I’ve not read through everthing on this site, but a friend of mine sent me the link long ago and it looks to be at least an interesting and thought-provoking resource:

The Meaning of Life

Tags: The Meaning of Life

ShareThis

Recent news of Mother Teresa of Calcutta’s struggle with doubt towards the end of her life has prompted me to visit one of the more important foundations of the Church of Man.

Faith and science have been pitted against each other many times. While there is sometimes, maybe even often, a conflict between the two I am not convinced that one abolishes the need for the other.

Part of the problem today is that faith is construed as an idea that one believes in a supernatural deity. In that sense, it has become “the other f-word” in certain circles, notably the scientific extremists who deny any possibility of the supernatural.

What then is faith? Faith is persistence despite evidence that your position might be incorrect. Sure, it is easy to apply it to beliefs in the supernatural, but in reality we all express faith. We can not empirically prove every premise upon which we act. For example, we do not know for sure that the traffic light has malfunctioned and that the cross-traffic at an intersection might suddenly get the green light at the same time we do, but we make a reasonable assumption. That is a small act of faith in the mechanism. What might be a larger leap of faith is assuming that someone won’t run the red light as you cross the intersection. If’ you’ve ever been in that kind of car accident, you know what I mean when I say it becomes quite a large act of faith in your fellow man to cross those intersections in the weeks and months following such a collision.

A contrarian example of commonplace faith can be found in the fictional television character Dr. Gregory House. House is a devout believer in science, who scoffs at the religious, even non-spiritual “philosophical,” positions of others. Yet time and again, in the face of the facts and evidence, he persists in his belief that a patient is not yet cured, that things are not what they appear, and that someone else’s interpretation or diagnosis is wrong and his is right, even when he can not support is position on facts or evidence. In a sense, Dr. House is an example of a man of faith who scorns the very idea of faith in a spiritual sense.

Another common misconception is that faith is the opposite of doubt. I’ve seen this idea surfacing lately in discussions about Mother Teresa. Faith is persistence – therefore for faith to be present there must be something to persist against. The relationship between faith and doubt is very much the same as the relationship between courage and fear. In order to have courage, or to show courage, one must overcome fear. If there is nothing to fear, there cannot be courage. There’s a quote from the movie Angus, in which it is said that Superman cannot be brave, for in being indestructible he has nothing to fear. Without fear, he cannot have courage.

A knight does not charge forth courageously to slay a common rabbit, as he has nothing to fear from the rabbit. However, if he is afraid of the dark, then venturing into a dark cave to rescue a maiden is an act of courage – even if there is no dragon there to slay. If a soldier is afraid, he is not called a coward. If he flees the battle, if he retreats, if he lets his fear paralyze him into inaction, his actions are referred to as cowardly. His persistence, despite his fear, is the mark of courage.

Faith works in the same way. If you are sure of something, you can not claim to have faith in it. If you doubt something, you have not lost your faith. If you abandon your position or your belief, then you have lost your faith. But if you persist, even as you doubt what you are doing is for the right reason, then your faith is not weak, it is being tested and is still strong.

What can we derive from this? Consider Mother Teresa. Did she really “lose” her faith if she thought late in life that maybe God didn’t exist, that maybe all she had done and was doing was for nothing?

And what of a person who claims their faith is unshakable, that they “know for certain” some supernatural idea is correct? Can they really have faith, and is it really strong if it is without a doubt?

And while a church, like the Church of Man, might be godless, might it still be a community of faith?

Tags: Mother Teresa of Calcutta, doubt, Church of Man, Faith, science, supernatural, act of faith, Dr. Gregory House, spiritual, Mother Teresa, courage, fear, godless

ShareThis

“A Wall of Separation between Church and State” aka “Separation of Church and State” A phrase so common these days it has become a cliche. It is generally accepted that this statement from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association means that the religion should be kept out of politics.

In the interests of the whole of a nation, this is a proper opinion. However, it is my great fear that the wall of separation has been seen as a semi-permeable wall; that is, it is seen as unbreachable by Church but not by the State.

To give an example, I was advised of a special meeting of the Evesham Townsip Board of Education tonight in Marlton, NJ. A group of parents are planning to attend the meeting to speak out about compulsory education on sexual orientation and transgenderism which is contrary to their religious faith and beliefs. They fear a repeat of a ruling in Massachusetts which stated that such a program was required for children as young as kindergardners, and that parents had no option to opt out.

When the Danbury Baptist Association wrote President Jefferson in October of 1801, they expressed concern: (source)

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty – That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and Individuals – That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions – That the legitimate Power of Civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.

To which Jefferson replied:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

If this ruling is any indication, the state of Massachusetts no longer adheres to this idea that an individual is answerable only to his God, and that in matters of their faith they are accountable to no one else, or to the idea that ‘legitimate’ powers of government are limited to actions and not opinions. It has been made clear that no opinion is acceptable save for the opinion to be taught in MA schools regarding sexual orientation, and failure to comply will result in the usual truancy charges which I believe still include prison for the parents.

The nightmare the Danbury Baptists feared – that someone might “suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions” has come true in Massachusetts in a country where the words that were meant to reassure them are repeated ad nausem “separation of Church and State.”

I can only imagine that:

1) The judge in the case saw, as many have, that the wall of separation may be breached by the State to legislate religious opinion, but that religious opinion may not influence the State.

2) That the said judge saw the religious opinions of the parents as accountable to him, and must have some delusion of being a god to whom an founding father thought reckoning of such opinions is due.

Either way, the ruling is blasphemous – which coming from an agnostic church is a pretty severe criticism.

While the Church of Man has no specific teachings on the subject matter to be taught, it is concerned when it comes to the rights of individuals to practice their religious freedom – including the right to hold moral opinions for which they are not answerable to any government representative or body. Therefore, the Church of Man wishes the parents involved at the Board of Education meeting in Marlton tonight the very best wishes in preserving their faith and convictions from the interference of their government.

Tags: Separation between Church and State, Separation of Church and State, Thomas Jefferson, Danbury Baptist Association, religion, politics, Board of Education, education, Religious Liberty, God, Massachusetts, Church, State, moral opinions, Church of Man

ShareThis

Recently a verse from the Christian Bible has stuck with me in an odd way. “The poor you will have with you always…” (Matthew 26:11).

I’m not so concerned with the context (it has some alleged connection to the whole Mary Magdalene issue) but in that particular phrase.

It can be taken as a gloomy prophesy from a holy or wise man, but for the sake of our universal base, I’ll assume it’s inspired by wisdom, and thus an gloomy insight. What does this say about humanity as a whole, that some 1600-year-old document states that poverty will never be eradicated and, thus far, it has not been proven wrong? For one, it says we’re a greedy, selfish lot.

I remember hearing the world distribution of wealth being represented as a restaurant with 100 customers. They were seated by levels of wealth, and were served accordingly. The rich at one table, the poor at another, and varying classes seated at tables in between the extremes.

The analogy (which I cannot seem to find now) hits home when the service is described – the wealthiest table, with only a handful of people seated there, is overflowing with food, while the poorest table is overcrowded and served a small or modest portion for all to share.

Is it really a matter of the human condition that we cannot share? That there are those of us in America with roofs over our head, ample food for our families, and even cable TV dare allow ourselves to be labeled “poor” in comparison to the poverty that is experiences elsewhere in the world?

Tags: poor, Mary Magdalene, insight, poverty, distribution of wealth, wealth

ShareThis