Quote of the moment from positiveatheism.org

"You are nipping in the bud fancies which I let blossom. The shore is safer, but I love to buffet the sea -- I can count the bitter wrecks here in these pleasant waters, and hear the murmuring winds, but oh, I love the danger!"

-- Emily Dickinson, embarking on a quest for truth unfettered by doctrinal constraints and herd prescriptions (very reminiscent of Melville), in a letter to Abiah, quoted from Gary Sloan, "Emily Dickinson: Pagan Sphinx," Positive Atheism (June, 2001)

Categories of betrayal, Volume One -- Independence

Lately I've come across a few deconversion testimonials that describe the process as initated by awakening sexual awareness--to distill it down a bit. For me, sex had nothing to do with it, although the feeling of betrayal is one to which I can relate.

I do feel that God, if you believe in him, set us up to fail, but not in the areas of purity and/or holiness. My #fail categories are 1) independence, and 2) intellect.

Let's deal with the first one first (I discussed this a bit in this post). I am independent; I like living life on my own terms--in fact, I have an innate need to do so. I am unhappy bending my will to that of anyone else; this is why I am averse to relationships and never made student leader in my college marching band.

I was raised to believe that Christianity was a joyous alternative to secular living; if the "real world" fails you, turn to Jesus, and he will show you a better way! Don't like the materialism of our culture? Christianity will teach you to live humbly and sparely. Kids on the playground teasing you? Jesus loves you no matter what. Disagree with the laws of your society? Religion will give you higher laws to follow.

Well. This is not the case for my relationship aversion. Societal pressure to partner up is immense; the underlying attitude is that a person is not complete unless and until they are sharing their life with another person--and just one person. You might think you're happy alone, but you'll be much happier once you get yourself into this very specific attachment that society has so handily outlined for you.

I don't like it. I don't like the idea that I'm not a whole person by myself, that I need someone else in order to be truly happy, that despite entering this world as an individual, I am somehow missing a piece of my puzzle and will not be satisfied in life unless I die involved in a long-term, serious, romantic relationship with just one other person.

What's that? I don't like secular society? Turn to Jesus!

Oh, wait. He's saying the same goddamn thing, except replace "romantic partner" with "Jesus Christ".

And so God created me, supposedly, to be the independent, fiery creature that I am, and expects me to sacrifice my innate personality in order to be a good follower. He expects me to accept that I'm not sufficient on my own, that I need him. He expects me to do his will, and to pray to him asking him to make my will his will. He expects me to sacrifice the very core of my being, which he supposedly created.

I will not submit.

And that is what Lucifer said, supposedly, at the beginning of time when he exercised his free will and chose not to follow God. Of course, since I couldn't find those specific words in the Bible (my mom always quotes me the above version), I can't be sure, but he definitely said "I will ascend to Heaven, above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will make myself like the Most-High" (Isaiah 14:13-14). The guys who wrote the Bible were totally there.

A follow-up to my cowardice/uncertainty post

This is a journey. I started this blog to share my journey--and writing about it has stimulated it. I'm fine with admitting my flaws, my shortcomings, my doubts. I am not perfect; nobody is. If I were 100% certain of my beliefs (or lack thereof), my story would not be as interesting--at least to me.

When I am certain of my opinions and beliefs, I am intensely certain. If I were certain about this, I would be one of the "militant atheists" I've heard so much about, and I wouldn't be involved in this hugely rewarding internal struggle (and trust me, you've only gotten the tip of the iceberg so far).

I do mean that; being Catholic was never as rewarding as my rejection of it has been. Questioning God has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my [albeit short] life.

Incidentally, I said that last bit to my mom the other day and she responded with "Well, maybe we should sit down and question God together." Will I sit down with my uber-Catholic mother and question her reason for existence? I will--because my mother always listens to me, always supports me, and never tells me I'm going to hell. She never forced religion on me. Ever.

Which is another reason it's odd that I left the church. A lot of people end up atheists as an inverse response to intense familial and societal pressure, but I just kind of got there on my own.

When I stop to think about it, the odds against me ending up where I am today are enormous. I think you'll see that point illustrated time and time again.

Who is the coward here?

I'm having issues with myself right now.

I realized tonight, after coming across an extremely hateful article (hateful towards atheists, just to be clear), that since I started my own Inquisition, I've been avoiding such articles. I do think that people like the one I'm referring to are hateful because they feel threatened, but on the other hand, why do I avoid them if I'm secure in my beliefs?

I suppose the answer is that I'm not secure in them. I'm still not 100% certain what I believe. In The God Delusion, Dawkins outlines seven levels of belief; I don't have the book in front of me, but the basic idea is that one is 100% belief in God, while seven is 100% lack of belief (I think). Dawkins makes the point that level one is much more heavily populated than level seven; and even he falls into level six, not seven. The main point is that religious persons are not at all likely to admit to any uncertainty in their beliefs and say they will never change their minds--in contrast with agnostics/atheists, who are perfectly willing to alter their beliefs in the presence of new evidence. I think I'm around level five right now (if I recall correctly), but always aver that I'm willing to change categories if presented with a good reason.

However, what's a good reason? Does my good reason lie in the articles I've been avoiding? I sincerely doubt it; someone who presumes to know the mind of every atheist alive is not likely to convince me to go back to the church.

But a bigger question is this: Am I avoiding these articles out of disgust, out of a desire to spare myself needless stress from exposure to mean, unhelpful opinions?

Or am I just afraid that I'll start believing again and have to admit I've been wrong?

Well, ok, that last bit is kind of ridiculous. I mean, right here, right now, I am not afraid to say that I was probably wrong for the first 20 to 23 years of my life. It might be a lot easier to admit I was wrong for the next two to five.

The possibility also exists that I just don't want to believe in God, because then I'll have to go back to being a "good Catholic" and go to church and consult God when planning my life. That is a definite possibility. But is seeing a certain lifestyle as ridiculous a valid reason for rejecting it? I ask you.

Whatever the reason, the facts remain: I am 1) avoiding mean Christians, and 2) not absolutely sure what I believe.

Hm. When you put it that way, I have no issues with myself at all.

"Let the Almighty answer me." Job 31:37