And the catholics are pissed because?

Image via http://www.wtsp.com. Click this link to see the video at wtsp.com.

A few days ago I got an e-mail complaining about this ad and I watched it. The e-mail was petitioning me to go somewhere and sign up against the commercial because it "denigrated" the eucharist.

As long as you don't watch the commercial you might think that is true.

I grew up as a catholic so I understand some hints that are there for all to see except maybe for those dyed-in-the-wool catholicts who feel offended by this rather insipid depiction of religion. The "priest" is called "pastor", not "father" as would be the case if this were a catholic priest. The church is a traditional protestant church - no mistaking that arquitecture. Catholics do not keep files of new parishioners as if they were "applicants" for a job. And the flock is, well, very "diverse" - you see a hare krishna and an amish, a jew and a southern baptist... not very catholic.

And so on and so forth...

Religion is like that. People get so charged up with their own points of view that they lose sight of the bigger picture. There is no acceptance of other ways, my way is always the right way and dogma is king.

So, even though no mention is made, either explicit or implicit, that this is a catholic church, catholics get pissed. And again, I ask why?

See the commercial and judge for yourself. And also read this interesting commentary.

Share on Facebook

It is hard to be a skeptic

For 40-something years, I lived in the clutches of religion and supersticion. Some of the members of my family are extremely religious/supersticious and I was under that influence; for instance, I would not walk under a ladder or between a light pole and its tensioning wire because the ladder, wall and floor or the pole, floor and wire form a triangle... and you are not supposed to walk through a triangle, it somehow "distorts" your aura or something. I actually felt my aura "around me" and would feel extremely uneasy if I accidentally walked through any such triangle.

But the worst part of all was THE BOOK: dog-eared, stained, its pages almost loose, we had read it over and over. THE BOOK was "Self-Mastery and Fate With the Cycles of Life", one of the essential books of the rosicrucian's library. This book was written by H. Spencer Lewis, ostensibly the founder of the Rosicrucian order in San Jose, CA, and our family lived by it.

Very succintly, THE BOOK states that there are several time cycles in our lives: daily, yearly and an overarching one that goes in seven year intervals over your whole life. For instance, in the daily cycle there are seven periods in the day, each one aproximately 3 hours and 26 minutes (frack, I forget so many things and not this one!); the first one starts at midnight and lasts until 3:26 am; second one ending at 6:52, etc. These seven periods, each identified with a letter from A to G would alternate during the week, so that, for instance, Monday morning it would be E (6:52 to 10:17 am) and Tuesday, E would be at night (from 8:34 pm to midnight) and so on. (Again, I forget many things but those seem to be etched in my memory). The yearly cycle had 42 days and started on your birthday... I never really got around to the life-cycle, I think it was seven years long. So complicated.

All these timeframes had definite properties and there were things you should not do and things that were bound to be successful if started at the right time.

We lived our lives by this schedule. I got marrried in April (it was difficult to figure out the right month, what with my girlfriend and I having different yearly cycles since we did not share the same birthday) and on a Saturday evening (because it was B, a good time to get married - don't do it on E!). I tried to schedule my customer appointments according to these rules and it was a nightmare.

A good example of confirmation bias. Now that I look back on the whole thing I can remember things that went bad because they were started "at a bad time" as we used to say but so many things we tried to get well done and we did them at "a good time" never came to fruition. Of course, I remember the bad ones and not the good ones that never happened.

I got accepted into the rosicrucian order. I was told it was an accomplishment as I had been "spiritually" examined and found worthy.

I also got into the Self Realization Fellowship. I still have my credential somewhere.

This was part of the baggage that I got rid of when I convinced myself (or rather, gave myself permission) to stop believing in the supernatural. And this is one of the reasons why I say becoming an agnostic has been such a liberating experience. Not only am I guilt free (I am only human after all) but I am also freer with my time... now I have time to do many things at any moment I please.

Anyway, it is hard to be skeptic. It was difficult to convince myself that it was OK to meet people on Friday evening or Sunday afternoon. It was so difficult to stop my "aura" from tangling on those damn light poles! It took me a while and I may still not be "baggage free" as I sometimes catch myself exclaiming the G word or wondering if I should get out of the sidewalk to avoid that triangular configuration ahead.

But... practice makes perfect, they say. And I am happier now than I ever was before. Being a skeptic is hard but is worth it. Try it.

Am I doing the Lord's work? or the Law of Unintended Consequences

The other day, D.J. Grothe, who evidently was spending a nice vacation with his beau, Thomas, in Mexico, posted an interesting tale of trying to do good and ending up with a big mess - a nice example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. For those not having access to D.J.'s Facebook, he and Thomas tried to feed some dogs and ended up causing a horrible dogfight, where one of the canines was probably killed by the others over the food that was offered.

Not in the same vein but also an example of unintended consequences, I got a nice e-mail from one of my readers/friends just yesterday.

My friend tells me that my blog as well as the links posted in it have helped him sort out his doubts and beliefs and now, as a rational christian, he is more secure of his faith in God. He says he has run the full gamut from believer to agnostic and is now safe and happy on his christian belief.

Well, I am puzzled but, truthfully, very happy for my friend.

As I have matured as a skeptic and agnostic, I have learned not to pick fights over religion or belief. I am "embedded" in a very conservative, catholic family and it is to my advantage not to get into arguments one way or another. If anything, seeing my (mostly political) family attend their various religious rituals and functions has pushed me further into agnosticism and I flirt with atheism all the time but I don't quarrel with their beliefs.

In fact, as I have mentioned before, I don't have a problem with people being religious. Organized religion tends to piss me off but people attending religious services and having their particular sets of beliefs, well, you can chalk that one up to freedom of speech, which I am 100% for.

And having read Dawkins and Harris, I have consciously decided not to be a militant atheist.

My initial purpose in writing this blog was to try and organize my ideas and philosophy into one coherent body. All the crazy things spinning in my head had to be given some kind of structure and the blog has helped me do that. In fact, going back over the initial postings, I see how my perspective has changed.

I continue to have fun with pastafarianism and will go on making fun of mormon's underwear or catholicism ritual cannibalism, not forgetting Corny's absolutely idiotic rantings. But I have come to feel secure in my ideas and content with other's beliefs... as long as they don't try to infringe on my personal space.

So, again, I was puzzled by my friend's e-mails but very happy that I was able to help. There is no doubt in my mind that the pursuit of happiness is one noble goal and part of that happiness is being secure and safe in your beliefs. If my writings help one way or another, well then, the golden rule is in action! And friends are always a blessing, however you want to interpret the word.

Thanks Ed!

The strange dichotomy of death and religion

I am thoroughly convinced that one of the main reasons for the existence of religion is the fact that we all die. Man has, from the very dawn of self-awareness, struggled with the reality of this fact, that we live for a short time and then die and are never seen or heard of again.

Jay Novella mentioned last week in the SGU podcast (remembering Perry De Angelis) that "death makes no sense and it is a loss". I agree, man has tried to make sense of death from the beginning and tried to find ways to cope with the loss and, there you have it, religion tries to make sense of it and tries to find ways to alleviate the loss.

Not very succesfully.

The strange dichotomy I am refering to in the title to this post, is the effect of death on the religious. I cannot understand why, if death is a transition to a "better place", if the deceased is going "to face God" and be "in his presence" (which I imagine would be wonderful if only God really existed), why then religious people react to the loss of a loved one with such intense grief? And believe me, I think agnostics and non-religious people, like myself, cope better with the loss than the religious.

I have seen the two attitudes from very close quarters. I lost my father last November, and believe me, the pain is still there and at the moment of his death, though I knew it was coming, the grief was unbearable. But, I have to accept, my dear old man is no more and I have to learn to live with that fact and console myself with my fond memories of him and the love that we shared in the family for him and he for us. And with time, acceptance sets in and peace returns.

But the religious... what a way to grieve! I have seen depression, loss of apetite, desire to also die, complete desperation. Do they not believe that their loved one is in heaven, happily playing the harp or something? Do they not rejoice at the thought of the deceased suffering no more and leaving his/her mortal attachments for an eternal life of bliss?

I don't understand.

In the Arabian Nights tales, there is one that mentions that humans should actually party, dance and rejoice when a loved one dies, for he/she was God's property and that property has gone back to his/her actual owner. From this side of the fence, that attitude makes so much more sense.

Strange things of life in this world...

Is religion born of man's fear of death?

muerte
religión
escepticismo
vida+eterna
death
religion
skepticism
eternal+life

It has been about 40 days of my father's death and I have missed him every single one. In my view of the world, my father's existence has ended; he is gone forever and I will never see him again. That neither makes the pain of my loss worse or unbearable for me; death is a natural part of life and is what makes life so precious and valuable. Nor would christianity's promise of eternal life make it easier. I still would not get to talk to him on the phone or hug him when I visit.

I was thinking about this last night at New Year's Eve mass. (I continue to go to mass for my wife's sake and because I enjoy the community interaction). Everytime I hear priests and preachers talk, they mention eternal life and the bliss of enjoying heaven and it seems to me that men are driven to believe in God simply because they are afraid of dying.

This fear of dying coupled with the usual promise of "eternal life" that religions offer, drives people to believe in christianity, judaism, islamism, budism, whatever. The hope of trascending our short stay in this world plus the promise of a better life if you behave, especially if your current life is not as nice as you would like, is a powerful magnet to faith.

And this magnet may have been one of the reasons for christianity's success against competing creeds, way back then. At the beginning of christianity, many religions offered eternal life but price of admission was steep and usually reserved for the rich. Then come these christians saying that Jesus offers eternal life for everyone in exchange for just belief. It must have been very tempting compared to what the competition offered - pay and eternal life or believe in Christ and eternal life. The choice is obvious. Then all others followed suit. Eternal life is cheap now, even if your church requires tithing. But then, churches now offer you wealth and health in exchange for your monthly dues and the whole thing seems only fair.

I had a "near death" experience a couple of years ago. I choked and lost conciousness for a few seconds. It was a very disconcerting experience to regain the use of my senses and wonder "where am I and who am I?". But after that wore off, I realized I had no memory of what had happened. I was walking and coughing one moment and the next I was looking at my wife's worried face. But after that, I reflected on one very important thing: I didn't feel anything! I could have died and never notice. Death would not have been painful and it would have been very quick.

I agree that there most be very painful ways to die. But the moment of death itself is like falling asleep at night. One moment you are looking at your book in your hands, the next moment you wake up wondering why you did not turn off the light on the nightstand. Only when you die you don't awaken, obviously. But, as I have told my friends and family, nothing to be afraid of.

Enjoy life while you can and try to leave this a better world when you check out.