Put down the duckie!

  

Oh yes! Another one of those Sesame Street classics. " You got to put down the 'duckie' if you want to play the saxophone!"

The lyrics and melody are as fresh today as they were when I first heard this one back in the 80s. This song was a definite influence in encouraging me to take up the saxophone myself. But like so much of the old Sesame Street, I look back at it today and see meaning on a whole different level. I had a similar feeling when I wrote about how I rediscovered 'Ernie and the Invisible Ice Cream' a couple of years ago. Now Ernie is at the centre of attention again, as Hoots supported by a  myriad of celebrities, explains to him that he can't play the sax if he insists on keeping his favourite toy in his hand. It's a lesson that Ernie takes a while to get, even as Hoots tells him,


 "Don't be a stubborn Cluck!"

I died  laughing when I heard this line today. Sesame Street keeping it 'G' rated, even if just barely.

Anyway, once Ernie realises the wisdom of the advice he tosses the 'duck' away in liberation and goes on to break away into some attractive improvisations. Whether you are a jazz lover or not and even if you've never picked up a wind instrument in your life, you've just got to love it.

The only sad thing is that of course as simple as the lesson is here, millions of people of faith in the world have failed to embrace it. We've begged, pleaded and cajoled just like the artistes in this video, from every corner of the world. But no, believers still haven't got this one into their heads. For reasons which are baffling to us on the atheist side, they simply refuse to put their 'duckies' down.

For years they have been telling us that faith and reason can live together in perfect harmony. That there is no reason to believe that embracing scientific method, logic and critical thinking means we have to toss aside faith. In fact more than telling us that faith and reason can go together, they claim that we actually need to have both in order to have a balanced life. Truth is, that trying to put reason and faith together is just the same as attempting what Ernie is trying to do here. Sax in one hand, 'duckie' in the other and hoping the music will come out just right. Nine times out of ten, it won't. Stories of six day creations, global floods, ladders to heaven, talking snakes, virgin births, resurrections and the like just don't stand to reason. If you include these in any manuscript of science you will have problems.

Putting faith and reason on the same level is like trying to compare the skill needed to squeeze a bathtub toy with that needed to master fingering, breathing, reed control that comes with learning to play a wood wind instrument. It is not discrimination to say that the 'duckie' can't be a part of any self respecting band. 'Duckie' at playtime in the nursery and in the bathtub can be fun, and the squeaks it emits can make you laugh and giggle in delight. But there is no room for this if you are talking about playing serious music.

I suppose some Christians would say that strictly speaking Hoots is not correct. It's not impossible to play the sax while holding a 'duck'.Obviously it can be done, and the music might sound alright some of the time. In this video, the music Ernie plays with 'duckie' in hand is not terrible, some of it is actually quite nice. Especially when he is just holding the duck without squeezing it. But once he tries to interject the duck sound into the music, that's when you get the dissonance. This happens with many  liberal Christians. They keep the 'duckie' in their hand because they feel it is necessary that people see them with it. It's basically aesthetics, to show that they still have a connection to that special gift they were given in their childhood. They want it to be known that they haven't forgotten where they came from. Indeed, they don't really intend to squeeze the 'duckie' while they are playing, and with practice they come quite adept at keeping the 'duck' silent during the music or at least from interrupting the flow of the piece.

But even as they show off their skills you can see they have to try twice as hard to keep the 'duckie' out of the way while they play. Even as you stand to applaud them, you still have to wonder why they don't make life easier for themselves and everybody else and just leave the 'duck' alone. What is the most awe dropping thing is what happens after the music ends, when they declare that there is no way they could even play a single note without their duckie.  All the duckless people like me can say to that is, "What? The duck?"


It's not only the duckless that are a bit mystified though. Even as the 'duck and sax' people accept their praise they upset the true 'duckie' aficionados, those that believe in the true beauty of pure 'duck' music. How can he say he needs his 'duckie' when he never even uses it? They will say. Oh, how I wish these 'duck and sax' players would answer that 'ducking' question.

However, in reality very few 'duck and sax' players are actually skilled enough to always avoid their fingers slipping on to the 'duckie' during performance. When that happens, you hear that 'silly squeak' that Ernie talks about. This  'duckie' sound may be unintentional, but it doesn't matter. It still plays havoc with the music and usually you get a massive discord. It's embarrassing when this happens because the player then has to pretend that the 'duck' squeak is not a mistake but a vital part of the composition. He will say that if anything sounded off in the music, it was in fact the sax that was the problem, because it gives trouble sometimes. In contrast, the squeaky 'duck' always come in at the right time and in the right key.

Of course what happens every now and again is that the 'duckie' squeaks by chance and it actually sounds good. It fits the music perfectly, resulting in an enticing chord or exciting syncopation. Here is when the 'duck and sax' players do their most talking. They will make sure to show the video of that performance over and over again to prove that the 'duckie' makes the music better. If we tell them that it was just a fluke note, they will laugh at us and try to ignore us when we list the millions of times the 'duckie' has ruined performances. They will say we are taking those performances out of context and deliberately choosing only bad examples to make our case. They will add that in any case, we are not skilled enough to understand what is good 'duck and sax' music because we can't play it. We can't judge what we don't understand.

Unsinkable Rubber Ducks

James Randi- Speaks of Unsinkable Rubber Ducks

Yes, if only it was as easy as in this video to convince the Christians and other religious people to put down their 'duckies.' In fact 'rubber duckies' are so much tied to religious thinking that the faithful themselves are  often indistinguishable from the artifacts of make belief  they carry around in their hands. James Randi the famous skeptic and debunker of supernatural claims has often noted this in his talks. He refers to many of the frauds and scammers especially in the evangelical churches as 'unsinkable rubber ducks.'

He explains that these guys are able to float back up to the surface no matter how much force you use to push them down. You can have evidence to catch them red handed in some act, they always find a way to come back. Most notable among these 'ducks' is Peter Popov who Randi showed was using an earpiece that picked up his wife's voice reading out the names of the people he was 'healing' during services. Popov was clearly pretending that some divine voice was revealing names and addresses to people in his audience. It is hard to imagine how a person could be more 'caught in the act.' However, it was only a blip for Popov, he was soon back on the air and continues to this day raking in even more millions than he was at the time he was exposed. Yes, you just can't keep these guys down.

Ducking experts

The phenomenon doesn't end with people like Popov either. I know many Christians personally and online who are true duck experts. Yes, no one can duck the difficult questions like these believers. Here are some examples of questions I haven't got a straight answer to yet.

• Does everything happen according to God's will
• If God told you to murder your daughter would you do it?
• Why has God not exterminated the devil yet?
• Why does God need to have a blood sacrifice in order to forgive us? 
• Do you consider it moral for a God to send someone to hell just for not believing

You won't believe the amount of ducks I have heard in response to questions like these. When they can, Christians make use of their elasticity too. In their world, whatever the brain can conceive, faith can achieve. You have to try to catch them out with logical contradictions. But even that can't keep them down, because they will argue that God himself can transcend logic. It takes ages to try to convince them that if God and us operate by different rules of logic, we can't communicate with him or begin to understand anything about him. By the time you do that, you are sure to have forgotten what the logical contradiction you were trying to call them out on was in the first place.

In the cases where both their ducking and elasticity fails them and they end up in hot water, they will fish desperately for a response and eventually distract us by throwing out a red herring. Those Christian rubber ducks, you just can't ever win.

How can we overcome the ducks?   

Well, at least so it seems. We have to take heart from this video. We have to take this Sesame Street lesson. The first thing is repetition. We have to keep telling them to 'put down the duckie' even when it seems the message isn't getting through. We also need  a variety of people bringing the message. People of different ages, genders, races, cultural and ethnic backgrounds,  just like the celebrities in this video. We even need different languages, as Celia Cruz says " Suelta el Patito."

One person, however persuasive they may be, is seldom enough to turn the tide. We also need different ways of packaging the message, just like the different styles and genres of music we see in the video.It doesn't always have to be loud and strident. Sometimes soft dulcet tones whispered in a friendly way can be just as effective. We see that here. Arguably the best part of this video is 'Put Down the Duckie' rendered softly by the group 'Ladysmith Black Mambazo

The other key to learn from here is that as strongly as we bring our message, we must never coerce. We have to understand when they tell us like Ernie, that they can't bear to be parted from their 'duckie'. It is important to note that Hoots never tried to yank the 'rubber duckie' out of Ernie's hands. Ernie tossed the thing away himself in his own time, when he reached the point that HE was convinced. The only thing we have to remind people like Ernie is that it's OK to take the duck up after sax but only if its for playing PRETEND.Yes, we must not be afraid to tell people that their 'duckie' is an imaginary friend. Sure they can talk to him but they are not going to get an answer back. As tempted as they may be, they must  never take out their 'duckie' at school during classes especially if its a science subject like Biology, unless  they want to become  'quacks' when they grow up.

All jokes aside though, the last thing we can do to help our cause, is to take things beyond this Sesame Street clip. We have to let believers know that when we implore them to put down the 'duckie' we are not putting THEM down. We have to hold up high others among us who have successfully, 'put down the duckie' and produced great music.

Andre Woodvine- Barbadian jazz saxophonist.
Put down the 'duckie' and is one of the Caribbean's finest

One such person in Barbados is leading jazz saxophonist and composer Andre Woodvine, who has made a name for himself throughout the region. You can find out more about him and his music here. He my friends, has emphatically put down the 'duckie'!

Andre contacted me through this blog last year as he was becoming public about his atheism. I was touched by the positive things he said about my writings. I was extremely excited to make the link with him and we have interacted quite a bit since then. I have always admired Andre as both sax player and composer. I will never forget his composition 'Hold You in a Song' performed by John King and Alison Hinds, that went on to win the Caribbean Song Contest back in 1992. It  remains a favourite of mine to this day. Andre  himself  had a memorable sax solo in that one, you can listen to the entire performance below. It was great to find that music and saxophone playing was not all we had in common. Andre is now open about being an atheist, as he continues to fly the national flag high, representing Barbados as a jazz musician all over the world.

Thank you Andre, for giving the message so loud and clear to the rest of us.


"You've got to put down that 'duckie' if you want to play the saxophone."

Celebrating the legacy of Whitney Houston: One Moment in Time that meant so much

It happens so frequently these days it seems. We lose an icon and the chorus of responses says ' gone too soon.' The latest balladeer to have left us is Whitney Houston. A lady whose legacy is as great as they come. For anyone who grew up in the 80s or 90s, Whitney was the lady that every girl that could 'carry a tune' wanted to be. In Barbados back in those days, it was an eye opener when the female pop singer you were hearing on the radio was not Whitney. Over the last few weeks when the press has been recapping the many hits she had in that period, I found myself saying many times, " Oh yeah, she sang that one too!"

In those years I am sure many people can tell you of first dates, school dances, modelling shows, and Miss 'Whatever' pageants where Whitney held centre stage. I am sure all over the world that the experiences were the same.That is why it makes me  sad when people concentrate on highlighting the personal problems that Whitney Houston had, and the way in which her own behaviour led ultimately to her self destruction. For many this is a serious blot on what was a stellar copy book.

I have to add that there is a tinge of irony when such comments come from people who are Christians or describe themselves as spiritual in some way. These are the same people who claim that we who are atheists are just materialists who don't understand the value of the transcendent. They say that it is the soul not the body that really matters. They emphasise that the eternal is more critical than the temporal and things that speak to heart far more powerful than those which speak purely to mind. Well, if they really believe what they say, then the triumph outruns the tragedy in Whitney's life by miles.

Whitney Houston's physical body is no longer here but her'spirit' lives on in the hearts of millions and will do for years, decades, maybe even centuries to come. In the course of her struggles, she suffered personally and that was a shame, but she did not for the most part bring harm to anyone but herself. Her immediate family and friends will feel the pain, but for the wider world it is the gain of the music that will have the greater impact. In spite of her celebrity, we have come to learn how lonely  and depressed she was prone to feel after the lights faded at the end of a show of glitz and glamour. We've heard of how the pressure of maintaining her place at the top often told on her mentally, emotionally and physically. Yet, she battled through to give the world some of the most memorable performances of all time. In many ways Whitney Houston sacrificed her own life for the benefit of us all.

Of course, at this time of the year, we are often told of another sacrifice made in a different context which the faithful call the greatest love of all. That saviour being referenced is one who gave up his life after 33  years, 15 less than the number that Whitney shared with us. I know that it wasn't that our saviour wilfully went out there and destroyed his own body to cause his own death. Nonetheless, he certainly had the power to prevent his own demise. We can recognise that Whitney was a flawed human being, who was eventually unable to defeat her own inner demons. But our saviour, we are told,  was God in flesh. Surely there was no demon that could prevail against him. Yet, he chose to grace us for such a fleeting moment. One would think that after going through the trouble of travelling all the way down here, he would have hung around at least long enough to make the trip worth it.

Jesus if he wanted to, could have lived much longer. I understand that for the Christian his death and resurrection are important, but I fail to see why a more mature man hanging on the crucifix would have made the story less meaningful. James Sisnett in  Barbados just reached 112, couldn't Jesus have at least managed half that? We may not want to be greedy enough to ask for a 969 score like Methuselah in the Old Testament, but if you think about it, there is no reason why he should not have granted us that. Indeed, Jesus could still be living among us in the flesh. All he had to do was raise himself from the dead but delay the ascension. Just think of the things we could have learnt from the master if millions more had walked beside him.We could have had millennia of miracles.Well, that was not the plan. In fact we are told that we should actually love him more because he gave up his life for us, we are to adore him for what was effectively a suicide mission.While Whitney  tended to sing about miracles rather than perform them, there is no doubt  that her music had its own special brand of magic that could empower the listener. If we blame Whitney for leaving us in body too early, we should have some words of admonition for our Lord and saviour too. Fair is fair!

One Moment in Time: My personal experience

I know that some people would think saying that Whitney Houston's music could empower in a way similar to how their saviour does is nothing short of sacrilegious. Well, I will take a leaf out of their book and do exactly what they do. I will speak from my personal experience. In the wake of Whitney's death there have been people  reminiscing on songs like 'I'll Always Love You' ' The Greatest Love of All,' and 'Where do Broken Hearts Go?'  Many have recalled  the performance of the US anthem back in 1991. All of these were noteworthy, but my favourite Whitney Houston song, by some distance is  'One Moment in Time.'

 In 1988,when I was active in my church in Barbados, I got together with a few friends and we formed an instrumental ensemble with the aim of performing during services and other social activities. As teenagers we were all relatively 'green' on our instruments but we just felt we could combine our talents and do something positive for our church. I took on the role of leader, having no experience whatsoever in managing anything. I had no idea how far we could take the group, but the team gelled, we were having fun and that was all that mattered. 1988  was the year of the Olympics in Seoul and there was a lot of excitement in the air particularly surrounding the huge 100m clash between Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis and the sudden emergence of Florence Griffith Joyner (Flo Jo). It seemed everyone was catching the fever. In the midst of it all was the release of this stunning piece of music by Whitney Houston which just seemed to capture everything about the Olympic spirit. " Give me one moment in time when I am more than I thought I could be."

I just felt that this was a song we could adapt and make our own. Looking back, I think we ourselves were hoping that one day we too would find our 'moment.' I remember distinctly sitting down and arranging that song for the instruments that we had. It was far from the full orchestra that Ms. Houston had at her disposal. We had two violins, two flutes, a clarinet, a saxophone and a guitar, but we had to make it work. I smile today when I remember putting together the music for the climax with the Pam-pam a namp, pam-a namp, pamanamanama, pam-pam a namp, pam-a namp, pamanamanama.and then the notes to, " I will be, I will be free!"

Well, the piece went down splendidly with the congregation the first time we came out with it and whenever we did it after that it just 'hit.' It quickly became the signature piece in our repertoire. So successful was the group in our church setting that we quickly started getting invitations to play at churches all over the country. By the next year we truly got our moment in time when we were invited to play at a national service at the historic Kensington Oval in front of about three thousand people and live on television for thousands more at home to see. We didn't perform " One Moment in Time" on that day but I felt that tune had brought us there. It was a thrilling day and a moment that none of us could have imagined one year earlier.

Over the years, I just took 'One Moment in Time' with me. I often had the notes of the song playing in my head, as I took off my track suit at the starting line when competing at inter house or inter school sports. I hoped that one day my own personal 'moment' would come. One day it did, in 10.77 seconds on March 1st, 1990. I had set the Under 20 Boys record for the 100 metres at my school. I was ecstatic. For that moment I was definitely  'more than I thought I could be.' Many highlights in life have come since but that moment still remains right up there with my greatest.

Praying tribute to Whitney Houston

With such good memories associated with Whitney Houston I was looking forward to paying tribute in my little way. Of course my theological perspective is far different now than it was in the days when her songs were popular. That change proved to be significant. My Christian friends  were thrown into ecstacy with the nature of the funeral on Saturday; thrilled at the reach their gospel got in just a few hours. For me, the few genuine touches of emotion, were interspersed with far too many 'facepalm' moments. 

From start to finish it was all about Jesus. Every person who took to the stage to perform or speak paid homage to the divine. From Kevin Costner to Stevie Wonder to Clyde Davis to Alicia Keys it was all the same refrain. So much so, that when Marvin Winans got up to give the sermon and said he was NOW ready to start the preaching, I wondered what church he had been sitting in for the preceding three hours.Everyone wanted to jump on to the Baptist bandwagon, many saying with a great degree of assurance that Whitney was in heaven warming up her voice to lead the 'Angel Chorus' before the Lord. I can't see a person's heart, but I have to think that some of the speakers were at least agnostic; simply feeling it necessary to play to the church gallery in order to score points with the faithful sitting directly in front of them. 

It made me recognise one more reason why so many people who agree with our 'no God' position intellectually, don't want to go all the way and declare themselves as atheists. We atheists would be hypocrites if we said we don't believe in God and then went to a funeral to talk about grandma upstairs  playing a harp. Indeed, we would not want to do that anyway,  because we would not be being true to ourselves. That's why in general I like people who self identify as atheists. We in most cases stick to our stated principles. We don't waver into belief when it suits us. It is unfortunate that people feel they need to be dishonest in order to comfort. However, I am convinced that's what much of the world thinks. 

So, those who stay in the agnostic or 'spiritual but not religious'  camp may  not be that open to the possibility of God. It might be more that that they want to be able to play the part of 'Christian' when circumstances demand it. They want to be able to live in both worlds. Sit with the atheists and make fun of irrational beliefs like talking snakes, virgin births and bodies ascending into clouds. Later, when tragedy strikes, they want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the faithful and declare that they KNOW the departed has floated up on a cloud to heaven and is singing in a heavenly choir before Jesus. This type of nimble theological footwork often leaves us atheists shaking our heads in disbelief. We who have declared our hand publicly as atheists know we have given up our chance to do this dance and therefore regularly get the doors slammed in our face when we want to come to their party or share in their wake. I know it may sound like an exaggeration but it's true. This feeling of not being able to take part on occasions that we desperately would love to is something that I am not sure that many people who are are not atheists understand. 

Message to my Christian Friends

Christians, with every invocation to the supernatural, you believe you are getting closer to God and doing his will to let us know about him. For you He is the one who provides all the inspiration, the joy, the comfort and the blessings. For us it is rather different. Every time you say 'Lord',  'Jesus' or 'Heavenly Father' you  push us further away. Sure we can listen through and politely smile when you start your testimonies. Of course we are not insecure egomaniacs that will throw a tantrum just because you use a prayer word. But we do feel a little bit hollow inside when you go all  'God ' on us. When you tell us that faith is all that really matters and God is the only one who can heal, you are effectively telling us atheists that there is nothing we can do to help. Because God is the one gift we can't bring you and you know that very well. We are convinced nonetheless that there is much we can offer  within our secular package. However, by just going on about God, you make us feel embarassed about our presents and  we sometimes just want to slink away unnoticed through the back door.

Often when I raise such objections in theist circles I get a patronising " Awwwh, so sorry that you feel left out, maybe you need a little atheist God  to make you feel happy." They just don't get it. Our displeasure with them also plays into the widely held view that atheists are basically sad people who would be much happier if we just accepted their God . In reality, the sadness is not caused by a rejection of Christ but rather by  the rejection of a Christian. What is often not realised is that when theists exclude us they are also hurting themselves. The truth is that they love us as friends and  family members and  want us to be with them in their hour of need or celebration. They just don't see a way to bring us into the circle unless we join them and their God on their terms. In those moments you want to say or do something to show them that their is a 'spirit' that soars above mere belief or disbelief in something. It is stronger than that which is contained in any faith tradition or secular ideology and it can unite us all as human beings.

This 'spirit' capable of transcending  the faith boundary is exactly what so many of Whitney Houston's greatest works tapped into.Songs like 'I'll Always Love You' 'The Greatest Love of All,' 'I am Every Woman' and my favourite  'One Moment in Time'  speak directly to that 'spirit'. The power of these songs comes from the fact that they can speak to people of faith or 'no faith.' For those that believe in God, they can relate to the sentiments and link them to the supernatural source they believe in. Persons more agnostic or atheistic can look towards the magnificence of the natural world, microscopic and macroscopic, and how when the right synergies are present the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. For me, that is the true power of the songs that were Whitney Houston's greatest. 'Yes Jesus Loves Me' may have been her last performance, but it will not be the song of hers that  leaves the most lasting impression. Why? Because songs that speak to one special faith club will never beat the ones that can embrace all humanity.

Yes, the church is where Whitney got her start, but that's not what made her Whitney Houston. Whitney Houston was a star not because Christians loved her or because the black church loved her. Whitney was a star because the world loved her. It is a pity that we didn't let her speak a bit more to that world in her final moment in time.

Carols and more for Darwin Day!

Happy Darwin Day! 

It wasn't how I designed it, but things evolved in such a way as to make it a full Darwin weekend for me at the university. A day  of activities on Friday with the secular community included a discussion, video, 'carol singing' and a celebratory cake for the famous scientist. Even a "Happy Birthday Song" which included someone cheekily wishing Darwin ' many more.' So we can now say it is not just 'believers' that sing birthday songs to people who have passed from this life. I suppose we can argue that we have an advantage in that we actually know the birth date of him who we recognise. And no, in case you are wondering, we did not get down on our  knees and pray to an " Evolving Saviour." 

The planned talk by Daniel Dennett was to be Friday's highlight, but mechanical failure of a plane, meant a wait of  an extra 24 hours.So Saturday ended up being  'Dennett Day', as the well known atheist philosopher spoke to a packed auditorium at the university. Much food for thought was delivered in that presentation. It was certainly worth the wait.

And now today, Sunday, I can share with the online community in recognising the famous author of 'Origin of the Species.' It does strike me that even though Darwin has made an amazing contribution to the field of biology, it is far more than that which people celebrate today. It is a recognition of the importance of scientific enquiry as a whole. The beauty of movement from a hypothesis in the mind, to a journey, sometimes lasting a lifetime, to look for evidence in the natural world. The development of a model, framework and a theory to tie it all together, based on what the data shows.  It is a narrative to remind us all that for good science we must follow the data where it leads us, no matter the impact it may have for our previously held beliefs, traditions or embedded cultures. Reality is not something we can get close to discovering if we put loyalty to our home tribe, or desire for self satisfying answers as our goal. It is an important lesson for us all to remember, no matter where we fall on the theistic spectrum.

On this special day, I leave you with two carols we enjoyed singing for Darwin . Hope you enjoy them too.

Carols penned by Dr. Marcia Epstein, Humanist Liaison at the University of Calgary.

Charlie Darwin looked about

(To the tune of “Good King Wenceslas looked out”)

Charlie Darwin looked about

on the deck of Beagle;

thinking of the finch's beak,

and the wing of eagle.

Brightly gleamed the sea that day,

as the sun was shining:

Darwin paced the deck that day,

nature's laws divi--ning.

Studying geology, he

thought of ancient mountains,          

questioning theology, he

quested for  life's fountains:

pondering biology,

seeking a solution,

Darwin made a leap of faith

 into evolu--tion!

Though he knew not Mendel's Laws, nor

DNA's connection,

Darwin knew that time and clime shaped

natural selection.

'Origin of Species'  made

sense of  evolution,

So we know today that he

sparked a revolu—tion!

Twelve Eons of Evolution

(To the tune of “12 days of Christmas”: add each verse to the first one until all 12 are sung)

1. We know that evolution made  DNA the key ( to):

our human family!

2) the clever chimpanzee, and our human family.

3) primates in a tree, the clever chimpanzee, and our human family.

4) dolphins & whales,

5) Fe--males and Males! (note: the tune changes at this point)

6) predatory mammals

7)  little furry mammals

8) birds of a feather

9) flying pterodactyls

10) great leaping lizards

11) phylum chordata

12)  tiny protozoa

My Christmas Pantomime: Handel and the 'Baby King'

It was interesting for me to read my First Atheist Christmas blogpost from last year while getting ready to celebrate Atheist Christmas number two.  One year ago I was tentative, not quite knowing the ropes. I almost wondered if I had any right to celebrate at all. Even as I listened to my old favourites then, I was wondering if I should be belting out 'O Come all Ye Faithful' or shyly withdrawing into a 'Silent Night.' This year was quite different, even though I can't by any means call myself a veteran. This Christmas I allowed myself to go back into the music I grew up on. I listened to the entire Handel's Messiah, one of my all time favourites. It was as pleasing to the ear as ever and I even found myself  singing out loud to "Worthy is the Lamb" as I listened to the triumphant trumpets blasting accompanied by the thundering timpanis.

Myth Music- 'The Baby King'

How did I do it? I allowed myself to embrace the music for what it is; myth music. It is a new category I have designated to place all of the religious music that is still beautiful but whose story, I have to admit these days, has nothing to do with reality. I fully embraced the story of the 'Baby King' on Christmas day including  the proclamation of the theme song in the video clip above," For unto us a child is born." In fact, as I listened to those lovely runs for which Handel is so famous and followed the story that is told in that iconic work, I thought of those pantomimes I used to enjoy as a child.  The ones where the evil witch, dressed in black, would come and create some kind of turmoil with some magic spell or portion. Then, when all seemed lost, in would come the good fairy to clean up the mess and make everything right.

Christmas Pantomime

For those not so familiar, Handel's 'Messiah' sets many passages from the bible that relate to Christ to music. From the initial 'Fall' in Genesis, through the prophecies of Isaiah, to the ' Coming' in the New Testament. Perhaps the best known excerpt of all is the timeless " Hallelujah Chorus." To listen to the unabridged  "Messiah" is to take yourself on a magical, dramatic journey. Indeed, this is what I pictured in my mind starting with the haunting melodic minor strains telling me how in "Adam all die" and " Behold Darkness Shall Cover the Earth." I could almost see the ' fade to black' on the stage with smoke emanating from a cauldron. Then, "Lo and Behold!" In the final act, emerges triumph from the midst of despair, in the person of ' The Baby King' , the prophesied one, the one who will one day free us from  sin through his death. I did think to myself that the wave of a magic wand to make sin disappear would be more elegant and certainly a more palatable ending for the children. Anyway, there is still enough there in the Christmas story to at least make you smile, with all the wisemen, shepherds and angels.  So, there I was on the morning of December 25th, enjoying my Christmas Pantomime just like in the days of my childhood.

oldham-chronicle.co.uk

Just like those days, I tried not to analyse the plot of the story too much. I could never understand, back in those pantomimes, why the witch in casting an evil spell, would always create some kind of loophole through which the spell could be broken. Why was there always some magic word, flower or wish upon a star that when discovered could just make the evil go away? Why leave the door open for your plan to be foiled? Now I understand. It was all part of the script to give you the desired ending.  The formula is simple; everyone's happy at the beginning then something goes terribly awry as we approach intermission. In the second half comes the wonderful denouement where everything just sorts itself out and all live happily ever after.

So, my 'Christmas with Handel' morning was every bit as sweet as a 'Gretel with  Hansel.' Yes, of course the holes in the plot were there. The difference here being that  it is the good saviour rather than the evil witch that seems to be giving the opposition a lifeline.The 'devil' in  Handel's masterpiece cannot  be faulted for making things too easy for our hero. The question is how the powerful God of Goodness allowed evil into the picture in the first place. In the pantomimes I have watched, good fairy godmothers may have special powers but certainly nothing like the omnipotence our God father has. Fairies going up against witches are relatively even contests. In contrast, in Handel's work, the protagonist has infinite power, yet inexplicably never uses it to eliminate bad for good. Well, it's all part of the  story mystery and it doesn't matter. The implausibility of  pantomime storylines is what makes them humorous and fun. Handel's 'Baby king' is no different. The absurdity is all part of the entertainment.Yet, undeniably you can still leave the performance with real feelings of love or disgust for the actors.  You may even see yourself in one or more of the characters and try to take away some lesson from their experience. However, when you leave the theater humming, laughing or contemplating what you have witnessed you know that the show is over.

Unfortunately for many of our friends, the pageantry does not end when the curtain is drawn for the last scene of 'Baby King.' They identify with the characters so much that they become part of an ongoing production with them and join  an ever expanding cast of 'extras.' They are  quick to  tell us  that the drama is not really over and that we have come back to see  the actors perform once more when  'The Cross' opens in March or April. They tell us that tickets  for 'The Cross'  are ridiculously expensive but some generous soul has paid the entrance fee for all of us already and that we would be both stupid and ungrateful not to take up this incredible offer. I am sorry, I am very familiar with the script of ' The Cross,' and I respectfully have to decline it.  Bloody pantomimes are just not my passion these days. I'd rather wait for December next year and enjoy my favourite  ' Baby King'  all over again.

Atheists have emotions too!

Last week I came across the video above by ReligiousFiction. It includes a live phone conversation between herself and a theist. The theist is learning for the first time that ReligiousFiction no longer believes in God. I thought the video was very moving and powerful. While I am not familiar with the Emmaus program that is being discussed here, the video immediately resonated with me. I felt so much as though I had this conversation before and I am sure that it is one that I will have many more times in the future. What caught my attention most in this video, were the changes in emotions on both ends of  the line as the call progressed. I must say all in all, ReligiousFiction does a great job here although her commentary on the conversation doesn't seem to suggest that she thinks so. If every future conversation I had with a believer followed this script, I would be extremely happy.

"I don't have any supernatural beliefs"

One thing I learnt from listening to this exchange, was a new way to break the news to a friend in faith that I no longer believe in God. ReligiousFiction says that she, " No longer has any supernatural beliefs." I like this statement. It serves two important purposes. Firstly, it diverts attention from disbelief in THEIR God. It makes the point that you have made a judgement on an entire category of beings and it just happened that Yahweh and Jesus got swept away in the tide. It also emphasises that belief in God is a belief in the supernatural. To many people this may appear obvious, but I can assure you that this is not how it is seen by a lot of believers. I have come across quite a few Christians in Barbados who have told me that they don't believe in the supernatural. They go on to give a laundry list of phenomena that they consider fake. Ghosts, spirits, vampires, werewolves, mediums, haunted houses, psychics, telepaths and other spooks. It never occurs to them that their God is a supernatural entity too.They also don't realise that spirits and ghosts  haunt their own religion. Somehow the mere action of putting the word 'Holy' in front, makes these entities part of the natural world order.

When they talk about their dismissal of things supernatural, they also seem to forget this popular song we sing in many Caribbean churches. Part of it goes like this:

" Super, super, super, super, super ,super, super, super, supernatural power, power."

I taught this song to a Christian friend in Canada. He laughed uncontrollably at this line, probably conjuring up images in his head of a Jesus with a cape and a big 'S' on his chest leaping over buildings. It was only then I realised that it was indeed a pretty ridiculous idea. Little did that friend know that he was laughing at his own belief system. In due course, I learned there was much more to laugh at within the faith, that of course is another story. The point is that going the 'rejection of the supernatural' route forces theists to see how God fits with the other super heroes, without resorting to the belittling strategy of telling them their saviour is no different from a leprechaun.



Apart from recognising the super piece of advice, I considered the video important in that it showed an atheist being emotionally torn about  whether or not to take part in a religious activity. Atheist videos on youtube  tend to be filled with rants on how destructive faith is and how religious people just need to wake up and use their  brain. Other videos that take a softer approach, go through the logic step by step to demonstrate where the fallacies are and show how faith just doesn't add up in the end. In  these cases, atheists can come across as persons that only care about logic, reason and evidence while viewing emotion as anathema. Any suggestion that there is emotional value in religion  is dismissed as being a poor reason for belief.  While I appreciate the strength of such arguments made by atheists, this approach  often leads to some unfortunate consequences. We get put into a category of having no heart; at least not one beyond the organ that pumps blood. This is because we often make every effort to maintain the idea that we are the thinkers while they are the feelers and dreamers.

Keeping the two searches separate

The truth is that atheists are driven by emotions just as much as theists. The difference is that we tend to apply the logic and evidence first to try to determine what is real. Afterwards, we search for meaning in life and causes that we think are worth fighting for or promoting within the context of that reality.So, for us there are two clear cut steps. For religious people the search for reality and the search for meaning in reality tend to be taken together and this is where everything becomes muddled. So, scientific theories are accepted partly on the basis of evidence but also on the basis of whether they give satisfactory answers to the ultimate questions of meaning. For them, finding reality is a compromise between two very different searches. Consequently, emotionally unsatisfactory theories such as the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution often take a hit.

It has been suggested that logic is like the steering wheel of a car and emotion the gas pedal. Step on the gas without the steering and you are likely to have a cataclysmic crash very early. Steer without pushing the gas and you are not likely to move very far. In life you need to have both in order to get to where you want. Indeed, we in the atheist movement that are activists are fueled by emotion, wanting to correct issues that we see as social injustices that either anger or sadden us deeply.
The phone conversation in this video shows  that emotions can also be like a brake pedal. There are times when the emotions cause us to feel awkward and uncertain about saying how we feel. The position of the atheist in the conversation in the video is one such situation. In spite of our recognition that the logic of our former belief system does not hold water, many of us still feel an emotional attachment having been involved in it for many years. In my case, the time I spent in church was a training ground for me in a number of ways. It was the first place I got the opportunity to speak in public before a large audience as I performed recitations from the time I was six years old and became a lay reader in later years. One of my proudest moments was memorising a lesson for one Sunday and stunning the entire congregation by delivering the entire passage without once looking down at the book opened in front of me.

Similarly memorable moments are there regarding my music. My skills as a performer honed in that environment, playing at many a harvest and church supper. I learnt aspects relating to teaching from leading Sunday School,Vacation Bible School and even adult bible study. I  learnt how to be a manager and negotiator as I led a church instrumental ensemble and once coached the church athletics team. All of these activities have shaped how I approach my professional and personal life. I  therefore feel a heaviness in my heart at times when I have to turn my back on church and say 'No more!'

Perhaps the most similar experience I had to ReligiousFiction was an email exchange I had with a  friend I used to play music with. This friend and I played for more than 15 years in Barbados as a duo. We played at churches all over the island and frequently entertained as we ministered to congregations with our lively Caribbean rhythms. People would come up afterwards and speak of how they could 'feel the spirit' while we were playing. That 'spirit' sometimes caused them to dance in pews and wave arms in the air. This year when I was in Barbados, I played in partnership with my friend again, back at one of the same churches. Things were different for me now, but I couldn't bring myself to speak to him of my change.  I just thought it might kill the vibe and I didn't want to risk that. I remember feeling the guilt minutes before I started playing. An excited lady from the congregation came up to me, hugged me and said, " So great to have you back in the land, we going to to have a great party in the house of the Lord tonight, we going to enjoy weself in Jesus name right David?" I just could not bring myself to say a word in reply and it left me with a hollow feeling.

I left Barbados days after that performance and although I successfully got through it, I  had an uneasy feeling about it all. I did not feel guilty about having played. I was glad to share my talents with old friends. My problem was that I did that without them knowing about the change in my life. I took the decision to send an email to the friend I had played with and give him the heads up. The gist of the correspondence was similar to how ReligiousFiction put it, except that I did not say that I was averse to performing in church again. Still, I remember feeling a tinge of nausea in my stomach as I sent that email. Even five minutes after, I wondered if it was worth it. Things got worse as weeks went by and I got no reply from him. I  had no idea what that silence meant. He eventually contacted me after more than a month telling me it was "only now beginning to sink in." It was great to hear him, but the fact that it took so long for him to even bring himself to say anything spoke volumes.

Stumbling across this youtube video brought back many of the feelings that I went through earlier this year. It reminded me that as far as my atheism is concerned I still had unfinished business. There are still good friends who I have not yet told personally that I am an atheist. So, on my facebook page yesterday I put this video up as a link. Perhaps it was my way of having vicariously, this same conversation with them. I must admit it helped me a lot and I feel as though I am now just about completely free. Since the posting, I have got some responses both from atheists and theists. Some have been surprised that I could have written so many blogposts on atheism and still have difficulty at times in telling people I don't believe.  If I am relying on logic, evidence and reason, I should just tell people how I  feel and not be worried about whether they like it or not. Some feel it is a  lack of conviction not to speak out boldly on every occasion.

I even get a hint from a few theists that these internal emotional conflicts mean that deep down, I DO believe in God. Of course they are way off the mark on that. What some  believers see as a lack of conviction, really reflects a desire on my part to spare their feelings as much as I can. However, I have to remember that most of these people will never know what it is like to be isolated in terms of religious belief and from that perspective it is hard to expect empathy.  All I can tell them at the end of it all, is that atheists have emotions too.

A Praisey Mindset: The Sunday School song that starts it all

Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelujah! Praisey the Lord!

There is no way that you could have grown up going to Sunday School in the Caribbean and not know this song. I know, I know it's "Praise ye" not "Praisey" but it was years after my early Sunday School days that I understood that. So, the song will always be called 'Praisey the Lord' as far as I am concerned. You may laugh, but I used to think that Praisey was just another name for God. After all, the Lord seemed to have so many others, God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Yahweh, Yeshua, Jesus, El Shaddai, Elohim, Saviour, Prince of Peace, the Alpha and Omega, why not Praisey? It made just as much sense as the other names at the time. There was even a period when I felt I had a personal relationship with 'Praisey'. Anyway as is the case with so many things you sing at church, the  meanings of words don't matter too much. So, I never asked for clarification.

Although there were other  tunes that could liven up a Sunday morning, none is engraved in my memory as much as 'Praisey the Lord.' It was a favourite of children and teachers alike . That secret weapon that any song leader could  introduce, certain in the knowledge that it would wake everybody up and have bodies moving in the pews. Even back in those days I was not certain that  the claim that Jesus was the saviour of the world  was true, but I knew that 'Praisey the Lord' could bring salvation to any boring Sunday school class.

It's interesting to look back and try to figure out why this song was always such a hit. ' Praisey the Lord' was by no means only for children either. Indeed, I can remember this song being launched in the middle of deanery youth services and even during  traditional Sunday morning 8 o'clock mass. I think what made the song so popular was that it was more than just a song. It was a fun game as well. Children, youths, adults and seniors  all like to play and that's what made 'Praisey the Lord' a winner.

The video above gives some indication of how you do 'Praisey the Lord.' Basically, that is how it went.  The congregation was divided into two halves. Generally each of the halves was assigned a song leader. One side of the church were labelled as team 'Hallelu'  and the other as
 'Praisey.' The introduction of the song would be played and the song leader would signal to the first side and they would  stand  and sing, "Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!"  They would then sit down and the other  side would stand and respond on cue with, "Praisey the Lord!" The leader would urge them to outdo the 'Hallelu' people in terms of volume. More often that not this was achieved. After that, battle lines were drawn, it was up to the 'Halellus' to raise the bar further and try to outdo the 'Praiseys' effort. And so as the song went on it got louder and louder and often faster and faster as people got more into it.

When the pace quickened it meant that you had to be lighter on your feet too, because you found yourself often back up in the air as soon as you sat down. So, if you didn't pay attention or were slow, you could get caught out standing for the wrong part, singing at the wrong time or missing your cue entirely.  Not surprisingly, as people sang faster and louder, tone and singing in key would go out the window. By the third or fourth 'Hallelujah' people were bellowing at the top of their voices, shouting like you would at a local fish market. Probably this was the only time as children that we were allowed to shout as loudly as our lungs would permit.  Believe you me, we stretched the envelope to the max. As a five year old it was simply astonishing to think you could get to that noise level without getting even so much as  a 'Shush' or 'finger on lip' from an adult in your midst. I suppose that was close enough to heaven for us.

The song could go for several rounds as people challenged themselves to take it up a notch next time. This meant that  the tune could easily last over 20 minutes . The climax was generally a rousing long held out ' Praaaaaaaiiiiiisey the Lord!'  Everyone joined in for that, even the 'Hallelus' who would reluctantly switch sides for the finale. Inevitably there would be some 'rebel' who would start up with another "Hallelu, Hallelu"and that would mean on for another lap, and the fun would continue. It was definitely hard to stop " Praisey the Lord" once in got going.

In recent times I seem to be remembering 'Praisey' a lot. It comes back to me regularly when I get into debates or discussions about God with Christians or listen to debates on podcasts or youtube. There is definitely a ' Praisey' mindset that seems to stay with you after Sunday School days.  I remember in my church days in Barbados writing two songs that actually gained some popularity on the gospel scene. One was called " Sing His Praises!" the other was called " Sing Hallelujah!" So I was definitely caught up in the 'praisey' fad myself. Today on Christian forums online you see  a lot of 'Praisiness' in evidence. Below is a fictional example, but it represents what you typically see.

Posted Message: I am happy to report that my daughter that had an asthma attack last night is now doing much better. The Lord is marvellous! Thank you all for your prayers. We must always give him praise.

Responder 1: Hallelujah, The Lord's name be praised!


Responder 2: He is worthy! Praise his holy name!


Responder 3: Hallelujah, Hallelujah!


Responder 4: Hallelu, Hallelujah, Praise his Name!


Responder 5: HALLELUJAH!!


Responder 6: HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!! PRAISE YE THE LORD


Responder 7: HALLELUJAH, HALLELUJAH!! HALLLELUJAH!!! THE LORD'S NAME BE PRAISED


Responder 8: PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIM!


Responder 9: PRAISE HIM!!! PRAISE HIM!! PRAISE HIM!!


Responder 10: PRAISE HIM!!!! PRAISE HIM !!!!!!PRAISE HIM!!!!!! PRAISE HIM!!!!!!


Responder 11: THE LORD IS SO GOOD! PRAISE, PRAISE PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIS NAME THE MOST HIGH!


Responder 12:  HAAAAALLLLLLLEEEEEEELUUUUJAH! PRAISE HIM!!

You can see clearly here the 'Praisey' influence that goes all those years back. The same two key words 'Hallelujah' and 'Praise'. Today in the 21st century, things have changed a bit. Instead of trying to drown out your neighbour with noise,  you add volume by using ALL CAPS or simply typing the word more times. To take things up an extra notch you bring in more exclamation marks!!!!!! and even bolding.  Then you can just elongate the words and repeat as much as you want. I saw someone actually post the message below, I am not kidding.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thankfully that person didn't bother to tack on 'Praise the Lord.' He would have probably needed a new laptop for that. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with believers using all the features available on their keyboard to get God's attention. It is clear that God is well into this internet age, he has millions of friends on facebook in spite of  the fact that he has no recent posts. I even heard a lady say that God downloads songs into her spirit. Not sure if he is using itunes but it is quite clear that the Lord is very open to working with the latest technology. Now it would appear that he has Steve Jobs himself to do the necessary updating.

I must admit that these things seem a bit comical to me, but in all seriousness, if you believe that God will hear you if you type more EMPHATICALLY, go right ahead. If you think it demonstrates your level of faith to your fellow believers when you do that, that is fine too. If you think that such proclamations in BOLD will bring unbelievers into the fold, that's OK too. If you believe in Him, no one should try to stop you from expressing yourself how you wish. So I can't say I am a fan of the atheists who respond to the 'Praisey' comments with "What the &*%#*@%*$&*%*$*%#@#!" It contributes nothing to the dialogue and only adds to keyboard suffering.

Where I have a problem is when the 'praisey' mindset finds its way into debates or discussions between atheists and theists regarding the existence of God. Similar to the way we did it when singing 'Praisey' as children, these debaters have specific words which the people on their side are required to say. They may 'hear' what the other side is saying, but it is not a matter of responding to an argument as much as it is restating what they said the time before. Maybe faster, in a louder voice in a different key but always the same message. Indeed, maybe they don't respond to atheist arguments because they assume what we are going to say. They think of us saying 'hallelu' and they just get up with 'praisey' all the time. And more often than not from a 'praisey' point of view they win hands down. There are more singing on their side than ours for sure, so we can't match them for sound. And just like the 'praiseys' in the Sunday School song they always seem to get the last word too.  The long held out phrase to end the discussion. It happens because often atheists get tired after a certain point, of making the same argument over and over without them  being addressed. We bow out once we realise we are not making headway. In a way, Christians make us play their game, for we end up being as repetitive as they are. We have to, because if they are not answering our points we end up having to restate them and it becomes as repetitive as "Hallelu."

The only difference is that we don't generally resort to turning up the decibels although we do try to change the rhythm and the tone as we go along, just to see if a different strategy will lead to better understanding. It seldom works, because they are only counting down the time as we talk, looking forward to springing up from their seats and shouting "Praisey the Lord" one more time.

So here's how the  'Praisey' mindset works in debates. The atheist makes a point the theists counters, the atheists counters the counter argument, the theists repeats original counter argument without any acknowledgement of directly previous counter argument from atheist. Atheist restates the previous counter argument that was not addressed by the theists last counter argument and the cycle continues. Sounds confusing? Here are two examples:

Praisey Argument One

Atheist:  I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. You are making the extraordinary claim that there is a supernatural being controlling everything in the world. The burden of proof is on you to give justification for that belief.

Theist: But where is your proof that God doesn't exist? You believe in science. I choose to live and praise my God. Science has not proved that there is no God.

Atheist: That is true, but the point I was making is that the burden of proof is on you, because you are making the God claim. It has to be like that, otherwise you couldn't say you didn't believe in fairies unless you could provide evidence for the non existence of fairies.

Theist: I am still waiting on your proof that your atheism is correct. You have not provided a shred of evidence on your side so far. Your position is just one of blind faith.

Atheist: No, it's not,  as I said before the burden of proof is not on the person who is challenging the claim. Atheism is not a faith anymore than 'off'is a TV channel. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Theist: Jeez, you just dance all over the place with a lot of fancy talk but you still have given me NOTHING! Not one piece of evidence to support your belief that no God exists. You expect me to take you seriously???? What is your evidence that God does not exist?

Atheist:  Again, I am saying to you that you are asking the wrong question. You are the one required to give support for your claim. I am not making any claim, my disbelief is due to lack of supporting evidence for your claim. Where is your evidence that Santa Claus is not real?

Theist: Well that does it. This conversation is over, you are not responding to me. Now you are answering my question with a question. You guys are so silly, no wonder God calls you FOOLS. Thank God I am not so blind to JESUS as you.YOU BETTER FALL ON YOUR KNEES WHEN HE COMES TO YOU.  All I can do is PRAY FOR YOU. OHHH PRAISE  THE LORD THANK GOD !

Praisey Argument  Two

 (This time the 'praisey' theist starts)

Theist: Oh praise the Lord! How can anybody look at the beauty of creation and deny that there is a God. It just doesn't make sense to me. They would have to be blind. .

Atheist: But the existence of the natural world is not evidence of anything other than the natural world. You can't just assume that God made nature and then claim that the existence of nature proves God, that's circular reasoning. You are assuming what you want to prove at the beginning. In any case if you think God made nature, then who made God? How do you account for him?

Theist: So who made creation then? How did all this get here? A design must have a designer? A painting must have a painter?

Atheist: Well,  we have ideas about origins of the universe through Big Bang cosmology but  still scientists don't have a clear idea of the state of the universe further back than the 'Planck time.' So, there are still many unanswered questions. I have to accept that I really don't know exactly  how everything got here, but a God doesn't help explain. Because you still have to explain his origins. You are just answering one mystery with another mystery.

Theist: Just as I thought. You don't know. I will ask you again. How can you get CREATION without a CREATOR? You think that all this came from nothing? When it comes down to it the answer that you atheists have to the big questions are " Don't have a clue, don't have a clue and don't have a clue."

Atheist: But you don't know either, you still haven't given an explanation for how your God got here. How did God come to be? Did he appear from nothing? You are making an argument from ignorance, putting in a God that you have no evidence to support. Then you claim that you know this God exists because of his 'creation.' Why do you assume that the universe was created?

Theist: You are so arrogant, now you are calling me ignorant. I can't understand why you keep denying God. How do you think you are able to breathe? Who gave you that oxygen? Who woke you up this morning? When was the last time you created a human being, MR. ATHEIST? You can't even do one millionth of what God can do. He created you, gave you life and a brain you could use and you use it to deny the existence of him who gave you everything. It's very sad. Why don't you just give God the Praise. ALL PRAISE AND GLORY ON TO HIM!

Atheist:  All those things are just assumptions. As I said before, you can't just assume that all of those things you mentioned were created by God if we are trying to establish whether God exists or not. You are just making bald assertions. All your arguments rest on the assumption that God's existence is fact. How can you know what God did if you can't even establish that God is? And we still haven't addressed the point about how God came to exist.

Theist: This is really ridiculous. You have no idea where anything came from and  yet you are rejecting my explanation that gives you all the answers you are looking for. God's creatures continue to choose darkness over light, blindness over sight and death over light. ALL CREATION TESTIFIES TO THE MAGNIFICENCE OF GOD. HE IS WORTHY, SO WORTHY, WORTHY TO BE PRAISED. I PRAY  that you will one day accept the LORD AS YOUR SAVIOUR!!! So that we can be  TOGETHER PRAISING GOD FOR ETERNITY IN HEAVEN!!!! SO, REPENT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!  HALLELUJAH PRAISE THE LORD MOST HIGH!!!



Well, what can I say?  These are the 'praisey' arguments we see and hear everyday. I have to say that in spite of  what Harold Camping may be saying about October 21st, I feel we will be stuck with these types of arguments for many years to come. We in the secular community just have to be patient and continue to find strategies for survival. It won't be that easy in this 'praisey' world we live in.

Atheist in the pew: The return to my church in Barbados

It was always going to be the real test. How would I handle the return to my home church in Barbados? Over the last two years in Canada I wondered how it would be. I had some friends who had told me that my atheism was culture dependent. They were convinced that my focus on reason and critical thinking was just because I was in Canada and had found a community of like minded people. Once back in Barbados with friends and family showing me the love of the Lord, I would revert  immediately to my old ways.

I knew that I could not avoid going to church on coming back to Barbados. In fact I was quite happy to go back to the place I once used to call my 'Jerusalem.' The question was when to go, I wasn't exactly in a hurry. In the end it turned out that it was not a decision I had to make . In the greatest of ironies, only minutes after making that  huge decision  to declare my atheism to the world that I talked about in my last blog post, I received a call from a close friend in Barbados who had heard I was coming into the island. She asked if I would play a solo for them on Sunday for the youth service. It was a strange feeling to say the least. She was talking to the 2009 version of me. The one that would give his time to play music to any organisation that had the spreading of the "good news" as its mandate. Her excitement on my return was palpable and I just could not say "no." In a way, I was happy that she asked me because it took away the uncertainty of when to return to church and it would be good to take part in the service like I had done so many times over the years.

The joy of being a part of it

I have reflected since my deconversion that the reason that so many people remain in their faith is because
they have things that they do in the church that keep them busy. Singing in the choir, serving at the altar, sitting on the church council, all require time, effort and commitment. Once you are doing these things there is little time to think about the philosophy or doctrine. There is satisfaction in church from simply taking on a task, doing it well and being recognised for it. It is very much like how we are at work. We often follow what we are assigned to do with little thought as to even whether we ought to have been given the project in the first place. So, as a church musician I just wanted to give my best every time and make those people listening to me happy. When I succeeded there were few feelings more satisfying.

So there it was, I would be playing at church on my first Sunday back in Barbados.On the morning in question I felt more nervous than I had ever felt before on entering the church, perhaps with the exception of my wedding day. I suppose it was due to the fact that I had anticipated this moment so much. Some nerves went away when there were so many embraces of welcome I got from people that I had known years before.The warm greetings from brothers and sisters in the faith. The next thing that hit me as the 8:00 am starting hour came closer was the numbers. This was the usual 150 odd members that I had played in front of many times but it felt like so many more. I guess it was because it had been  a couple of years since I had performed solo in front of such a large number of people, yet it was just church, regular church. Much as people talk about the 'feel good' draw of religion so much of the strength is in the raw numbers. Just being part of a community like that can lift a person.

I looked around the church as it filled up and I couldn't help smiling. I realised how much I had visualised these images and sounds over the last year. Quite a few of the posts on this blog were written while I had this place firmly in mind. Indeed, the stories of one or two in the congregation were actually the basis for some of the writings. I wondered how they would feel if they knew that the story of their lives was being used to encourage people away from the faith.

Hopscotch through the pages

Well, before I knew it, the service was under way and the liturgy  proceeded just as I remembered. It was a weird feeling recognising that the familiar was now so unfamiliar. Those who grew up in Anglicanism know that one of the most challenging parts of the service is following in the book with the liturgy. It's a nightmare if you don't know your way around. Sometimes you are required to go from something like page 50 to120 then back to  page 76. However, today I just didn't bother to even open the book. It was not in protest or a demonstration of a lack of interest. I just wanted to listen to what was being said and take it in. It struck me that making following the service like a hopscotch game was another way to make the congregation not pay attention to what is on the page. It's difficult to think about what you are reading when you are trying to figure out what page to turn to next.

Robotic Liturgy

The first thing that caught my attention as the liturgy started was how dead and dreary everything seemed. The drone of the monotonous voices was like that of my refrigerator that I am hearing as I write this. I wondered  how I had managed to survive this every Sunday morning for so many years. I thought about that common christian apologetic that says God gave us free will because he doesn't want to create us to be like robots. But " Data" from the old Star Trek series would have been decidedly animated compared to what I was seeing here. In fact the first excitement I heard in the service was an exclamation from a parishioner after the recitation of the words " hallelujah, hallelujah" . " No!" she protested audibly under her breath. " We shouldn't be saying hallelujah during Lent!" I thought " Wow!" to myself. Apart from the lack of critical thinking that religion promotes it creates worry over things that are just so trivial.

Anyway all was not lost. We still had hymns, surely at least I could enjoy those. Yes, there were a couple of my favourites in there. Nice reflective tunes that I had sung many times before and always enjoyed. But again, today was different. No matter how much I wanted to, I couldn't bring myself to say that " He is the Potter I am the clay" or " all other ground is sinking sand."I now recognised that so many of these hymns were songs of total submission. You are basically saying to God, " Please do all my thinking for me." So in order to enjoy the tunes and not say something against my beliefs, I just sang the hymns to "la-la" right through. Must have really confused the congregation around me. Too bad though, it was really the best that I could do.

Was the  sermon meant for me?

Well, the sermon was the next thing on the cards. It was a long time since I had heard one of these. I wondered if it would resonate with me at all. The theme was escaping from 'inside the box'. The pastor's point  was that  so many of us think or behave in certain ways because society or cultures pressure us to be like that. He challenged the congregation to not let society put them 'in boxes' and confine their way of thinking. My jaw dropped. Could this message have been any more applicable to me? I was just given in the first twenty minutes of his sermon a synopsis of exactly what I had done. I had made that decision to not let my culture or background confine what I thought or believed. How great to have such a ringing endorsement this Sunday morning. Hey, I felt like shouting " Hallelujah!" myself.

Unfortunately the message didn't end there. Yes, there is always a catch in Christianity. According to the reverend, God was the only one capable of taking you 'out of the box.' No, he didn't say God can help us escape our boxes, he said God was the only one that could move us. God had all the power and we could only get out of boxes if it was His will to take us out. If he wanted to, he could miraculously change us regardless of our internal attitudes or mindset. He could give us the strength. In summary, we need to take responsibility for improving ourselves but at the same time God is the only one who is capable of making us better people. I think this is the core contradiction that appears in almost all religions. The message that tells us that we CAN do it and we CAN'T do it at the same time.

Anyway, I had to cut my analysis short because the moment of truth was at hand. It was my turn to face the congregation. My role in the service was to play the song for " reflection." Something that would put the congregation in the mood to prayerfully consider the message they had just heard. It was a very poignant moment when I walked up to the front to render the " Ave Maria." Caught up in the emotion of the moment I began to play. I had only arrived in Barbados days earlier so there was no chance to arrange any accompaniment so the sound of my clarinet was the only sound breaking the silence. I took my time and really tried to put out of my mind thoughts of what I believed or didn't believe  now. I reminisced on how often I had played this song for these very people and was still happy that in spite of moving away from them on a spiritual level I could still connect with them personally through the music. The tone of a clarinet note after all does not come combined with doctrine or dogma.
 
The note that changed the way I played


It seemed that a sea of these thoughts and reflections were going through my mind while I was playing, then something happened that just broke the flow of everything. Out of nowhere, a shrill high pitch squeak came out of my instrument. It was a bit of a shock to the system for me, I can't remember  ever playing a note over the twenty plus years I performed in that church that went awry so badly. Anyway, that immediately got me to put all the thoughts of the enormity of the occasion out of my head and just concentrate on playing the music,  getting my technique right and making sure I finished the piece with no further flaws. So from that moment on it was all about getting the notes right. I am delighted to say that it all went beautifully after that point and the mistake I made earlier in the piece was probably the wake up that I needed. The congregation it seemed were quite happy with what they had seen and heard. Interestingly no-one seemed to react to the mistake at all. Maybe they didn't hear it or perhaps they just didn't think it was a big deal. I sat back down after doing my bit in the service and was still thinking about THAT  note. Maybe I just got carried away and pushed it too hard. I could have taken a bit more time to warm up, perhaps it was partly the change in weather conditions from Canada and not taking enough time to assess the reed I was using.

It struck me as I kept thinking, that what happened during the song I just rendered was not unlike what had happened over my life coming out of faith. The piece I had just played had two parts divided by that screeching note. Similarly in my faith journey I had been brought to a screeching halt when I realised the disharmony between faith and reason. The realisation that God was not real was truly the note that had broken the peace back then.

Before I came to that monumental moment of disbelief I was, just like I did this morning, playing on the emotion of it all. I was simply feeling the music. After the dissonance came during the music I had just played,  I changed my priorities and concentrated on getting the technical details right. That was the same thing that happened when I realised that something was wrong in my belief system, I changed to concentrate on what technically made sense rather than getting taken up by emotion. That is not to say that concentrating on technical details meant throwing emotion out of the window. Indeed, this morning when I started to focus on the notes themselves, it was with a view of using them to create emotion. In determining what notes to lengthen and by how much, how long to to play in the lower register or when to bring in the diminuendos I was consciously creating the emotion of the music for the enjoyment of the listener rather than just playing by feel without thinking. The music, I hope, was beautiful both at the beginning and the end. And so it is when we compare living by faith with living without it. The output at the end of the day is just as sweet when we switch the melody and allow the mind to lead the heart.

Happy to play along

Later in the service I decided to play along with some of the hymns with the organist.  It gave me the chance not to have to sing the songs , the lyrics of most of them were now problematic for me. It gave me also the opportunity  to enjoy my playing and make up for the earlier error and finally it gave me a chance to be doing something during the communion so that my lack of participation  in the sacrament was not conspicuous. This was a relief, because I really thought I would not be being true to myself if I went up to partake of the 'body and blood 'of Jesus. At the same time I didn't want to create any controversy by refusing to go up to the altar when ushered to do so.

All in all things went well in the service after that, not withstanding the final hymn being the very famous but doctrinally disturbing, ' Onward Christian Soldiers Marching as to War.' Still an exciting tune to play though, and of course very stirring as so many songs written for the military are. I did feel a bit guilty for enjoying playing it so much, but there is little we can do to curb our bodies natural response to music. Well at least when it comes to us people of  Caribbean descent.

Final Thoughts

So, that was the story. It wasn't so bad being an atheist in the pew after all. And for those people who were skeptical about my skepticism in the face of my home religion and church community, I am happy to report that I have passed that test. Absolutely no desire to return to 'faithland.' My abiding image of the morning will be the looks on the faces of the congregation during the sermon. People really looked like there were just bodies in pews. No smiles on faces, no nodding of agreement  if they liked a  point being made or concerned looks on faces if they couldn't follow the line of argument, no notes being kept in order to ask questions after the talk was over.  That is the kind of listener behaviour I am used to now when I hear speakers in Canada. There was none of that here today. It was as if the congregation were in some sort of adult detention.  Being forced to listen to and recite lines now in order be allowed to play in heaven later. It just seems so sad  to spend so many hours of a life so short doing something that is  giving you neither entertainment nor enlightenment.

There was one other moment in that service that will stay with me forever. It happened when I looked up at the cross which hangs high up on the wall in front of the church. Over the years, I had looked upon it regularly. It was something I used to ' lift up mine eyes'  to, for encouragement. Today, I almost  fell out of my chair observing a lady staring intensely at it while earnestly belting out one of  the hymns.

"Oh my God !" I thought to myself, " That woman is singing to a piece of wood!"