I’m amazed at the ability of the Godfull to miss the point and make false statements and generalizations about how atheists become atheists.

The thought is on my mind because a theology student recently asked me to answer some survey questions (he’d been assigned an “interview an atheist” project). I’m not sure if the questions were his own, or if they’d been fed to him by a professor, but the bias in them hurt my brain and caused me to feed on baby flesh.

Anyway, while all the questions had bias (I may post the others later), one in particular got my goat:

James Spiegel wrote in The Making of an Atheist that most people are atheists or agnostics because either one or both of the following are true: (1) there was a major disaster earlier in life that made the person angry toward God (perhaps a death of a loved one or disappointment with some people in the church), (2) the person simply does not want God to be a part of their life. Do either of these descriptions fit why you think there is no God? When did you become an atheist/agnostic, and what would you say brought this about?

Not Enough Options

The claim that there are only two options is incorrect. Including those mentioned above, I can think of four possibilities (I’m probably missing some):

1. A person could grow up in an atheist household and know virtually nothing about religion or god.
2. A person could use rational thinking and an examination of evidence and history to conclude there is no god.
3. There was a major disaster earlier in life that made the person angry toward God (perhaps a death of a loved one or disappointment with some people in the church (part of the original question).
4. The person simply does not want God to be a part of their life (also part of the original question).

Analysis

1. Why does the author see only points 3 & 4 as possible reasons for a person being an atheist? Is it because he is a shallow thinker? Or is it because he is purposefully misleading his readers?
2. Both reasons 3 & 4 mischaracterize what it means to be an atheist:
   • Definition of an Atheist: A person who does not believe in the existence of deities (Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu, Greek & Roman gods – among thousands of other deities – all included).
   • Author’s Definition (my interpretation): A person who has been alienated from, or is angry with God and who, as a result, has decided to force god’s existence from their minds by an act of mental will.
   • The author’s definition seems very similar to a person who is angry with their father and decides to shut him out of their lives. Note that, in this example, the father still exists, but he is avoided or ignored or pushed far away from the person’s daily life and thoughts.
   • The author’s conceptualization of what an atheist is, is a grossly ignorant, dishonest misrepresentation of the concept. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. It is not an emotional rejection of something a person knows to exist.

One More Thing

It is entirely possible for a person to begin their journey toward atheism based on an emotional/traumatic event, but to arrive at their destination based on rational thinking. In other words, emotion can be the trigger that leads to further investigation, that leads to a weighing of evidence, that leads to a non-emotion based abandonment of belief.

In my case, I became an atheist at 40 years of age after a lifetime of trying to believe. Certainly, there were troubling events in my life, but they did not solely lead to my atheism. My decision to abandon belief in god was based on the combined impact of these major findings (among others):

1. That religions do not adequately explain the problem of evil.
2. That there is no evidence for any god or deity.
3. That the existence of thousands of religions – all claiming to be the exclusive holders of truth and none of them providing compelling evidence for their claim suggests that none of their claims are to be trusted.

It’s important to realize that, for a long time, I really wanted to believe but, the more investigation I did, the less I was able to stomach the Kool-Aid.

One More, One More Thing

We are not mad at God. We simply do not think your god exists. Would you accept my claim that you are angry at glow-in-the-dark, spacesuit-wearing six-legged chickens? Or that you are mad at the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

No? Well, now you know how ridiculous we view your claim that “atheists are just mad at God”.

Today, me, my wife and our two children attended a conference for families dealing with children afflicted with Type 1 Diabetes. We attended because my seven year old son has been a Type 1 diabetic for close to two years.

My Son - only a few weeks after we discovered he was diabetic.

While the kids took advantage of the rare opportunity to play with others with similar challenges, my wife and I attended some excellent sessions. I was especially excited by one that was given by a University of Alberta researcher doing fascinating work on islet cell transplantation (very hopeful work!).

In contrast to the rational tone struck in the researcher’s session, some of the others – especially the Keynote – were much more emotional. I was expecting this. After all, coping with diabetes is very emotional business. Even after two years, I still have moments of extreme anger, sadness, helplessness and frustration around my son’s diabetes. Worrying that he could go to sleep and not wake up (i.e. go into comma) due to severe hypoglycemia is not fun. Neither is knowing that high blood sugar levels could eventually add up to major damage to my son’s vision or kidneys or heart… among other things.

I hate diabetes and I hate it even more that my son has it. Today I learned that I am not alone in that hatred.

However, today I also learned how prolifically my being an atheist sets me apart from how people who believe in God view their child’s affliction.

I do not ask “Why him?”. Not ever.

But that very question was asked (or at least implied) by several people over the course of the day. It started with the Keynote speaker who frequently invoked God in trying to give comfort to us. “God has a plan” he’d say. “Your child’s diabetes is God’s way of strengthening your character” he’d say.

His speech was followed by a very helpful Q&A session where a young father asked, “How do you answer your child when he says, ‘Why me’?

And all the God-talk began again, and all I could think was, “Why is this question even being asked?”.

The question made me realize how my atheism so markedly sets me apart from those who believe in God or who are ‘spiritual’. To me, the question was non-sensical – but it certainly was not non-sensical to the people doing the asking and answering. To them, it was quite important.

For me, the answer to the question is simply and solely mathematical. Here is how I would have answered my fellow father…

“The reason our sons have diabetes is that one in four hundred children get diabetes and, unfortunately, our children drew the short stick in the statistical lottery. Our sons becoming diabetic is no different from the fact that one in eight women get breast cancer, or that one in four men are bald by the time they are 30. There is no ‘why me?’ to these statistics – they simply describe the fact that shit happens in predictable frequencies within the population.”

For me, this statistical explanation is enough. And, if you ask me, it’s a far more comforting way of thinking compared to trying to understand why God would cause or permit this sort of suffering to be inflicted on a child. Most importantly, the answer satisfies my son – especially when I can attach it to the fact that he’s very fortunate not to have been born 100 years ago, before the discovery of insulin therapy.

That aside, I can totally understand why a religious parent would have trouble coming up with an answer to ‘why me?’. I think it’s because deep down, they themselves subconsciously know that the answers a belief in God requires (e.g. “Diabetes is God’s gift to you” etc) are far from comforting.

In fact, those kinds of answers do nothing less than to paint a picture of a cruel, twisted God who inflicts pain and suffering on innocent pre-schoolers who do not have the mental capacity to even begin appreciating the ‘gift’ their God has so graciously provided.

No wonder these parents don’t know how to answer the question. Neither would I.

I still vividly remember the scary jumble of emotions that hit me when I allowed myself to imagine there was no god. The first thought was a rather funny (well, funny in retrospect!), “Oh my God – there is no GOD!” that was accompanied by the sensation of falling …as if someone had pulled the floor from under me. I think the analogy is quite suitable because the foundations for virtually everything I thought I knew up ’til that moment came from religion.

• Morality came from religion.
• The meaning of life came from religion.
• How we got here came from religion.
• What would happen to me after I died came from religion.

Suddenly, there was this blank slate. Nothing I thought I had known, was known.

It scared the hell out of me to realize there was no grand purpose for humanity and my life, that there was no afterlife, and that there was no set moral code telling me how to live. In other words, my religiously based life had been replaced by an immense void.

However, fear and uncertainty very quickly gave way to an insatiable, unconstrained curiosity to learn. I became full of a sense of wonder I hadn’t had since my childhood fascination for space and dinosaurs. Life was now an open road and I realized my new purpose was to explore that road.

That was almost two years ago, and my curiosity hasn’t abated – not in the least. In fact, I’d say it’s just getting stronger.

Which brings me to you. If fear has held you back from thinking god might not exist, I encourage you to press on – the rewards are truly immense. A mind-opening, perhaps even (dare I say it?) spiritual experience awaits you.

And to my fellow non-believers who get frustrated with those who don’t seem to be hearing your message, please try to be patient – there is a lot at stake for them. Letting go of immortality for one’s self and one’s loved ones can be enormously difficult, and your proposition brings a great deal of fear and uncertainty with it.

All that aside, de-conversion after years and years of belief is possible. If I can do it at 40, anyone can.

I sometimes get emails. The latest one is from a Christian who shared his opinion (a tired old claim) that, without his god, there is no morality.

As if that weren’t enough to get the last hair on my head standing up, last night I watched Dinesh D’Souza make the audacious claim that all of the good morals in western society are Christian morals.

I’ve often heard it said that the 10 Commandments is the ‘ultimate moral code’ (Dinesh has said something to this effect on numerous occasions). Let’s focus on them to see if the claim is true.

Table via Wikipedia

As you can see, the first three or four commandments (3 vs 4 depending on what brand of Christian you are) are all about worshiping god (note that I am lumping ‘keep the Sabbath’ in this grouping). Are these first commandments really about morality? It seems to me they are not – that they are about brow-beating people into accepting an insecure god’s authority. I would challenge anyone to show me how those 3/4 commandments make us more moral.

On to the remaining commandments…

Honor your father and mother: Sounds reasonable on the surface, but is it as wise as it could be? Why not “respect others as you would like to be respected”? And, while we’re on the subject, do all parents deserve to be honored, or is it more accurate that some parents are worthy and others are not?  What about parents who abuse their children? Are they to be honored at all times as the commandment commands?

You shall not murder: A pretty darn good rule. My questions about it are 1) Would we all be running around killing people without it, and 2) Does this rule not exist in other societies (religious and secular)? In other words, does Christianity think it’s the only world view to think not killing is a good thing?

You shall not steal: Again, this is a pretty good rule but I can imagine there to be nuances that it doesn’t consider. For instance, if your family is starving, and you live under a rich tyrant, would it not be acceptable to steal from him/her to keep your loved ones from perishing? This is similar to the ‘honor your father and mother’ commandment in that I don’t think it’s as wise as it could be (remember we are basing this discussion on the claim that the Ten Commandments are the ultimate moral code).

You shall not lie (bear false witness): I think we can all agree that, sometimes, lying is perfectly acceptable. Lying to avoid hurting a person’s feelings is ok. Lying to avoid being persecuted by an unjust ruler is ok. Again, couldn’t this take a wiser form?

You shall not commit adultery: This commandment really gets to personal feelings about what a marriage is and should be. The problem is that there are some variations in what people believe in this regard. What if two people no longer love one another, but have amicably agreed to remain married until their children have grown? What happens if, under these conditions, they want to have an ‘open’ marriage? Of course, a very religious person may view this choice as unacceptable in the eyes of their god, but a more secularly minded individual may think otherwise. Their viewpoint may be, “adultery is ok as long as each partner agrees and it doesn’t hurt the children”.

You shall not covet: There is a lot I could say here, but I will just say one thing – while it may not put a person’s mind at ease to be always wanting something he does not have, I cannot see it to be such a crime as to be worthy of eternal damnation. You could go your entire life wishing to have your neighbor’s wealth (or wife) but how does that mental wish make you hell bound?

Other Shortcomings of the Ten Commandments: I am sure there are others, but here are just a few off the top of my head:

1. Child Molestation: This should be a no-brainer if you’re making commandments.
2. Rape: Ditto
3. Slavery: At one time, Christians justified slavery using verses in the Bible. Now we know better. Why wasn’t something about slavery included in the ultimate moral code?
4. Equality: Women, blacks and now gays have all struggled for equality. Why didn’t something about basic human rights get included in the Christian moral code?

Ok, so we’re done looking at the Ten Commandments. To me anyway, it’s pretty clear that they are anything but an ‘ultimate moral code’. Some Christians will say that the Ten Commandments are not everything – that there is lots of other good stuff in the Bible. My answer is to agree that there is some good stuff in the Bible. However, there is also a lot of bad stuff. There are passages about stoning disobedient children, stoning women for not being virgins, carrying out genocide and much, much more.

To those charges, the liberal Christian pleads that much of the Bible should not be taken literally – that there are hidden meanings and positive messages to be found behind those passages. The passages don’t mean what they say. In other words, we need to better interpret them.

Ok fine but, at this point, I think it’s worth mentioning that interpreting and re-interpreting Bible passages has been going on for a long, long time. In fact, this sort of thing is what’s led to the multitude of Christian denominations we have today. Generally speaking, what happens is a person (or group of people) disagrees with the moral code being promoted by a given faith. In some circumstances, the dispute ends gracefully with a new moral interpretation. A good example of this is how most of Christianity eventually recognized that slavery was bad. In more extreme cases, new denominations & religions have splintered off to propagate their own moral preferences.

In both cases, their is one commonality – people engage their brains, review the Bible, strip away the bad stuff, and evolve their understanding of the Bible so that it can be made consistent with the morality of the day.

Did you pay attention to that last bit? It is people who have historically evolved their moral codes – not the Bible, and it is the re-interpretations that have  allowed the Bible to stay morally relevant.

And even then, it seems to me that the Bible is grossly inadequate compared to other sources of morality. Which sources? How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a clearly secular document)? I’m sorry but, on issues of human rights, the Bible doesn’t even hold a candle.

That specific document aside, there are many places where you can begin satisfying your desire to learn about morality and to formulate your own code of ethics. Philosophy loves ethics and morality and has a nasty habit (according to some!) of failing to mention deities. Here are a few links to get you started:

1. Wikipedia’s Ethics Page – a good jump-off point
2. Index of Ethical Movements (another good jump-off point)
3. Objectivism
4. Humanism
5. Secular Ethics
6. Hedonism
7. Utilitarianism
8. Stoicism (A.C. Grayling says much of Christian thought was co-opted from Stoicism)
9. Consequentialism
10. Alternatives to the Ten Commandments

Or you might read up on what some of the world’s most famous philosophers have had to say. Great thinkers like:

• Immanual Kant
• Friedrich Nietzsche
• Aristotle
• and the list goes on and on and on…

My own morality leans heavily on humanism and the Ethic of Reciprocity (a virtually universal ethical standard – not found solely in the Christian version of the ‘Golden Rule’) but I enjoy reading about other schools, and view the subject as a lifetime pursuit. I think one of the most important things we can keep in mind when considering ethics and morality is that we aren’t obligated to buy into any one school of thought. It’s your brain – use it.

I’m curious if any of my readers subscribe to a particular school of ethical thought, and what resources they’ve used to arrive at their own views on the subject. Please share.

In the meantime, I hope it’s now clear that Godless ≠ Without Morals.

]]> http://40yearoldatheist.com/godless-morals/2009/12/feed/ 50 http://40yearoldatheist.com/does-religious-faith-instill-hatred-distrust-of-science/2009/11/ http://40yearoldatheist.com/does-religious-faith-instill-hatred-distrust-of-science/2009/11/#comments Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:13:01 +0000 40 Year Old Atheist http://40yearoldatheist.com/?p=796

I have a friend who I’m finding myself disagreeing with more and more lately. This person is intelligent and generally makes a lot of sense – even when we have ideological disagreements (such as on political matters).

But lately, the disagreements have baffled and troubled me as I’ve put pieces of the puzzle together to realize how amazingly anti-science he is. Examples:

1. Climate Warming: He continually quotes out of date research and the ramblings of “scientists” with iffy (at best) credentials who claim that climate warming is a hoax.
2. Evolution: I am not exaggerating much when I say he sounds like a Ray Comfort clone. “Evolution is not a science because it’s not repeatable or observable” and “Evolution takes faith” have escaped his lips on more than one occasion.

And, in addition to those two specific examples, I’ve also heard him call science “scientism” and say that  “science is a religion”.

However, because the conversations have been widely spread apart (months at times), and because he is elusive about his beliefs, I was never able to make sense of him …until recently.

I was listening to an episode of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe when one of the hosts made the statement that, when science conflicts with a person’s ideologies, that person will often reject the science. Then, he went on to say that the most prevalent cases of these rejections flow from conflicts between science and religion.

Suddenly, two years of discussions with my friend came into clear focus…

1. He has conservative leanings.
2. He’s a climate warming denier.
3. He’s anti-evolution.
4. He’s made statements about people and even countries being punished by God for their wrongdoings.

All of these things paint a picture that we tend to ascribe to conservative Christians. Here are two of the consistencies expanded a bit to help illustrate the point I’m making:

1. Global Warming: It’s very common for conservative Christians to deny that we humans are having any appreciable effect on the planet’s temperature. This comes partly from the biblically inspired belief that it would be arrogant to think humans could have that much of an impact on God’s creation. It also comes from the connection to the end-times prophecy that – even if we were impacting the earth’s temperature, it is just part of God’s plan to bring on the rapture. In other words, bring on the destruction of the earth – because the worthy won’t be here to live on it anyway. This sort of thinking is exactly why non-believers feared George Bush being at the helm of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
2. Evolution: Most of the world’s Christians have no issue with the theory of evolution via Natural Selection (e.g. Catholics & Anglicans are a-ok with it). Indeed, there are other religions (e.g. Hinduism) that also accept it as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Not so with the conservative Christian crowd. For them, evolution – especially human evolution – is an attack on the belief that God created man in his image. Humans did not come into exist by a “chance” sequence of events over billions of years – we are here according to divine plan. Humans are not simply the most intelligent of millions of species – we were created to preside over the earth and everything within it. To conservatives, evolution undermines faith – plain and simple.

The bottom line is that science opposes the conservative Christian world view – and that of my friend’s – in multiple and significant ways.

When this happens, a serious case of cognitive dissonance tends to set in. The two opposing ideas of science and religion simply cannot occupy the same space so the brain attempts to solve the problem. Unfortunately, science often loses to faith because the latter is such a hugely emotional thing (it’s tough for a scientific explanation to compete with the promise of eternal life).

One of the tricks the mind plays on itself to support its emotional choice is confirmation bias – it finds support for its viewpoint, while ignoring or downplaying contrary information. Remember my colleague’s reliance on outdated information and unqualified climate science “experts”? Yup, a perfect example.

Like millions of other conservative Christians, my friend has solved his dissonance by rejecting science.

The irony for the conservative faithful, is that they live in a society that is utterly dependent on science for virtually every aspect of the the lifestyle we’re accustomed to in 21st century North America. I imagine this irony is not entirely lost on them, and it must be difficult to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay. After all, they would find their views in opposition not only with secularists, but also with most other Christians.

I’m not interested in destroying anyone’s faith but, as a humanist, I also do not want anyone to suffer. Therefore, if you are a person who’s troubled by the collision between your faith and science, my advice to you is this…

You don’t necessarily have to abandon your belief in God to accept what science has to offer. All you have to do is adjust your faith. Not every Christian believes every word of their faith so why should you? It’s worth mentioning that there are many varieties of Christian faith that do not clash violently with science. It’s also worth mentioning that the Christian faith has been evolving for over 2000 years, so any adjustment you might make to your faith would be done in good company.

Have you ever thought it might be nice to move to a less religious part of the world? If so, you might have thought you’d have to go all the way to Scandinavia. Well, you’d be wrong.

Starting in the early 1960′s, the province of Quebec, Canada went through a Quiet Revolution – a revolution that’s resulted in an increasingly secular society. Link

Compared to the US, most of Canada is a relative haven for non-believers. A recent survey shows that one in four Canadians do not believe in god, but Quebec is leading the way with huge declines in church attendance. Things have gotten so bad there (or, good depending on how you look at it!) that churches are being sold to the lowest bidder.

And it appears that Quebec isn’t done sticking nails in the coffin of religion.

So, the next time you think it might be nice to get a change of scenery, think of Quebec …just make sure you brush up on your French.

Sure, we all have our moments (I certain have them) when we just want to grab believers by the neck and choke the belief system out of them.

But many of us also know how hard it is to shed one’s belief in god. The following post on Reddit does a far better job than I ever have of conveying this message. The bonus is just how many atheists chimed in to vigorously agree. Click on the link below to see for yourself.

Atheism vs Theism may seem like a battle of wits involving only science, and debate. The real truth is far deeper and darker than this, and anyone who considers discussing atheism with a “person of faith” should consider this: : atheism.

Arguably the most common thing we atheists are heard saying is that there is no evidence for the existence of god. Just as commonly, we hear believers say that we must show evidence that god doesn’t exist (it’s at this point where you can usually hear an audible *sigh*).

Before getting into the backward logic of the latter demand, let’s look at some examples of evidence:

1. Fingerprints and hair samples (DNA) are evidence for a person being placed at a crime scene.
2. Fossils are evidence that extinct species of animals once existed.
3. A photo of my wife and I kissing is evidence that we love one another.
4. Observing the speed of different items falling (in a frictionless vacuum) is evidence that gravity has the same pull on items of different mass.

Sometimes, the evidence is convincing and easy to find. Other times, it is weak and difficult to come by (for Galileo’s gravity experiment, we need a frictionless environment). In science, when evidence is weak, we continue to push until we have more and more of it – until we have a degree of confidence that our theory is correct.

What all evidence has in common is that it demonstrates something about the physical properties of the world we live in (i.e. that everything is made of matter). Therefore, evidence must take physical form. It may be visual. It may be auditory. It may be something we can touch or measure in some physical way because, where there’s matter, there’s generally a way to measure it. The point is, evidence is more substantial that a thought that exists in our minds.

The claims of religion operate on two levels. At the macro level, we have the claim that God exists while, on the micro level, we have the claim that the Bible is true, and that Jesus existed.

What evidence do we have that supports those claims? Well, the Bible claims that there is a God. Outside of that, he seems to exist only in the minds of people since there has not, in our time, been any documented, verifiable, observable, physical proof that he’s around.

With respect to the Bible, where’s the evidence in support of its claims? I think to answer this question, it’s helpful to separate the claims into two areas:

1. Its claims about the origins of the universe and life.
2. Its claims about history – specifically, about Jesus’ existence.

With regard to claim #1, virtually everything we know about the origins of the universe (e.g. that it’s 14 billion years old) come into direct conflict with what’s said in the Bible (6000 years?). Most importantly, the knowledge we have is supported by copious amount of evidence. In contrast, the Bible’s evidence is that the Bible says so. A key concept used in the scientific method is this: When a theory is shown to have massive amounts of evidence that conflicts with a theory with no evidence, the latter theory is very likely implausible. This IS evidence for the non-existence of God – or, at least, for the god that is written about in the Bible. It’s also evidence that the Bible is deeply flawed. Given that, I think its prudent that we ask ourselves, “Why should we trust the Bible?”. I see no reason we should.

Aside: Even the claim that god loves us is bogus. Where, outside a thought in your brain can one find evidence for the love of an invisible man in the sky?

With regard to claim #2, again, the Bible runs up against a method similar to science. Historians test in specific ways when they evaluate claims about what happened in the past. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t do well when these tests are applied. Without getting too deeply into the historicity of the Bible, one of the best examples of this test is that Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in Roman records of the time. You’d think, someone of that importance would have been mentioned somewhere by the Romans – wouldn’t you?

Aside #2: I recommend reading anything by Bart Ehrman (you can also find some excellent videos of him debating believers on YouTube).

All this means that there is little if any reliable evidence showing the Bible to be worth the paper it is written on. And if this is so, what does it say about the claims about Jesus, or his father?

All this aside, the claim that we must prove the non-existence of god is ludicrous. It’s a claim that was adeptly brushed aside by Bertrand Russel when he conceptualized his “celestial teapot”:

___

I really can’t put a finer point on it than that. Besides, it’s late and I’m tired.

Us so-called “New Atheists” have gotten a bad rap in many circles. As our numbers have grown, one counter-attack from the religious is that we are not like the old atheists – that we are militantly against religion and are attacking liberal-minded believers who are not concerned with our atheism.

For my part, I am rarely anti-theistic. Generally, as long as you don’t try to impose your beliefs on me – or the government (e.g. educational system) – I think your religion is none of my business.

And then something like the attack on Hemant Mehta – the Friendly Atheist – happens (how militant can a guy who calls himself “friendly” be?).

Links: here , here , and here.

When the religious attack good people like Hemant – try to get him FIRED from his job for beliefs that are never brought up in his MATH class (it’d be pretty difficult to talk about atheism while discussing algebra), it pisses us off.

So, now I’m mad. A lot of atheists are mad. Hemant’s unfortunate experience has reminded us that we must be vigilant to protect our rights. We must band together. We must speak out against religious wing-nuts.

Congratulations to the Illinois Family Institute for getting more of us atheists up in arms.

We took the kids for a treat tonight – dinner at Red Robins (one of their favorites).

Almost as soon as we sat down, my daughter (11 years) mentioned how someone in the family thinks they saw a ghost at the side of her bed. My response was an immediate and confident, “there’s no such thing as ghosts”.

It was a that point where my other half took a friendly jab at the fact that I “don’t believe in anything”.

“Not true”, I said. “I believe in a lot of things. I just need to see convincing evidence before I proclaim belief”.

Something about that really clicked with my daughter who immediately went into a litany of things she didn’t believe or that didn’t make sense to her. Guess what sorts of things don’t sit well with her?

- the idea that there’s an invisible man up there that created everything.

- the creation of a woman from a man’s rib.

- how Adam and Eve could have populated the entire earth.

- Noah’s Ark.

The subject of god and my beliefs hasn’t come up with my daughter since I became an atheist. In other words, I didn’t put these thoughts in her head. Truth be known, I was a bit worried about how she’d react to knowing my thoughts on religion because she spent five years in a Catholic school (it’s a long story) before I became an atheist.

But, the conversation was exactly as I’d always hoped it would be – spontaneously initiated by her, at an age where she could formulate reasoned questions and answers. She was SO inquisitive and thoughtful. I also got the feeling she was really appreciative of the alternative viewpoint I had. I think she may have felt previously that her doubts about those things had no audience.

After she talked about what she didn’t believe, she asked how I thought the world was created. I was very excited to share what little I know about The Big Bang! Then, she surprised me even further by asking if we “came from apes”. “Wow! What a great day”, I thought, and proceeded to give her a quick run down on the theory of evolution.

She SOAKED it up …we connected in a way we never had before.

While all this was going on, my son (7 years) was going into great detail about how he was going to grow up to be a scientist and prove that zombies really do exist. I may have to work on that one a bit more!