A Big Rant

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="192" caption=" photo credit: buidl-lemmy"][/caption]

Recently, I heard a scenario that completely changed the way I look at life. I would like to share that scenario with you now and explain how deeply it has affected me.

If you could study 200 infants who were separated into 2 groups: those growing up in (reasonable) Fundamentalist, Evangelical Christian homes (group A), and the other half in Muslim homes (group B), you would find a very consistent result when they are 21. If you were to ask the children what religion they held to at 21, about half would be Christians, half would be Muslims, and the majority of their answers would be consistent with the beliefs of their parents.

Does the outcome of this scenario surprise you? It did not surprise me. Do you see anything disturbing about this scenario? I did. What I realized was that when children are young, they do not possess the reasoning capacity to make informed decisions regarding any complex topic, including religion. Would you expect parents to teach their 4-year-old's about the best economic policy? Why not? Well because they would not understand it, right? Why then is it acceptable and normal for parents to teach their young children about a topic as complicated and multivarious as religion? Shoot, even Christianity has dozens of different viewpoints on the Bible alone, and many of them are mutually exclusive!

Out of this, a reasonable conclusion can also be drawn. When children are young, they are very impressionable. So much so that they believe that there are monsters in the closet and under the bed, that Santa is real, and that if they put a baby tooth under their pillow, a magical fairy will give them money for it. Is it then unreasonable to say that a child, any child will be greatly impacted by the religion of their parents (given that the parents are not gibbering idiots, of course...)? I do not think that this is an unreasonable claim. If this were not true, we would find that the religion of the parents would not have a significant impact on the religion of the offspring. When parents teach their children about religion at a young age, the effects are essentially the same as those of brainwashing. No matter the religion (within reason), the children are very likely to follow it to some extent for their whole lives.

From this, I think that it is also reasonable to say that the reason that the vast majority of Americans claim to be Christians, yet so few of them show up for church services on Sunday mornings is that they were raised Christians, believed it for a while, then "fell away" when they matured and their subconscious realized that they didn't really believe it. Consciously though, they still felt connected to Christianity, but they were too worried/busy with other things in their life to sit down and really think about it.

From this reasoning, I had a revelation. For quite some time, I have felt like a hypocrite. I lived the life of a Christian, but I never felt drawn by God, or really known what He wanted me to do (specifically). Yeah, I know what every Christian is supposed to do, but there is also supposed to be the voice of God in your life (ironic though that Christians hear a voice in their head and it makes them close to god, but schizophrenics hear voices and it makes them crazy...) and I have never had that. Ever.

Don't get me wrong. I believed (and still do) that the bible is true, that Jesus was God, and that He died for my sins, etc. etc. etc. I also know that had my parents raised me as a Muslim, I would be a Muslim right now. If they had raised me an atheist, I would be an atheist right now. That should make you think. I am an adult with fundamentalist, evangelical Christian views, and these are what I was taught since I was very young... Should it be surprising that this is the condition that I find myself in? How much were my religious view affected (adversely or otherwise) by what I was taught when I was young?

I.  Do.  Not.  Know.

Can I know? I mean can I really ever know how much my religious views are skewed by the indoctrination I recieved as an impressionable child? Can anyone ever know? I'm not sure, but it sure made me think.

So, given all of this, I have decided to take a "religious vacation" and really examine Christianity (and other faiths) and decide whether or not it/they really is/are worth my unwavering faith. I have always thought that blind faith (or faith without reason) is fundamentally flawed and essentially worthless. I'll leave you with that and close with this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason,
than that of blind-folded fear...
Do not be frightened from this inquiry
from any fear of its consequences.
If it ends in the belief that there is no God,
you will find incitements to virtue
in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise..."

Modified Theistic Evolution

Image by Lawrence OP via Flickr

Basically, people have 2 views on evolution... yes or no. It seems that the choice tends to be segregated on religious lines (sometimes). Those with more liberal religious views tend to approve of evolution and integrate it with their religious views (ie: agnostics or Christians that say that the creation story was not literal). Those with more conservative religious views disagree with evolution and believe that there are fundamental flaws with evolution theory (ie: fundamentalist Christians who say that since the earth is only ~7000yrs old, evolution can't work).

Growing up in a very conservative christian family/community, I have been taught about the "dangers" of evolution and on the various flaws of the theories.  As such, for much of my life, I have been opposed to the idea of evolution completely. More recently, however, I have begun to logically review and challenge my religious & philosophical views.

After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that evolution is correct... AND the Bible is correct. I believe that the earth was created in 6 consecutive days by the God of the Bible as described in the Bible. I also believe that evolution as accepted & researched by the world's scientific community is correct (or at least as correct as any current scientific theory can be).

How can I reconcile these usually conflicting views? Easily! If God is smart enough to create millions of species of animals, multi-trillions of stars, thousands of galaxies, etc. etc. etc., why must we say that he created the earth, but not evolution? I believe that God created everything in 6 consecutive days and he created it "in the middle of the story." When he was done, the universe appeared to be ~13billion years old and the evidence on the earth shows how evolution works. There was oil in the ground, fossils to be found, and some species were extinct that never really lived. If the universe is allowed to continue for millions of years, animals will evolve. It will happen because evolution is accurate and correct. There is no logical reason that evolution and a literal view of the Bible cannot coexist. (edit: see my comment here for a better explanation)

Any questions? Logical mistakes to point out? Let me know in the comments.

evolution vs creation

(edited 8:29am March 9, 2009)

On The Drinking Age

My opinion on the drinking age is very simple.

First, there is a disparity between some of our legal rights and responsibilities in the ages between 18 and 21. Young men have the responsibility to register to fight for their country, but they are considered too immature to drink alcohol. Your country can send you out to die, but you cant have a drink. If you can fight & die for your country, there should be nothing that it is illegal for you to do that it is legal for someone else to do. By 18, you should be able to drink alcohol. Therefore, solutions would be to either raise the service age to 21, or lower the drinking age to 18.

Second, it is theorized (and I agree) that lowering the drinking age to 18 would temper dangerous binge drinking on college campuses cross country. If alcohol was legally available to college age individuals (maybe only in bars?), perhaps they would be less likely to go to parties & drink as much as possible before the party gets busted...

Let me know what you think in the comments.

Photo by Saquan Stimpson/monstershaq2000 through Creative Commons

On Open Mindedness

I believe in being open minded. Okay, okay, now that your laughter has subsided, please read on and let me explain. If you know me at all, you'll know that I am very opinionated and stubborn in my views. I know this, and (surprise!) I am fine with it. But one thing that surprises people every time I tell them is that I strongly believe in being open minded.

First, let me define what I mean by open-minded. To be open minded is to be willing to change your mind, thoughts, views, or opinions if given adequately logical reasoning to do so.

For example open mindedness is not: changing your religious views because some random person on the street hands you a pamphlet. Open mindedness is: being willing to learn about and consider switching to a new religion because a friend asks you to, and being willing to change if the new one makes more sense/is better (however you decide it would be better...).

Open mindedness is not: changing your views on [insert controversial topic here] just because the person you are arguing with accuses you of being intolerant and closed minded. Open mindedness is having a rational discussion with someone who has a different viewpoint than you, being willing to listen to and consider all viewpoints, and changing your mind if they have a better argument than you do.

I am very open minded. What I mean by this is that I am willing to change my opinion or views on any topic, given proper arguments. Any topic that I have an opinion on, I also have a reason for my opinion (well, 99% of the time). If you happen to give me a better reason for an opposing view point, I will change my opinion immediately. No complaining, no worry about being wrong. All you need to do is give me a better reason to change my mind than I have to keep it the same. That goes for anything, even religion. My willingness to change my point of view comes at the cost of reasoning, and this is often seen as pure stubbornness on my part to change my mind. In fact, I am not unwilling to change my mind, I am unwilling to change my mind without reason.

I am just as open minded with my faith. When it comes to faith, many say that faith by nature is blind and without reason. I disagree. I consider my faith to be like a tree. It has many branches (sources of information) connecting many leaves (topics) and these have no support in the air whatsoever but the tree (faith) itself. If the tree (my faith) was suspended in mid-air (hypothetically), it would have no foundation (blind faith). My faith is not like this. My faith has roots (more information) that go deep into the ground and anchor the tree to the deep soil (reason and logic). My faith is not always rational or based on provable facts (limbs and leaves are in the air), but it is strongly anchored to facts and reason (roots in soil). If my faith is shown to have no roots, I will give it up in an instant, but you'll have to get a pretty big shovel to show me that my roots are rotten! I'll talk about faith more some other time.

Without being open minded, we cannot aspire to any significant higher analytical or theoretical thoughts. In fact, if we are perfectly closed minded, we could not learn anything new, or engage in theoretical discussions of any kind. Only when you are completely open minded can you possibly reach your full potential as a rational, thinking, analytic  human being.

If anything I've said here has made you think, or you would like to make a point or ask me a question, please leave a comment.

Photo by mycuteladybug through CreativeCommons

Road Rights: Bicycles vs Cars

I have been following the case of a California doctor who is accused of severely injuring two cyclists on a road this last summer saying that "cyclists frequently traveled down the residential street in Brentwood and that he was 'tired of them.' " This case hits very close to home, as I have been on the receiving end of many people's dangerous driving practices.

Reading some of the comments on the article, it brings to my attention that people are very polarized on the subject of road rights for bicycles and cars.

We have anti-bike:

• "The fact of the matter is that these bicyclists were riding way too fast and were a hazard to everybody on that road."


• "They are arrogant, ride close to the middle of the right-hand lane on Sunset and won't move to let cars go on their way."


• "They ride way too fast and hog the road."


• "The road is for CARS, not bikes. These idiots think they can slow down our roads just because they wear tights that say USPS on it."


• "Unless you need to bike to work, school or for errands, I think bicyclers belong on a freaking BIKE PATH. Roads are for cars -- get off of them, recreational bicyclers. Go do your little riding in the park and stop annoying the rest of us with your ugly outfits and traffic-slowing, two-wheeling ways."


• "The bikers were tailgating. They deserve whatever injury they incurred. It is completely their own fault. HA HA"


• "The cyclists are at fault. They rode their bikes into a stopped car. Dummies. Don't they teach people in driver's education not to tailgate? What if he had a good reason to slam on his brakes? What if an animal or child ran out in front of him? Don't blame the doctor for these idiots riding into his car."

...Pro-bike:

• "I ride my bicycle often in Hollywood, obey traffic laws, and have never sworn at anyone while on my bike, unless it was under my breath. I've never flipped anyone off, or not done my best to stay out of the way of cars, especially when they exhibit signs of impatience (which are very easy to detect) often going on the sidewalk to yield my legal, but not prudent, right of way. Yet every time I ride I get honked at, sworn at, flipped off, or endangered by a road rage maneuver, usually the driver cuts their car in front of me quickly at a dangerously close distance. No one has slammed on their brakes yet, but it's probably only a matter of time."


• "I am not condoning the prior actions of the cyclists. Yes we have all been on the road with that arrogant guy or group in tights who take up the road and gives you the dirtiest look ever (on a nice day) if you say something to them. However they are entitled to the road just as we are in cars. Some of you don't realize that bicycle safety manuals actually says that when in dangerous situations (like a NARROW ROAD) that it is safer to just take up the entire lane. As much as I hate being stuck behind a bike, that does not give me justification to do the rider any harm."


• "A cyclist can in fact take up the entire road if they so choose. They are equal to a car by law on any road with the exception of a a highway."


• "Yes a bicyclist might yelll something, but usually it is after being almost run over etc. Bicyclist have every right as automobiles on the streets in California, that is the law"


• "It is a fact that a car can brake and decelerate a lot quicker than a bicycle can. Any responsible cyclist should know this and maintain a safe distance from a car, especially on downhills."

...Insightful:

• "Does anyone else find it ironic that some posters are complaining that cyclists slow them down by riding too slow, while others complain that the cyclists are riding too fast? These people have the mentality that anyone who drives slower than them is hogging the road, and anyone who drives faster is a maniac."


• "There are idiot bicyclists, just as there are idiot drivers."

...Humorously Sarcastic:

• "Yeah, I can see the doctor's point. When someone's doing something annoying, or something you perceive as illegal, or even just rude, it's up to you to show them who is boss. Cyclists wearing clothes that are too bright and don't meet your standards? Hook 'em with your BMW and put 'em in the hospital. Kids too noisy playing on your street? Take a baseball bat to them and teach them some manners. Neighbor's dog barking again? Poison it, that'll give you some peace. Motorcyclists getting through rush-hour traffic too easily by lane splitting? Crack your door open and watch 'em go flying. Yes, it's up to us to put these people in their place, so that we can build a better society."

...And just plain ignorant:

• "Knowing Chris Thompson, I am sure he did not mean any harm to the cyclists."

Before getting into who I think is right or wrong, you can clearly see that many people feel very strongly about this topic, and there are opinions on both sides. Many don't side with what the doctor is accused of doing, but still think that bicycles do not belong on the road. Now, on to what I know.

In every state that I know of, bicycles have the same rights as cars do. They are allowed on all roads other than highways and interstates, and are allowed to take any position in the far right hand lane. This means that legally, they are allowed to ride at 3mph anywhere in the right hand lane, even on a 2 lane road. Secondly, no matter what the situation, motor vehicles do not have the right to harm any other vehicle, motorized or otherwise for any reason. Now on to what I think.

Anyone who thinks that "the road is for CARS, not bikes" should really take a second and rethink their position. Go check out your laws (Missouri) and you'll see that the road is made for bikes too. Those who believe otherwise form their opinions from ignorance and hate, and do nothing but harm. Also, they are just plain wrong. The law gives bicycles the same rights as cars, but so much hate and prejudice is directed towards them that it amazes me that there are not more cyclists that are assaulted like this. We can disagree on the safety of riding in the middle of the lane as compared to riding on the edge of the road, but the legality and rights of cyclists are indisputable.

Whether you agree or disagree, please take a second to think about what I have written here, and please leave a comment.

Photo by richardmasoner through CreativeCommons