had chance to discuss the idea of God's existence.

 I must say that now I have had the opportunity to talk about  my atheism with theists of many different flavours in the Caribbean I am starting to notice certain patterns in how the discussions have gone. There have been a few surprises along the way in terms of the objections I have received or in many cases not received. Yes, I keep going into these discussions expecting push back on assumptions about first causes and  fine tuned universes. In reality these have seldom come. What I have got a lot of is, " Oh how my head hurts!" A basic comment suggesting that the  points I am making are just too high level. They claim that the arguments are just too intellectual and philosophical for them. After this point the debates often ends or peters out. Over the last few days I have been reflecting on this "Oh my head hurts" phenomenon.

I must admit that the first response that used to come to me upon getting the ' head hurt'  comment was  a sense of satisfaction that the person in the discussion was basically conceding that I had won out intellectually. I suppose there is a part of your ego that is fed when someone tells you that your level of understanding of some topic is greater than theirs. Perhaps it is that type of raising of ego that leads so many Christians to consider that atheists are arrogant. However, now that I have had the response more times and have had more time to reflect on it I see it differently now. The truth is that I consider that the people I have talked to are in no way inferior to me intellectually. I am no brighter than them.  It's just that critical thinking in our society is so widely discouraged that most people are simply just not able to follow what we as full time skeptics would see as straightforward logical arguments.

Exercising Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is like  a muscle and sadly for many in the Caribbean it is a muscle that has atrophied due to lack of use. It means that often when you enter the debates with theists about religion the lack of critical thinking conditioning appears early. It's feels like as you are out on your gentle morning jog, you can hear them panting for breath behind you begging you to slow down so they can keep up. It is not  that there is any lack of intellect in the Caribbean. Indeed, we can boast in our region to having some of the finest brains internationally in a number of areas. It's just that our strength tends to be in learning the core disciplines in our chosen fields. We can then apply those  fundamental principles to become successful practitioners in our  careers.

Where we fall down is in being able to criticise other ideas especially when they fall outside of our domain of expertise. We are often good at expounding and representing our own positions but comparatively weaker in  being able to ask the searching questions to others when they bring  ideas that we have not previously been exposed to. The lack of this ability in our general populace I think relates back to our education system and where we put our focus. I definitely do not think that there is any inherent  weakness in us that makes us incapable of being critical thinkers.Actually, I think that in Barbados there is a desire to learn more and develop that ability to challenge. It's just that in the 'intellectual gym' of the island there are no critical thinking machines available. Therefore you just can't spend the hours doing the necessary reps to get fit .

I am sure it is not surprising for skeptics to find that a lack of critical thinking is one of our main problems. It is something I have spoken about a lot in blogposts and is a point made many times by writers from parts of the developing world who are working to promote secularism. But, I think there is a part of the 'head hurt' response that goes beyond the lack of emphasis on critical thinking. Regularly in discussions I will make a statement similar to the one below.

" The fact that I cannot  disprove the existence of Big Foot  is not good reason for anybody to come to the conclusion that Big Foot exists. The persons out there that claim they have seen Big Foot have the burden of proof to show the rest of us the evidence for what they claim. We are justified in saying that Big Foot doesn't exist even if we can't prove it 100%."

Everyone that I have put an argument like that to has been able to follow my line of reason immediately, regardless of educational background. Many would tell me that it is so obvious that it doesn't even make sense to even state it. However, when I simply substitute the word 'God' for ' Big Foot'  the old 'head hurt' phenomenon comes back to the fore. I hear comments like

 " Oh, that's too deep for me!"
" Woah, this is so intellectual!"
 "I will have to back to my grad school philosophy notes."
 "You are the big doctoral student writing a thesis this is far too much for me to take in."

All of a sudden it seems their brains become incapable of  the cognition required to do the necessary reasoning. It is the equivalent of asking a child at kindergarten how many cherries you would have if you had three at first and added two more and he answered, " Five of course!" You then ask  him what you would get if you had three pears and added two more and he tells you that this level of maths is  far too difficult for a student in his class, and  that he would have to do an advanced course in pear arithmetic to answer that one.

It's interesting that cutting out 'Big Foot' and putting in 'God' suddenly changes an obvious statement into a super intellectual one, but it's true. Say you are having a debate " Does God exist?" and many would tell you that is a deep intellectual topic that only  the elite theologians, philosophers and theoretical physicists can weigh in on. Say you want to have a debate on the topic " Do fairies exist?" and you would be laughed out of court with  people telling you that you must have the intellectual development of a five year old, that is if they don't send you to a mental asylum  first. The truth of the matter is that the two questions, at least as far as the atheist is concerned, are absolutely equivalent. Substituting one invisible being for another is no different than substituting a cherry for a pear.

Probability Phobia

It all makes me wonder if there is a defence mechanism in the brain that actually affects your ability to understand when you have an argument that potentially calls into question a strongly held belief. Could the brain actually be capable of causing itself not to function? Can a person become momentarily less intelligent on account that their core belief is being challenged? It certainly has me thinking. I remember at school that many of my colleagues used to tell me that of all the topics within Mathematics, they hated 'probability.' I always found this baffling because to me 'probability' was my favourite part of Maths. I could easily grasp the concept of the ' lottery' and how the chances of outcomes would be affected by adding or subtracting cards with hearts or spades from a box that someone was drawing from. For me it was  easy to visualise what was happening and I couldn't understand why it would be so confusing to other students. On the other hand there were topics within 'Pure Maths' that really did make my head hurt. The second order differentials and double integrals were almost impossible for me to solve yet many of my colleagues with the 'probability phobia' seemed to get through these calculations relatively easily.

Now, I am wondering whether the underlying worldview of their religion was playing a part in their inability to grasp 'probability'. For many theists there really is no such thing as 'probability.' In their world view everything is ultimately ordained by God. There is no such thing as chance, coincidence is simply an illusion. As a lady I met recently put it, it's all divine arrangement. Maybe when such theists are presented with a paradigm that suggest that whether I get a ripe or rotten golden apple from a bag is something that only depends on Maths, the brain rejects and becomes incapable of grasping the entire concept. Meanwhile other aspects of Maths that are more deterministic, where there is one correct answer, are easier for them to get. Such aspects fit neatly into a worldview that suggests things must be the way they are as God knows what will happen with every atom of every piece of material. This is all of course just hypothesis but I think it is an interesting one for the psychologists to look at.

Anyway, regardless of what is going on at the conscious or subconscious level, the fact is that in many of these 'God arguments' theists will give you the compliment of suggesting that you have defended your position with sound logic and that they are at least not at that point able to respond to much of what you have raised.  To many atheists this will seem like a victory and maybe it is. But the thing to understand is that in their mind you have won not because your position was stronger, but because you were a bit more prepared than them for the fight. Also the fact that they don't fully understand the points you made gives them a reason not to change their position. Rightly, they take the view that they would have to spend some more time going over what you just said before they could even begin to consider changing their position. So, if the objective is to keep your faith alive there is definitely an advantage in not understanding. I think they are often convinced that there are arguments that persons like Lee Strobel and Deepak Chopra have that could have your argument for dinner. They just have to study them and come back for you next time.

One lady I spoke to was literally beating up on herself for what she thought was a personal failure on her part to defend her position properly. She vowed to go back and read up on her arguments so she could be more convincing next time. I felt like telling her she was just being too hard on herself. That is the problem with religion, it always makes the individual follower feel they are not worthy. They have problems representing their side because the underlying belief system is flawed with internal contradictions at every turn. The problem is the message not the messengers.

It is ironic that within religion itself, not understanding is a virtue. Christians will tell you quite freely that there are many things in their faith that they don't understand fully. The trinity, transubstantiation, the problem of evil, many theists will confess to their inability to understand these things. But most will never think of reconsidering their beliefs due to their lack of understanding. In fact the mystery just makes the thing more beautiful . They are confident that their faith is the right one whether they understand it or not. All will be revealed one day and even though they have no idea what the revelation will be it will confirm that it was the right decision to have accepted what their faith is telling them now.  It's a curious double standard. They withhold judgement on things they don't understand when they come from outside but will accept prior to understanding when the argument comes from within.

Well there is nothing we atheists can do about such things but it does seem to me that so long as the average theist feels that he or she is not our intellectual equal we will have problems in promoting our point of view. We have to level the playing field in that respect. The only way to change that is through the education system, especially in the Caribbean. Logic, reasoning and  especially logical fallacies should be topics that everyone does alongside Maths and English. For sure everybody should understand and appreciate how the scientific method works. It is unfortunate that currently it is only people that take the decision to pursue Science at the highest level  that actually get to be taught exactly how the system works. Understanding the scientific method and how hypotheses are developed and tested  is easier than grasping the rudiments of long division and the latter is a staple part of the primary school curriculum.

So, maybe if we put the critical thinking as part of the core exercise regime in education we will see more Christians who have the strength to defend their position . The only downside is that  by the time they reach their optimum condition, they will almost certainly find that there is no position there to defend.

Trying to avoid the elevator

It was the talk of the secular world for weeks and I tried to stay far away from it. Yes, I was trying my best to avoid the 'elevator.' It is amazing how the  now infamous elevator incident blew up on the internet. Just google the word 'Elevatorgate' and pages of opinions come up.

It all started when a leading atheist blogger, Rebecca Watson, spoke of an incident at a skeptic conference. She was invited for coffee in a guy's room while alone with him in an elevator at 4am. She spoke on a video blog of how uncomfortable she felt about this type of approach and advised males in the skeptic community not to act like that. It seemed a simple enough comment and one that was perfectly understandable. However, since her statements, people from all over the atheosphere have jumped on to the elevator, one person no less notable than  the most famous of all atheists, Professor  Richard Dawkins.

 Dawkins suggested that the incident was blown out of proportion given the far greater atrocities that women in Muslim cultures have to endure. Rebecca was offended by the implication that her experience was trivial and asserted that Richard Dawkins just "didn't get it." Thereafter more secularists stormed the elevator in droves some calling Richard a misogynist and others labelling Rebecca as a " feminazi." Thankfully, it seems that that as quickly as this whole elevator shot up into prominence it is gradually making its way back down to ground level. So why I am I getting on the elevator now when most people have since jumped off? Perhaps its claustrophobia. It's often  much easier to think when you don't have a set of bodies all around you screaming while smothering you in a confined space.

One of the last people to say her piece on the 'elevator' was Greta Christina one of the top voices in the atheist blogs. In this article she explained her internal conflict of not wanting to talk about it and  still needing to talk about it. Ironically, she ended by saying that  we should keep talking about it. I interpreted this to mean not that we should close the doors and ride the elevator up to the top again, but rather that we should keep alive the debate about the issue surrounding gender issues in the atheist movement. It's a great point I think, because the debate as much as a ' mountain out of a molehill' as it might have been has highlighted that there is still much to be learnt by us all.  I have to admit that her call to to the atheist bloggers to talk, made me rethink my decision to walk past the elevator. So, here I am.

I certainly am not going to dig further into who was right or wrong in the story. This is not because I want to take a 'politicallly correct' neutral position. I simply feel that when it comes to gender issues it is better for me to do more listening than talking. From that perspective I agree with Greta's plea  for the men to " listen to what the women are saying." It's the same as how I would expect that if an issue of race came up in the secular community, greater weight would be given to what we as blacks or racial minorities had to say.

In thinking through how this whole episode played out I can't help but realise how in a broader sense we have an 'elevator' problem in the atheist community. A problem that can  prevent us from reaching the heights we could otherwise attain. Maybe is just a natural thing, but we atheists have shown a tendency to 'elevate' those who we perceive to be principal spokespeople in our community. I understand very well why it is tempting to do this. While we constantly go on in atheist circles about how much reason guides us in our lives, the truth is that the action of leaving religion after many years of following God can be intensely emotional. I do feel very moved myself when I reflect on my 'emancipation from mental slavery,' to use the words of Bob Marley. I have heard many people express similar sentiments. When you look at the journey, you can't help but  be thankful to those most visible in the atheist world who have helped you on your passage in one way or another. It is not unusual to hear people speaking of how the strident voices of  atheist activists have liberated them. Non-believers from many different backgrounds have told me how reading Richard Dawkins' " The God Delusion"  changed their lives. I certainly understand the reaction to Dawkins' writing, he was a huge influence on my life as well. Always engaging in style, he speaks with a level of clarity that makes the arguments he makes very difficult to resist.

While, it is no doubt humbling and an honour for persons like Dawkins to receive such plaudits from us, there is a downside as well. When we view people like Richard Dawkins as 'changing our lives' we risk elevating them to a position way above the rest of the atheists on the ground.  This means we can react to situations involving them in a manner lacking in reason and rife with emotion. It can, as we saw in 'elevatorgate', go both ways.

 You  can be led to defend the man purely on the basis of reputation. Chiding those out there for criticising the person who has  arguably done more for the modern atheist movement than any other. Then, on the other side there are those that will respond in a way that those in Rebecca Watson's corner did. They will express an elevated level of disappointment in Dawkins for the very reason that they have or had so much respect for him. " How could you as a hero of mine, do something that hurts me so much?" would be the type of lament that you will hear.  That is the problem with the 'elevators' that send no more than five or six chosen few to the top of the building. If there is a snap in someone's line of reasoning at altitude, tension is released and you can easily be crushed if you are standing underneath.

We have to in all this remember that Richard Dawkins as well as other atheists popular from blogs and podcasts are  human. Yes, those that have worked hard in the atheist movement and made a difference deserve to be recognised and lauded for their efforts. We should lift them up but we should never elevate them. Like the star quarterback, we can lift our main playmakers on the shoulders when they win a game for us, but when kickoff comes  for the next game we all have to be back on the field in a team huddle ready to take on the next challenge. This is as much a message to self as to those out there. I have tried my best to let those public atheists that have inspired me in some way know this, but I have to still remember that they are not authorities in every sphere.

We know that a large number of our believer friends are already laughing at us for getting stuck on the elevator that they ride without difficulty everyday. For them elevation is the name of the game, there is nothing they love more than an argument from authority and they always feel that they are in the ascendancy. They will tell us we shouldn't worry because none of us could ever come close to the three persons that are in the rarefied air of  the top floor office. A significant portion of them will think that once we get on the elevator the only way we can go is down.  We are destined to be stuck in the  basement where the number of bodies in such a small  space will lead to extremely high temperatures. There will be much wailing but no one will hear the alarm no matter how many times we press the 'emergency' button.

I don't worry too much about the Christian elevator views that can't be proven. However, we might just give them an ear when they suggest that we have followed their lead by elevating our elite to the level of their clergy. I cringe whenever I hear them  talk of  'Pope Richard Dawkins.' I do think this is an absurd comparison, but if we don't keep watching ourselves there could be a time in the future where there is a kernel of truth in this type of remark..

So, we have to try to avoid the elevator at all costs and not just because of the level of vulnerability being in such tiny places can bring to those on  the wrong side of a  power imbalance. If we don't use elevators there will also never be another "elevatorgate" and I think all of us would be relieved at that.

To me the stairs seems a much better option for atheists anyway. It may take us longer to get to where we want to go, but we can all make the trek together, encourage each other along the way with no one surging floors ahead. It will also mean that, unlike our friends on the believers' side, we will reach the top through our own efforts without relying on what is above us to pull us up.