Stains that just won't come out

I think it's the dream of many atheists. The use of the tool of logic to chip away at a person's belief so that eventually they abandon faith and lean instead on reason. Often I hear atheists' excitement when they make a religious person start to doubt. They believe that this is the first step to out and out non belief. I am quickly realising that this is usually not the case. I think it's important to keep pushing people into looking at the logic of their beliefs, since many will never do so on their own. I personally find it fun and it can get people to engage in more critical thinking which is important in all aspects of life. Guy P. Harrison in his book, ' 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God' does a great job in breaking down the fallacies in theists' reasoning. However, I recognise that people can live with serious doubts for years without ever getting to the point where they accept that belief in a God is unjustified. I myself was a doubting Christian for more than 20 years.

I think the problem is that whereas many atheists see questioning a believer's dogma as leading to the eventual collapse of their wall of faith, religious people tend to view the contradictions, questionable morals and scientific implausibilities pointed out by atheists like stains on a carpet. Stains that must be immediately removed. Doubts are not things to make them think twice about religion, they are nuisances that need to be eliminated so that they can get back to worshipping their God in peace.

Many of us know that getting stains out of a carpet is an onerous task. Blood stains are often the worst, they leave a deep colour and are extremely hard to cover up. Surprisingly, many Christians don't see, until skeptics point them out, that there are blood stains all over the fabric of their faith. Stains seen through things like the order from God to kill the Amalakites, the numerous animals sacrificed whose burnt blood is "pleasing to Yahweh", the negotiated sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, the plagues of the first borns in the exodus story, the genocide of the global flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah . All this on just the first half of the carpet!

Beyond these, there are other more subtle but just as persistent stains. There are logical contradictions in the gaps between between the carpet's threads that jump out at you when you look at the fine details. Contradictions that hold that prayers of request from believers have power to influence God but still insist God has a plan set from the beginning of time that cannot be altered by mere humans. When you step back a little further other contradictions enter your field of view, such as the one that holds that God is everywhere and has been with us from the beginning, yet is undetectable to us since he exists entirely outside of space and time. These stains, may not be as horrible as those bloody ones but they are pesky little annoyances nonetheless.

On the surface, believers and non believers admit that regardless of their genesis all these stains are ugly, but Christians are confident they can fight them. They just know that they must be some "solution in a bottle" that can work. So, they hurry off to the " Apologetics Hardware Store" to find the right concoction. There are many brands you can get off-the-shelf sold by popular distributors such as Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell and C. S Lewis. More recently Christians have been opting to order their " Apologetic Solutions" online. Whatever the case, the believers always seem to have faith that pouring these neatly packaged arguments on the stains will make them go away like the magic of Oxyclean. But, just like the late night infomercials the cleaning agents never quite work as advertised.

One of the popular "apologetic solutions" is known as " Might Makes Right." This, the marketers claim can deal with most stains, the idea is that God can do whatever he wants because he is God. If God feels that a people should be wiped out who are we to question? Well, it doesn't take long after application to realise that this one just doesn't penetrate through the stain even though it's a powerful concentrate. Having ultimate power does not make every action you take good. Might does not make right after all. So that's a solution they always have to take back for a refund. Still, the Christians keep trying, but the frustrating thing is that rather than stains coming out, more and more stains appear in the process. If an apologetic solution removes one stain it inevitably creates another one, which we atheists are always right on hand to point out.





The fact is that the more we show them the stains the harder they work to get them out and this constant cleaning makes them more determined to keep the carpet. This is exactly the opposite response that the we atheist "carpet inspectors" are hoping for. It often takes them a while but eventually the theist will realise what we have been saying all along. "Them stains just ain't coming out." So we say to them, "Now you'll throw it out right?" No! The stains suddenly change their character and become a part of the carpet that the believer admires. They tell us that every stain is a mystery and mysteries are beautiful. It is just amazing that whatever they do to the stains they never disappear. They say that the whole experience reminds them how weak and lacking in understanding they are as humans, but it illustrates how great God is in comparison. For, he could remove all those stains with just a simple wave of his hand and he of course will do just that, when he's ready, in his time. They go on to remind us that indeed Jesus removes stains every Sunday at church. Doesn't the priest say he removes from us every stain of sin? If God can remove sin stains he can also remove trivial stains like logical contradictions. From carpentry to carpetry, Jesus can make any living room perfect.


So, the end result is that their stained carpet will stay. Well, at least most of the time. There are some shrewd entrepreneurs that will watch the failed stain removals and offer the believer a quick remedy. They will sell the disappointed Christian a brand new carpet which they will guarantee is stain resistant. It could be a a Muslim "prayer mat" carpet, a Mormon gold plated carpet or the Adventist "seven day wonder" carpet. At first the believer feels great about having a new product that is stain free. Predictably,the euphoria doesn't last as they soon realise that the new is just like the old. The colours may be different, the texture smoother but the logical contradictions are still there along with the same questionable morals. Still, many will keep changing their carpets all through their lifetime, some even change back and never get satisfaction. Hours cleaning and hiring experts but no results. It's just stain after stain after stain.

So, what can the non believer do about this irrational love of stained carpets? Well, some have tried going the hard way. Recently the American Atheists have tried to pull the carpet straight from under the believers feet with statements like, "You know it's a myth" or " You know they are all scams." These no doubt cause pain when the faithful topple haplessly to the ground. The fall does bring some to face reality, but in other cases it creates animosity to those that induced the fall. So results are likely to be mixed.


Perhaps, the best thing we atheists can do is to invite the faithful to visit our homes and see our carpetless abodes, with a framed message on the wall simply saying " We are good without God." We can let them know that despite what Disney may say, there is nothing magical about a carpet. In our homes, they will see that the floor may be hard and cold but we don't have to worry about stains. We have no cushion under our feet to make us feel protected, nothing we can use to sweep things we don't like under, but we have reason to believe that we are standing on solid ground.

My first atheist Christmas

Well, I've just completed my first atheist Christmas . The American Atheists' billboard on the left is absolutely right. I have known it was a myth for many years now, but this year I was truly able to celebrate the season rather than just the son. It has been a time for me of much reflection as I wondered whether I would get the same buzz over the festivities as I did when I was in the church. Would I yearn for the church bells and the merry organ? Would the emotion of the season get to me and would the call to "come let us adore him" be too much to resist? It hit me sometime in early December that I didn't really know how to do Christmas as an atheist.

I am learning everyday as a new member of the "non believers" club, that the rule of thumb is there is no rule of thumb. Some atheists embrace the myth fully and celebrate as strongly as any born again Christian, because it's what they grew up with and love. Others down play the sacred but fully embrace the jingle bells, ho-ho-ho, Santa and gift giving. Then there are the "grinches" who just can't stand to hear even a carol on the radio. There's maybe a silent majority who just shrug their shoulders and live life as usual seeing no reason for a season even if it's to celebrate reason. Then there are some free spirits that have told me there's no need for reason while sharing a beer and that free thinking and free drinking go hand in hand.

So, what did this all mean? It meant I had to make my own holiday, decide what was in and what was out for me . In the end it was a pretty typical Christmas, some getting together with friends, a little gift giving. I didn't do church but I did make a point of listening to some of my favourite carols on Christmas Day and yes I included " Hark the Herald" and " O Come all ye faithful." I wondered how I would feel inside listening to these tunes now. Reflecting on lyrics that I now clearly accept refer to the triumphal arrival of an imaginary saviour. But it didn't matter that morning, I was able to suspend my disbelief for at least a few moments and get a bit of that emotional lift that I have always got from those songs. I did have to recognise the feelings for what they were, which were as another song says" nothing more than feelings." But it was ok, just a break to enjoy something purely coming from inside me. It was not evidence of a supreme being smiling down and warming my soul, it was all chemicals and neurons, but I didn't care. Anyway, I supposed this means I still kept " the baby" in Christmas and didn't throw him out with the bathwater , so to speak. I now feel that celebrating the Christ myth at Christmas is fine.

My view is that many of the religious rituals are ok so long as you recognise what the reality is. I smiled when I heard about the " You know it's a myth" billboard because I knew it would be seen as a great insult by the faithful. But, why should it be? Myths can be very powerful stories that can teach us so much about ourselves. They can inspire, as indeed many great works of fiction do. Myths can give great insight into the culture of a people and what they truly value. A myth surrounding birth is a great metaphor encouraging us to start afresh with renewed vigour in whatever we are doing in our lives. The fact that the festival coincides with the meteorological "new sun birth" of the winter solstice and the new calendar year, doesn't dilute this message it actually reinforces it. So, long live Christmas and all the other end of year festivals! We really can't have too many.

Well, what lies ahead in 2011? I guess it's time for the resolutions. I am happy to say I kept my 2010 one, which was to publicly identify myself as an atheist. Though I am not fully "out" I am well on my way. After all, this time last year nobody on the outside knew. Today I have a number of atheist friends in my local circle and lots more in the online world. I thank all of you who have been part of my journey in 2010. I can only hope that in 2011 we all grow stronger in our lack of faith with every passing day.

Undue pressure on polite pig

This year there is a character trying to make his way into the hearts of children in Barbados and it's not jolly old St. Nicholas. His name is Percy; Polite Percy. Yes, the government's National Initiative for Service Excellence (NISE) in Barbados has launched this mascot as part of a promotion to encourage the nation to be more mannerly. In short, say "please" and "thank you" and keep the smiles on.

I have to say that I am all in favour of promoting good behaviour. However I had to wonder if emphasis is on the right place when I heard a discussion on television bemoaning that it is a shame that young people are using the texting shortcut" thnx" instead of spelling out the word "thanks" when they communicate. For me, service excellence is not only about saying " good morning, how are you today?" It is about giving the client or customer what they ask for as efficiently as possible. We can all attest to the fact that those automated messages that tell us how important we are, thank us continually for "holding on" and beg us to "please wait a little longer" tend to rub salt in the wound rather than cheer us up. So, hopefully NISE will look at service in a broader sense as time goes on.

Having reflected on Polite Percy as an outsider now living in Canada, it didn't surprise me that Barbadians at home also had some reservations about the program. What opened my eyes a bit though was the reasons I heard for their disapproval. It wasn't that there was too much emphasis on the cosmetic rather than getting to the root of service excellence. It wasn't that in difficult economic times government should put its emphasis on more critical programs. What I have been seeing on facebook comments and local letters to the editor is disgust that NISE chose a pig as a mascot to promote good behaviour. I must admit that this never even crossed my mind when I first heard about Percy. I thought his name was a nice alliteration and children tend to respond to those things. Still, maybe the people protesting had a point. At school if you pushed in front of the line in the canteen you were commonly called a " bore pig" and many of the bad behaved boys coming in class after running around the pasture were accused of " sweating like a pig." It's true, a pig was never something you looked to as a model of behaviour. Eventually NISE responded to the criticisms by saying that the whole point of Percy was to show that even a pig could be reformed to become polite.

I thought long and hard about the objections of the public and about the government's response. The more I reflect the more I feel that there was a great teachable moment lost here. Why do we associate a pig with bad behaviour? Is it something based in fact? They might be out there, but I have not read any comparative animal behaviour studies that suggest that pigs are any worse in their conduct than other animals. I am sure cows, goats, horses, ducks and many other farm animals can be just as feisty, especially when provoked. No, the pig association with bad behaviour is primarily cultural, a stereotype essentially. It would have been great if NISE had instead responded with something like the following:

"We know that traditionally the pig has been associated with bad behaviour in our culture. However, we should all be careful at how we put labels on categories of things, stereotyping is not a good thing. Instead of looking at Percy, let's take a look within ourselves and see whether the negative associations we make in life, often without thinking, are really fair."

I know many will think that this is taking things too far. After all, we are only talking about a pig here. I disagree, it's about mindset and of course we do exactly the same thing when it comes to humans. We have seen this "pig" come in many forms over the years, black people, women, disabled, immigrants from neighbouring countries. Percy is the latest in a long list. What do we do when one of these "pigs" defies our expectations in a positive way? We do just like what NISE did. We take the individual out of the group and say he or she is exceptional. One that has risen above the others in the herd. We exalt the individual but our prejudices regarding the group remain. It goes without saying that as a non believer I am one of those most detested "pigs." "Even an atheist can be a moral person," we have all heard it. Just like the popular " even a caveman could do it." In all these cases you excel inspite of being part of marginalised group "X." Once we keep doing this, prejudices in society in its many forms will always remain.

This week articles like this one and this one in the Barbados Nation have distressingly emphasised this point. Here, the "pig" in the crosshairs is the homosexual. All the clergy in the two articles claim with absolute certainty that homosexuality is a sickness that needs a cure, having nothing to back them up other than " My God-book tells me so."  They go on to pat themselves on the back, proclaiming they are being tolerant for wishing to help homosexuals turn from their "dirty" ways. They no doubt think gays too can become reformed like Percy and one day teach others about good behaviour; of course in this case the sexual kind.

My word to Percy, is to hang in there. I congratulate you for keeping your composure in the face of such unwarranted pig persecution from the public. If I were you I know I would be a pretty peeved Percy. As I said before I can't help you because my species is probably even more despised than yours. However maybe YOU, being a specialist in politeness, can help ME. You see, I just can't seem to find a polite way to tell the people in Barbados that the God whom they love, serve and worship is no more real than you.

Great to be Independent

Today is Independence Day in Barbados. The island has reached 44 years of being free of British rule. It's one more year that I won't be there to join in the celebrations which may mean a little bit more than usual since this year has undoubtedly been a challenging one for the population. Congratulations are therefore in order for all "Bajans" at home and abroad.

For me, I can't help but reflect on my own journey to independence over the last year. I see myself as having broken ties every bit as significant as the one my country . It's as if my flag with the big Scarlet " A" is being raised as I watch the lowering of the cross I bore and the crown I wore with pride for so long. Independence really is a great feeling!

Ghosts have us on the run again!

Well, just as I said it was quiet in the Caribbean, things have stirred up again. This time it's not a hurricane, it's something a lot more sinister. Yes, from Jamaica in the north to Trinidad in the south, the duppies are back. You can watch the Jamaica episode in the video above and read here about the Trinidad encounter which appears to have involved the devil himself.

These accounts always have two impacts on me. On the one hand the absurdity of these stories always provide welcome comic relief at the end of a long day. However, after watching I am always very scared. Not of the sceptres or malevolent beings described in the accounts but of the fact that people can treat stories like these as serious news items. People always ask what's the harm of religious beliefs, but just think of the media resources that are used to bring these stories into our homes. Makes you wonder how many real stories that could actually edify and educate are left on the cutting room floors.

Then again, shouldn't we keep an open mind? Many Christians will admit that the Jamaican boy, his family and his pastor, are either crazy or acting but then go on to say that there are still real spirits out there. It's almost like the fake ones make the belief in the "real" spirits more valid; much like how the many replicas of the Mona Lisa make the one that hangs in the Louvre even more invaluable. I have heard debate after debate where it is logically made clear that the burden of proof is always on the believer; the one making the supernatural claim whether it be for God, leprechauns, Santa Claus or the flying spaghetti monster. But that is not the world we live in, the unwritten rule of "social logic" suggests the burden of proof is on the person that is considered by society to hold the more outrageous position. This means the burden of proof is on us atheists, we can complain all we want but that is simply how it works. So by default we have to accept that some ghost, at least the holy one, is real.

What surprises me, is that if the bishop in Jamaica was so sure the ghost he encountered was real; is the haste with which he chased it away. It is unimaginable what the impact on the island would have been if he had managed to convince the ghost to stick around a bit longer. There didn't seem to be immediate danger to life, even the boy claimed that he had reached the point where he was able to laugh at his tormentor. In the worst case scenario, the perils of flying stones or knives seems a small price to pay for the opportunity of gaining potentially world altering knowledge. We had a really great chance to get an understanding of ghost behaviour and the supernatural realm. The ghost might be a coward as the bishop suggested, but I am sure we could have elicited an interview if we had been more patient.We could have asked the demon so many questions. Where the hell did you come from? Do you work for the devil? Do you know the holy spirit? How powerful is God? Have you ever been haunting around Rose Hall in Montego Bay? Are you involved in the demon possessions now going on at the Trinidad school?

Apart from the million dollars from the James Randi foundation for verified supernatural entities, there was certainly a Nobel Prize waiting for some fortunate doctoral student at the University of the West Indies. The tourism that would have been generated by marketing the place where the first ghost was positively identified could have potentially transformed Jamaica and even the wider Caribbean in the midst of harsh economic times .We could have led the world in the field of Ghost R&D the way we once did in the sport of cricket. Tragically, with the pouring of a bottle of "sanctified" olive oil bought from a Spanish Town grocery store that chance has been lost forever.

Nothing to write about

Well, things have settled down a little in the Caribbean. There has been thankfully no need for mass appeals to the gods for mercy since the ravaging storm Tomas and the illness and subsequent death of the Barbados prime minister. Things have also been relatively quiet on the international faith scene and there are no recent crazy believer statements on my facebook page. In short, there is nothing to write about. So, that's exactly what I thought I would do this week, write about nothing. It's fitting I think, because there is nothing that the faithful like more than telling us atheists that we are right about nothing. Moreover, I have found that religious people when debating with atheists tend to engage a lot in "nothingness" talk.

"How can you get something from nothing?" is eternally the theistic cry. You can bring your arsenal of arguments from physics, chemistry, paleontology, biology,cosmology, archaeology, geology or psychology to justify your position that God does not exist. It matters not to them, because they tell you that you simply can't get something from nothing. They go on to say we atheists believe in nothing and nothing could change our minds. I suppose given all of this it is no surprise that they should think we have nothing of substance to say.

It amazes me that religious people don't see that there is nothing in their argument. Firstly, I am not sure why they are so sure that there had to have been nothing to begin with. Lawrence Krause, a leading physicist, gave a fascinating lecture where he explains that what we consider "nothing" actually has more mass than all the stars, planets and other "somethings" put together. But I don't think we even need to go to a level as sophisticated as that to see the problems with the concept of "nothing." What is a "nothing"? I have certainly never seen one. In my experience "nothing" is used as a relative rather than an absolute term.

Whenever we say the words, " there is nothing" we mean that there is none of the thing or category of things which we are looking for. If we go into a room and state that we see nothing, it doesn't mean absolutely nothing. It may mean there is no furniture. However, the room might have a carpet on the floor or pictures hanging on the wall but it would still be defined as "empty". Of course at the molecular level the room is filled with gases and microbes. Going further down there are atoms with electrons, protons , quarks etc. If you are worried about having a cancer and go to a doctor who looks at an x ray and tells you he sees nothing; he is not telling you have no bones, tissue or muscle fibres.

We can apply this model conceptually to anything that we define as "nothing". Even if we speak of a vacuum, that is not a "nothing" because it still has particular properties and that makes it a "something." Indeed, once we can define a thing it is not a "nothing." In my mind a "nothing" would have to be something devoid of any properties or characteristics. Once we can define it, we have a "something." If we accept that the universe had a beginning, it would have to have existed at that point in some state "X." Even if it was a void that would still have to have some properties, some defining qualities that differentiate it from every other state. The more I think about it, I really don't think there is any such thing as "nothing." I don't believe in "nothing." So, there is one atheist myth debunked. In that respect God and "nothing" have a lot in common, both vacuous concepts. God is undefined because it can include everything while "nothing" is the obvious antithesis.

Once we recognise that the universe was in some state at the beginning, our "nothing" problem goes away. For we have any number of examples in nature where we see one state change in to another. In most of these cases we do not assert that an intelligent supernatural agent is needed in the explanation. At school I did countless chemistry experiments where changes of states occurred. You could get a precipitate salt forming from the mixing of an acid and alkaline solution, but these were never regarded as metaphysical mysteries. It was all natural, a consequence of the interaction between the chemicals which gave rise to something completely different. Indeed, what would be surprising in these experiments would be if you didn't get the product that you expected to get. That would be the mystery and in almost every case it was because you, the experimenter, made an error. Ironically, in such circumstances, it was you, the supposedly intelligent agent, that was getting in the way of nature. I think this analogy is interesting, perhaps the intervention of a God would have impeded nature and prevented the formation of a universe rather than the other way around . In any case, if no divine hand is needed to explain the appearance of colourful solutions or gelatinous precipitates in lab experiments why is a god needed to explain that "big bang reaction" at the beginning of time?

When we look through the universe we see changes that occur all the time; tectonic plates shifting, volcanoes erupting, stars exploding, black holes and dark matter affecting space and time. This is all part of this wondrous thing we call nature. Even though some people think it's all part of God's grand design, I have never heard anyone argue that God is needed to explode a star any more than he is needed to give a "push" at the top of a cliff to ensure a dropped stone reaches the earth below. But then comes the argument which is closely related to the "something from nothing" question. How can we get life from non life? This is a very strange question in light of what we have already said. We know that "life" and "non-life" are made up of all the same elements. We know that elements when they rearrange themselves can form things with different properties. Why are some people so adamant therefore that we can't get life from non life? Why don't they say it is impossible to get stars from non stars, precipitates from non precipitates, colour from non colour or a tsunami from a non tsunami? Why do we consider this thing called "life" so different that we regard it as outside of nature's capabilities?

That's the thing about religion, it makes us the most important thing in the world, rather than just one minuscule part of the many things nature does . We are the great "something" that could not be here unless nature had some help from the outside. We need to have been specially created by a God without whom we would of course be nothing.

But wait, I just remembered I had nothing to write today. Yet I am seeing eight paragraphs above this one. That's amazing ! Well theists, the existence of this blog post seems to suggest that something can come out of nothing after all.

Ernie and the invisible ice cream

One of my friends posted this video on facebook today. It brought back so many memories. Sesame Street was one of my favourite tv shows growing up and this sketch with Ernie and Lefty is definitely one of the classics. I highly recommend watching it now if you haven't before, because in watching it today, after reliving those great Ernie reactions, I saw for the first time that religion is written all over it.

Yes, that invisible ice cream cone, the one that could help you get away unscathed if you were unfortunate enough to encounter Louis the Lip. Ernie in this case is ever the skeptic. "Why would I need an invisible ice cream cone?" he asks. For in spite of the sinister tones used by Lefty in describing this Louis, Ernie confesses he has no idea who he is and obviously has never encountered him and certainly previously lived with no fears of this demon. This is evangelist meets non believer, substitute invisible saviour for invisible ice cream cone and there you have it.

Whenever I watch a video like this I always read the comments below to see what people now get from it so many years later. It's interesting that in this case everyone is saying " Good for you Ernie!" Delighted that Ernie was able to see through Lefty's scam play along with him for a while and then hit him with that devastating come back," I'll pay you with an invisible nickel." Back in my school days in Barbados, we would have said that Lefty really "get kill off."

A curious thing happens though when we move the scenario in the adult world of invisible deities. Suddenly the roles become reversed. Ernie is no longer the hero in the piece. Indeed, Ernie now becomes the naive one. "Of course you can't see an invisible God, he's invisible, that's what invisible means!!" We can all hear the faithful responding exactly like Lefty in this clip. They will say that Ernie is the close minded naturalist, believing only in what he can see touch and feel, not being open to experiencing the metaphysical. Obviously incapable of enjoying the spiritual things of life like the arts, music or poetry. Living oblivious to powerful emotions such as love and devoid of the humility that comes with observing the grandeur of nature.

The response to the evangelising Lefty might be a bit more complicated. Many may still see him as con man, but not because there are no such things as "invisible ice cream cones." It would be argued in many circles that Lefty just hasn't got the real one or that his emphasis on money making has obscured his ability to recognise the "true pure invisible ice cream." I love the part of the clip where Lefty asks Ernie what his favourite ice cream flavour is and instantly produces the desired "Banana Royale Tootsie Frootsie." At that moment we see the liberal Christian breaking through, flexible enough to give the masses the God that they want. "No you don't have to be baptised if you don't want to. Yes, you can eat pork, you'll still get to heaven." Oh, things are just so easy to  manipulate when you are working in the world of the invisible.

Continuing with the adult evangelist parallel, there will be those that will clearly see that "invisible ice creams" are ridiculous but will not be cheering for the Ernie in the scenario. They will lambaste Ernie for mocking Lefty's faith with his insensitive joke about paying for the ice cream with invisible money. Some will call Ernie a militant and say that even though Lefty might be delusional he has a right to have his beliefs respected especially if selling his "ice cream" gives him a strong sense of purpose in life. There may be some who will go out of their way to present evidence to show that Lefty does a lot of good in the community from the money he collects from his invisible trade. Maybe he has helped to give shelter to the homeless or feed the poor. If he takes a cut to purchase a Mercedes Benz for himself or build a church altar made of gold he should not be admonished.

Oh, how things change when we lose the innocence of childhood. Back then we could so easily see "Lefty the con-man" for who he was. We learnt the lesson that skepticism beats credulity in coping with a world filled with scammers of all types. But, alas we become adults and we forget. We so badly want to trust in the invisible. And this week in the Caribbean, most markedly, the invisibility of our God was there for all to see. We didn't see him when we asked for the prime minister of Barbados to be healed. He once again failed to appear as Hurricane Tomas made its way through our islands leaving widespread destruction of homes and some loss of life in St. Lucia. His invisibility powers have continued to be especially strong in the island of Haiti where he has been unseen during a trinity of events; a devastating earthquake, a cholera outbreak and now the arrival of Tomas.

Yes, it seems God's invisibility endureth forever. After much thought I think I agree with Ernie. Invisible money is fair exchange for an invisible product. I wish I could be as bold as Ernie though. I could just imagine myself laughing like him as people stared at me blankly while I dropped my invisible dollar into the collection plate.