his dark materials

Just before Thanksgiving, I finished reading the children's fantasy trilogy called His Dark Materials. The three books are called The Golden Compass (now a movie), The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. I simply adored these books, and highly recommend them, for adults as well as kids. I am a big Harry Potter fan, but I liked these books more than Harry Potter. For me, who waited in lines at midnight to get book 7 and to watch movie 5, this is saying something. (No, I did not dress up.) Maybe I'll share my ideas on Rowling, death, and agnosticism later, but right now, I want to gush about The Amber Spyglass.

I don't want to give too much away for anyone who wants to read these books for themselves, but I will say this. One of the main plots involved killing god. That idea hit me like lightning. I've heard Nietzsche's ideas on god being dead, and I've written before about how I felt like I killed Heavenly Father when I left Mormonism. At the time, I grieved about that symbolic death of a mythical figure. But when I came across the idea in these books, it thrilled me. I couldn't wait to see how it played out.

The books also deal with souls, death, evolution, friendship, love, the fall, sexuality and original sin, the institutional church, church-leaving, deceit, character. The Church is a bad element; childhood innocence as well as maturity and sexual awareness are celebrated; the heroes and heroines are multi-faceted and capable of both "good" and "bad."

These are some of my favorite bits at the end of The Amber Spyglass:


"'The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all.'" (Mary, p. 441)


"'Was it hard to leave the church?' said Will.

'In one way it was,[' answered Mary, ']because everyone was so disappointed. Everyone, from the Mother Superior to the priests to my parents--they were so upset and reproachful...I felt as if something they all passionately believed in depended on me carrying on with something I didn't.

'But in another way it was easy, because it made sense. For the first time ever I felt I was doing something with all of my nature and not only a part of it. So it was lonely for a while, but then I got used to it.'" (p. 446)


"'When you stopped believing in God,' he went on, 'did you stop believing in good and evil?'

'No, but I stopped believing there was a power of good and a power of evil that were outside us. And I came to believe that good and evil are names from what people do, not for what they are. All we can say is that this is a good deed, because it helps someone, or that's an evil one, because it hurts them. People are too complicated to have simple labels.'

'Yes,' said Lyra firmly.

'Did you miss God?' asked Will.

'Yes,' said Mary, 'terribly. And I still do. And what I miss most is the sense of being connected to the whole of the universe. I used to feel I was connected to God like that, and because he was there, I was connected to the whole of his creation. But if he's not there, then...'" (p. 447)


"That was the meaning of this night, and it was Mary's meaning, too.

Had she thought there was no meaning in life, no purpose, when God had gone? Yes, she had thought that.

'Well, there is now,' she said aloud, and again, louder, 'There is now!'" (p. 452)


"'She [an angel, Xaphania] said that all the history of human life has been a struggle between wisdom and stupidity. She and the rebel angels, the followers of wisdom, have always tried to open minds; the Authority and his churches have always tried to keep them closed....And for the most part, wisdom has had to work in secret, whispering her words, moving like a spy through the humble places of the world while the courts and palaces are occupied by her enemies.'" (p. 479)

(Thank you to hotmomama and her kids for recommending these books to me.)

my version, at least

I recently had an old Mormon friend ask my what humanism was, as I'd listed it as my "religious views" on a networking site. Humanists define their own meaning, and I am still in the process of defining my version. This is what I answered.

Humanism. Hmm. I'm probably not the best person to ask, I haven't studied it that much. But since leaving the church, I found my approach to life and beliefs are pretty much in line with humanism--that there is no god, that humans are responsible for improving the world with an emphasis on using reason, improving knowledge, fighting for social justice, and environmentalism; that bad stuff happens because of human foibles and natural workings of the earth. I don't know that that would be the definition you'd find on a humanism website, but that's sort of how I put it in a nutshell. It's humanist as opposed to theist. I realize that to some theists humanist thinking seems pompous or conceited, in a "relying on the arm of flesh" kind of way, but when approached from the idea that there is no god, it's what makes the most sense to me right now.

For a while after leaving, I still held onto Christian thinking, as many people do, without believing in the actual divinity of Jesus. But I'm not too keen on the basic paradigm that Christianity espouses: that humans are "fallen" and in need of redemption, and that people have a savior to solve their problems. I prefer the more humanist approach, that people have it in our power to improve our world. I know Christians are perfectly capable of taking it in their own hands to improve the world--many, many have--I just mean that for me, it's been healthier to approach life from a different paradigm. I care more about the world and doing something about it, doing my part, than I did before. Make sense?

And in a old post, I wrote this in response to a comment. Since hardly anyone will go back and read it, and since it fits this post, too, I'm bringing it up here.

I agree that humans _can be_ stupid, greedy, and immoral. Hence many of the world's problems (eg, not Satan). Humans _can_ also be unselfish, hard-working, and good. I don't believe humans are either inherently good or bad; they are inherently very intelligent animals with the capibility to ask themselves "Am I good? Is this action moral? Why do I exist? What is my purpose in life?"

I have no doubt, nor did my post assert that, Christians are bad people. Christianity creates one way of many of approaching the world and the questions above. It's simply not for me. I became a better person outside of Christianity; I did not say that would be true of everyone or that everyone should abandon it. And I do not fault my friends who decide to accept that paradigm.

[The commenter asked me if I was prepared to give up my possessions]: As for possessions and the rest of the world: I am not ignorant of the world. I have lived abroad in one of the poorest countries in the world, lived very simply (and live more simply than the average American), and saw poverty, malnutrition, and other deprivations at every turn. I just don't think that's because the Fall or Satan's temptations, etc. It's more about environment, politics, economics, social problems (including parts of religion), human foibles, etc. In this way, I am a humanist and not a Christian. I will not attribute social ills to the supernatural, nor will I hope that a supernatural being will fix them all. Humans are responsible both for the problems and the solutions.

my reply, part 3

from an email I wrote to my sister, continued from my reply and my reply, part 2

I said on the phone that Little FTA’s simple message from the movie was a “pretty good representation of what the movie was trying to say.” You took issue with this, and I can see why this offended you. I’m sorry I said it in such as way that hurt you rather than in such a way where we could have discussed our differences and learned more about each other.

I think my statement was due to two things. One, a short memory with regards to the movie. I haven’t seen the movie in many years. The only thing I remembered was the basic plot of one man’s struggle between the “good side” and the “bad, worldly side,” and his receiving forgiveness through Jesus at the end—while many died in the destruction. I had completely forgotten about many of the plot elements, such as the non-believers conspiracy to kill the believers. I had also forgotten that its main idea was based on a Book of Mormon story; had I remembered that, I could have recalled that conspiracy. Nevertheless, Little FTA’s young mind missed those elements.

Two, my humanist, rather than Christian, point of view. When I saw the movie as a Christian, I was touched, and buoyed by the power of forgiveness through Christ. That message of forgiveness is, indeed, quite powerful, whether or not Jesus was actually divine, as you said. This is why I found myself with a continued affinity for Christianity, long after I ceased to believe in his divinity. As time went on, though, I started to consider what I see as the fundamentals of Christianity—the desire or need for forgiveness of sins, the state of humans as fallen and in need of saving, one person as the archetype for living—an undesirable way to approach life. Expanding on the first fundamental, for example, I still see the benefits of forgiveness, surely, but I see the source of forgiveness more appropriately placed in the people who were hurt by the wrongdoing, whether it be self or others. Additionally, I do not see wrongdoing as sin, but as hurting self or others. I think it is fundamentally very close to the same thing, but with different terminology—forgiveness for sin, getting second chances, improving oneself, always trying to do better. I just don’t think we need an ultimate, outside source, a God, to forgive us for being human, for making mistakes, for living life as (very fallible) human beings.

Through Little FTA’s interpretation, I saw the movie as simplifying and vilifying the atheists, the secularists—me and Mr. FTA—as the “worldly, sinful, bad guys,” rather than people who appreciate the capacity and limitations of humankind, and seek to live life to the fullest (since this is the only life we are certain we have), while trying to make the world a better place and refraining from harming others. That is, I saw anti-secularism. From the more complete summary of the movie, I certainly agree that the people who wanted to kill others were in the wrong, the “bad guys,” in child’s terms. But then to have the resurrected Jesus’ kill them through fire and earthquake (for the Jesus of the Book of Mormon does claim these killings as his doing)? Why is his killing others justified? Why is God excused killing those who wanted to kill and those who simply didn’t believe, when he subsequently delivers his sermon of forgiveness and love in Third Nephi? This is like teaching your child to not hit her sibling by hitting her and yelling, “Don’t hit!” then talking about love and goodwill the next moment. While you got particular messages, such as the power of forgiveness, from the movie, I saw, as a humanist, different messages. Or rather, I reinterpreted based on my memory and your summary of the movie. I am curious if I watched the movie in full now, whether I would still make similar comments. I imagine I would, and I imagine I would have many more besides.

podcast & book

Last night, I recorded a podcast (my first!) with Doug and Heidi over at eight hour lunch. We talked about depression and Mormonism, since I've lately been obsessed with the topic (could you tell?). I'm not sure when they will be able to post the podcast, but I'll watch the site and let you know as soon as I know.

It was unexpectedly exhilarating to talk to them about this topic, and I'm kind of pleased that my voice is now out there, even if not my name.

...


Also, the book Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Caring, Ethical Kids Without Religion is now available. It is a collection of essays from a diverse set of humanists and nontheists, including our fellow former Mormon, Agnostic Mom. I've ordered my copy. Check it out and consider buying it if you are interested; I, for one, feel it important to support this kind of effort. We atheists are out there, we are good parents, and we have a voice. Let it be heard.

Finally, one of my posts from Main Street Plaza (a post republished and reworked from here) was linked at Daylight Atheism's The Humanist Symposium. There is an impressive collection of blog entries on positive atheism and humanist values. Personally, I've been wanting to explore this kind of thing more in depth. (Summer project, fta, now get back to work.)

take no thought for tomorrow

The day before Good Friday, I started into a conversation with some co-workers about the Easter holidays, which got us into a discussion about religion. One man, a Kenyan, argued how Christianity has lead some Kenyans to "take no thought for tomorrow" and not work as hard as they would otherwise. He said they did this because of Christian teachings about letting God watch out for you, so they should not worry much about the future.

I agreed that this could certainly be one interpretation and consequence of the teachings in Matthew 6:34 (oh, I so had to look it up). At this point in the conversation, a man with strong religious leanings came in, and the Kenyan repeated the idea to him. Mr. Religion took offense to the idea, and started to defend Christianity, saying that plenty of Christians are hard-working and contribute to society. Which is certainly true, and I acknowledged that.

"However," I argued, "you can see how that scripture could lead some to be less concerned about their own futures and the future of the earth, right?"

He couldn't see it, and insisted that the scripture shouldn't be interpreted that way, and that many don't interpret it that way.

"Right, many don't. But some do. Can you see how it is possible to interpret it that way?" I asked.

"No," he said, "give me an example."

"The Kenyans he referred to are an example. And I am another. I personally am an example of someone who cared less about the future. When I was a religious person, I thought much less about my future, I cared much less about social justice issues, and I didn't care at all about the environment. And that was a direct result of being religious, in my case. Not all Mormons think that way, no. It's not a necessary conclusion to the teachings, but it is one possible iteration. And it does come from the religious teachings. I thought that way because I truly thought that Jesus would come again and fix everything. I really thought the second coming of Jesus would be a grand deux ex machina to all the world's problems. So why worry about fixing everything ourselves, when everything is so hard to fix? Just let God take care of it in due time."

I was complacent as a believing Mormon; I don't like that version of me. I used to think that the only way to solve the earth's problems would be through God's intervention. If a person said such a thing to me now, I'd look at her like she's crazy. Now I take a humanist approach, that we as humans must solve our own problems. There's no god to help us, nor do we need one. Which means we as humans must step up to the task of making our lives better, creating knowledge, and understanding the nature of the universe and everything in it.

announcement: blog carnival for atheism

CLHanson of Letters from A broad alerted me to a new carnival opening up, one specifically for "promoting atheism as a positive, joyous world view." See the announcement below. The blog can be found here: Daylight Atheism. I've submitted a post. Do consider submitting if you have entries that would fit. I can't wait to read all the submissions. Our society tends to think of atheism as lacking something; I love the idea of making it something positive. (I realize I have theist readers, too. Please don't let this push you away. We are many people with many world views, and that's a good thing.)

Welcome, friends, well-wishers and regular readers! I have something to tell you all about which I'm very excited. There's an issue that I've been mulling over for some time, and tonight I intend to announce its resolution.

Specifically, I've been thinking about carnivals. The Carnival of the Godless, founded in March 2005 by Brent Rasmussen of Unscrewing the Inscrutable, is a wonderful forum for atheist writing and is still going strong. However, since that time there's been a proliferation of new atheist weblogs, and I think the CotG has gotten just a little crowded. I believe there's more than sufficient interest to sustain multiple godless carnivals, and there are some wonderful, eloquent new voices in the atheist corner of the blogosphere that deserve to be better known and could only be helped by a new forum in which to promote their writing. Also, the CotG has plenty of posts debunking and criticizing religion, but I don't think it has enough of the kind of posts I really like to see: posts promoting atheism as a positive, joyous worldview.

With all this in mind, I'm here tonight to announce a brand-new carnival for atheists and freethinkers: the Humanist Symposium. Like the CotG, this carnival will showcase some of the best non-religious writing out there. However, this one will have a slightly different emphasis. Rather than general posts on atheism and religion, the purpose of the Humanist Symposium will be specifically to defend and uphold atheism as a positive worldview of morality, reason and purpose, a desirable and attractive alternative to belief systems based on religion.

The first edition of the Humanist Symposium will appear right here at Daylight Atheism on Sunday, April 29, and I'm now officially accepting submissions. So long as it furthers the purpose described above, any and all freethought writing is welcomed! (For more details and guidelines, see the carnival home page.) Assuming the first edition is a success, I'm also seeking volunteers to host future editions, which will appear every three weeks thereafter. All correspondence and entries can be e-mailed to me, or sent through the submission form on the carnival home page.

Finally, if you have a blog, even if you don't plan to submit something yourself, you can help get the word out! Feel free to copy and republish this announcement. The Humanist Symposium needs all the entries it can get, and the more we have, the more powerfully we can make the point that atheism is a worldview that any rational person should be glad to live by!

telling an old friend

I have one friend from childhood with whom I keep in fairly good contact, but I have never had the heart or guts to tell her about my changed beliefs. Though we keep in contact over email, I recently connected with her on of those connect-with-old-friends sites online. After I saw that she was on that site, I noticed also there's a place to indicate religion.

I could've put something equivocal or vague, I could've left it blank; I could not comfortably put LDS, though the church still lists me as one of theirs. In a gutsy moment of not wanting to hide my beliefs anymore, I entered "secular humanist" for myself. I'm not stupid; she's not stupid. I'd figured she'd see it before too long and notice that I didn't put LDS. It wasn't in order to give her a hint; it was just me not wanting to hide it anymore. Then again, maybe I wanted her to find me out.

So on Good Friday, I went to work to get a few hours in while the office was quiet. The whole place was empty except for the one cubicle right next to mine. I sat down and quickly checked my email before starting work. This friend had emailed and asked, ever so casually, what a secular humanist is.

It was time for The Talk. Or, since I'm a wuss, The Email. I knew I wouldn't be able to get any work done, because I would take a long time writing and editing the email, then be upset that I just ruined her weekend.

In the email, I referred her to an online explanation of secular humanism,* and wrote

As you can tell, the tenets don't jive well with Mormonism. Which is to say Mormonism doesn't jive well with me. I didn't drop Mormonism for humanism, but over time I realized that what I hold to and understand as right and moral is summed up well with humanism.

I assured her I am willing to talk about it, but also understand if she finds it too upsetting to talk about. I apologized for not opening up until now, two years after my world crashed down on me. I explained that keeping this secret was not because I was afraid she'd end our friendship, but because it is just very, very hard to tell people whom you know it will hurt.

As I sat there, typing that in, I giant sob threatened to burst out of me. Knowing a near stranger was three feet away, I clapped my hand over my mouth and let an internal, silent scream rack my body, and some tears rolled down from my eyes. This was not a conversation I wanted to have at all, and not over email. But perhaps email is easier to deal with than face-to-face. I don't know. I've never actually told any faithful Mormons face-to-face.

I went on to tell her

But I want you to understand that I feel great about my decisions. I don't feel lost or confused, or that I am doing something wrong. I didn't leave because I was offended, or I wanted to break commandments. I left because I simply don't believe the church's truth claims anymore, and I don't feel the church is the best place for me and my family. I recognize that the church is a fine enough place for many people; just not for me.

I concluded by referring her to When a Loved One Has Let Go of the Iron Rod and repeating that I was sorry and that I loved her. And now I wait to see what she'll say, if anything.

*After reading the entry, I realized perhaps I'm leaning toward religious humanism, or just humanism. I'll have to explore that some more.