On page 198 of Robert Kiyosaki’s book Retire Young, Retire Rich, the fifth in the Rich Dad Poor Dad series of financial guides, he is talking about constant growth: “Too many people are falling behind because the information in their head is ancient history or they cling to answers that were right yesterday, but wrong today.”
Too many of us prefer the comfort and security of the past to the excitement and discovery that forges the future. To maintain allegiance to the past in the face of contrary trends leaves us behind in a changing world. Humans are natural explorers. While many are content to remain on shore in sheltered surroundings there are those who need to know what lies beyond the horizon. From the African diaspora of our hominid ancestors to the launch of the Sputnik spacecraft humans have continued to expand our frontiers. We have landed spacecraft on Mars and smashed them into comets to learn more about our universe. We don’t stop. We won’t stop. Sometimes the information gathered challenges old beliefs about our world. In science, we are quick to change our view to fit the facts.
In other areas of human activity some of us reject new knowledge because it conflicts with cherished beliefs. We would rather be tied to and defend erroneous creeds rather than to admit that the considered wisdom of the past has been mistaken. It is unfortunate that the false certainty of belief has not been replaced by the attitude of the explorer. The explorer is not afraid of what will be found and accepts as a hazard of the discovery process that past learning may need to be revised in the face of fresh findings. To survive as relevant, religion must learn to toss dogma when it is confronted with conflicting evidence. We must better learn to recognize mythology.
Religion has been slow and loathe to adopt the explorers’ outlook because it is restrained by ancient books that are supposed to report the word of a venerable, omniscient god. Contrary evidence must be explained away or a new spin must be put on a patriarchal story in order to save the revered deity from a trip to oblivion. Given the deadly religious fanaticism that we are witnessing in modern times would it not be prudent for the pious to raise their heads, get off their knees and recognize the mythology contained in the books of the Lord’s favorites.
Fanatics cling to messages of righteous indignation on the part of their deity and seek to earn brownie points as they carry out his wrath against earth bound transgressors. They are misguided by the irrational hatreds of a being created to control the behaviour of members of a common tradition. This is the way WE do things and there are plenty of eager people around to police the word of god. Unfortunately, in the process of enforcement, our humanity is lost. In a rude ruse that exposes their underlying faithlessness some feared leaders encourage the young to demonstrate their loyalty to the deity by sending pieces of themselves and the enemy hurtling His way. Notice that the feared leaders do not make the same sacrifice. They prefer to joke about their success as suicide brokers, plan the next attack and recruit the next victim. Idealistic youth are happy to be the prey. The world is absurd.
Isn’t it better to banish the banshee and pay allegiance to the scientific method as a guide to human action.?When we recognize that nature creates us on a continuum of physical and mental qualities and not as morally superior/inferior beings we can begin to behave in a humane manner toward those whom NATURE has deposited on the fringes of the bell curve of human traits.
Biblical literalists are forced to defend some inane beliefs and inhumane practices. The earth is flat. Slavery is OK. Women are second class citizens. Witches should be burned at the stake. The earth is the center of the universe. The sun goes around the earth. Homosexuality is an abomination.
People who believe(d) those things are being left behind. The modern world will consider them irrelevant and pass them by. Some of those who are ignored will blow up the innocent and themselves to try to grab some attention and futilely try to stop the progress. We brake for Bible
literacy.
But, as Yoda might put it: explorers we are. Modern science presents the literalist and the not so literal theist with an additional list of conundrums for her belief system. Stem cells, genetically modified food and cloning are areas of study that spring to mind. What would a god say about those? We have the internet, PDAs, cell phones and MP3 players. We have no time for ancient mythology. Modern superheroes like Superman, Batman, Spiderman and Laura Croft are more exciting. At least they arrive in the nick of time once in a while. When we would like God to show up He always seems to be on vacation...
Women demand equal rights, gays follow suit. Harry Potter books sell millions of copies. It is a nightmare for theists. They can barely keep up. The reinterpretations fly around the internet. Fundamentalists put their foot down and say Stop! Liberal theologians continually redefine their god to accept what is perceived to be the humane thing to do. It is practical to have such a malleable deity. What He really meant was...
How does a theist deal with a putty god that can change His nature to suit the contemporary challenge of the moment? Homosexuals are abominable. Well, maybe they aren’t so bad after all. After all, God did create the mechanism for their creation. Why does God need homosexuals?
This question seems inappropriate so perhaps a better inference is that there is no god and that evolution produces that bell curve of human traits that land some people in the homosexual category just as some other people land in the males with breasts category. Nature is not neat; the human family is diverse.
Re-read paragraph one.
Contrary to Timothy LeHaye it is not the wrong believer who will be left behind with the advent of the rapture; it is the disciple who will be left behind with the progress of human civilisation. Modern ideas will rupture the rapture and good-bye we won’t wave.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Endorsing Atheism
The following letter appeared in USA Today online for June 30, 2005 after the US
Supreme Court decisions regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in Texas and
Kentucky.
Displays should stand
I'm disappointed with the Supreme Court's rulings that ban the Ten Commandments from
courthouses in some circumstances ("Court to politicians: Thou shalt not promote religion," Our view, The Ten Commandments debate, Tuesday).
In popularizing the phrase "separation of church and state" in 1802, Thomas Jefferson didn't intend that social and political issues be divorced from codes of morality. He merely meant that government is prevented from establishing one church as the "official" religion.
The Ten Commandments are not the private domain of any one church. On the contrary, they are universal principles that already existed in the first democracy of ancient Greece, albeit in a primitive form, according to what the ancients called the "unwritten law."
The U.S. government would not, therefore, be endorsing one religion were it to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courthouses and on public property. In fact, it would be endorsing atheism were it to outlaw the public display of the Ten Commandments. Such an endorsement of one belief system — in this case, atheism — is what the Founding Fathers were really against.
Paul Kokoski, Hamilton, Ontario
The reasoning in the above letter does not allow for a position of state neutrality on the question of religion. It tries to equate neutrality on the part of the government with the advocacy of the position opposed to that of the writer. It is if the writer is not aware of the concept of a referee who takes neither side but tries to adjudicate fairly according to the rules of the game.
Some theists would like to tilt the rules in their favor and then have the government umpire the laws. This is like declaring that the Toronto Blue Jays must score two runs for every one that the New York Yankees score before they can be declared the winner of the game. Now, play ball!
If the Swiss are neutral it means that they do not pick sides.
If the State were to endorse atheism it would mean that they would ban all forms of religion or open State proceedings with a saying that mocked God or actively take other steps to make it difficult for religious people to practise their beliefs. In a democracy, they do not nor should they.
Supreme Court decisions regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in Texas and
Kentucky.
Displays should stand
I'm disappointed with the Supreme Court's rulings that ban the Ten Commandments from
courthouses in some circumstances ("Court to politicians: Thou shalt not promote religion," Our view, The Ten Commandments debate, Tuesday).
In popularizing the phrase "separation of church and state" in 1802, Thomas Jefferson didn't intend that social and political issues be divorced from codes of morality. He merely meant that government is prevented from establishing one church as the "official" religion.
The Ten Commandments are not the private domain of any one church. On the contrary, they are universal principles that already existed in the first democracy of ancient Greece, albeit in a primitive form, according to what the ancients called the "unwritten law."
The U.S. government would not, therefore, be endorsing one religion were it to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courthouses and on public property. In fact, it would be endorsing atheism were it to outlaw the public display of the Ten Commandments. Such an endorsement of one belief system — in this case, atheism — is what the Founding Fathers were really against.
Paul Kokoski, Hamilton, Ontario
The reasoning in the above letter does not allow for a position of state neutrality on the question of religion. It tries to equate neutrality on the part of the government with the advocacy of the position opposed to that of the writer. It is if the writer is not aware of the concept of a referee who takes neither side but tries to adjudicate fairly according to the rules of the game.
Some theists would like to tilt the rules in their favor and then have the government umpire the laws. This is like declaring that the Toronto Blue Jays must score two runs for every one that the New York Yankees score before they can be declared the winner of the game. Now, play ball!
If the Swiss are neutral it means that they do not pick sides.
If the State were to endorse atheism it would mean that they would ban all forms of religion or open State proceedings with a saying that mocked God or actively take other steps to make it difficult for religious people to practise their beliefs. In a democracy, they do not nor should they.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
