Good vs. Evil: Contrasting the Humanist View with the Religious View

I didn't get too far in my reading this morning before my blood started to boil.

On page 134 of "The Shack", the author attempts to explain why "God" not only allows, but arranges for bad things to happen to good people. Sarayu (the Holy Ghost), is staged in a conversation with Mack (the main character) for the following dialogue:

"Let me begin by asking you a question. When something happens to you, how do you determine whether it is good or evil?"

Mack thought for a moment before answering. "I guess I would say that something is good when I like it--when it makes me feel good or gives me a sense of security. Conversely, I'd call something evil that causes me pain or costs me something I want.

"...Some things I initially thought were good turned out to be horribly destructive, and some things that I thought were evil, well, they turned out..."

He hesitated before finishing his thought, but Sarayu interrupted. "Then it is you who determines good and evil. You become the judge. And to make things more confusing, that which you determine to be good will change over time and circumstance. And then beyond that and even worse, there are billions of you each determining what is good and what is evil. So when your good and evil clashes with your neighbor's, fights and arguments ensue and even wars break out."

The author then goes into this double-speak type of logic that connects this all back to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil", and what a literal calamity it was that Eve partook of it, saying, "A problem? Indeed! The choice to eat of that tree tore the universe apart divorcing the spiritual from the physical. They [Adam and Eve] died, expelling in the breath of their choice the very breath of God. I would say that is a problem!"

This is when the author went into the most damaging logic, which is absolutely frighting to me when I realize how many people have bought into this book; hook, line and sinker. Taken from page 136:

"So there is a way to fix [mankind's insane lust for independence]?" asked Mack.

"You must give up your right to decide what is good and evil on your own terms. That is a hard pill to swallow; choosing to only live in me. To do that you must know me enough to trust me and learn to rest in my inherent goodness."

Well, since religion is primarily of interest to the uneducated, what did this paragraph just accomplish? If this is supposedly the Holy Ghost talking to Mack, and the reader has just been counselled to "only live in me" and "know me enough to trust me", then how, exactly is that accomplished?

This is how...by going to church and "learning about the Holy Ghost" through the words of a preacher...a man! You are essentially being told to follow the leaders of your church blindly, and now, worse than that, "...give up your right to decide what is good and evil on your own terms...choosing to only live in me."

I have a better idea. Rather than follow "a man" who claims to be "speaking the word of God", why don't you just trust yourself...your own inner goodness?

The following is from a new web site that people are being directed to from ads on the sides of buses in Washington DC. The website is http://www.whybelieveinagod.org/.

"Many people imagine that the only way to be good in this world is through belief in a god. But is that really necessary? Must we be bound by moral dictates set down in “sacred” texts written hundreds, if not thousands of years ago? Must we accept the authority and judgments of “spiritual” leaders and religious hierarchy? Does religious faith offer the only lens through which to judge life’s events?

The answer to these questions is no! There is another way for us to approach life. We can have ethics and values based on our built-in drives toward a moral life. And we can expand on these by adding what we have learned over time, building on tested principles while weighing consequences—all in the light of compassion and reason. Our ideals and principles can thus adapt to face the new moral dilemmas that arise in our ever-changing and increasingly complex world. Although there are few simple answers to life’s problems, we can be confident in the decisions we make—not because someone told us what is right but because we relied on our own careful reasoning and emotional reflection. We can live a life that accepts and appreciates the world as it is, and makes changes where possible, without needing to see supernatural explanations behind every event. This is a positive and uplifting approach.

Such a way of life is called humanism. Humanists use reason and the tools of science to better understand our world and the best way to live in it. Humanists understand that compassion for fellow human beings, as well as an acknowledgement of their inherent dignity and worth, must form the basis of our interactions with each other. Humanists are free of belief in any god or afterlife. We must make the best of this one life that we have.

If this is how you, also, see the world, then you are a humanist. So why not learn more about the American Humanist Association and the friendly people who are enjoying humanist activities in your area?
[end of excerpt]

My advice to you this Sunday is that you stay home from church and start living your own independent life. This web page would be a good start.

When Good Men Do Evil...and Call It Religion

I'm up to page 132 in "The Shack", and now I see a pattern emerging.

No sooner had the author finished talking about the blue jay on page 97 (see my other blog for that post), than he started into the most convoluted logic imaginable that attempts to hypnotize the reader by going into a 34 page description of why God is so confusing to a mortal man. This twisted and misguided attempt to "explain away" every scripture that seems to contradict another scripture with who or what God is is breathtaking in what it expects the reader to toss aside with a simple "because I said so" on the part of the author (and by extension, the scriptures).

I kept reading, hoping that the author would wrap this up with something that tied it all together in an easy to swallow pill, but instead, I got the following dialogue by the character who portrays the Holy Ghost on page 132. She is in the garden behind the cabin with Mack.

"So, are there plants in this garden that are poisonous?" he asked.

"Oh, yes," exclaimed Sarayu [the Holy Ghost]. "They are some of my favorites. Some are even dangerous to the touch, like this one." She reached for a nearby bush and snapped off something that looked like a dead stick with only a few tiny leaves budding from the stem. She handed it to Mack, who raised both hands to avoid touching it.

"Sarayu laughed. "I am here, Mack. There are times when it is safe to touch, and times when precautions must be taken. That is the wonder and adventure of exploration, a piece of what you call science--to discern and discover what we have hidden for you to find."

"So why did you hide it?" Mack inquired.

"Why do children love to hide and seek? Ask any person who has a passion to explore and discover and create. The choice to hide so many wonders from you is an act of love that is a gift inside the process of life."

"Mack gingerly reached out and took the poisonous twig. "If you had not told me this was safe to touch, would it have poisoned me?"

"Of course! But if I direct you to touch, that is different."
[end of quote]

Am I the only one who sees what the reader is being set up for here? Let me take you back a few posts to the quote by the humanist Steven Weinberg:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

This is how a religion accomplishes their evil. This is why I use the "shelf metaphor". In organized religion, it is all about being homogeneous. If you have questions about the conflicts between life and the religion, these conflicts (or questions) are to be "put on the shelf" and God will answer them in the next life. For 34 pages the author is busy reinforcing how totally and utterly confusing the notion of "God" is when you try to come up with a cohesive image from the Bible. For 34 pages you are told to 'put that on the shelf', 'put this on the shelf', 'you will have the answer to that question after you die'. None of it makes sense, and the author knows this, which is why religions spend so much time telling you how to use this "shelf" concept.

And then they hit you with the coup de grace (literally translated, the killing blow in a mercy killing). After you have loaded up your shelf with questions that they tell you are "unimportant", they tell you to obey whoever it is that your religion looks up to as its leader...and to "obey without question", even if it doesn't make sense to do so.

Once again, the ending line from the quote above:
"Of course [it would have poisoned you], but if I direct you to touch, that is different."

What is it exactly that I was supposed to learn from my reading of "The Shack"?

I think I finally understand why so many churches are making this book available free of charge to as many members of their congregation who want to take one home and/or give a copy to their friends.

For the Mormons (the thorn in my side for 44 years), they didn't need "The Shack". Because they function as de facto cult anyway, their mind control is absolute by the time you are twelve years old and graduate from their version of a junior Sunday school (the Primary Organization).

"Recording" History vs. "Shaping" History - you choose.

My next few posts may follow along with my reading of "The Shack" by William P. Young. There have been several little promptings lately to get me to read this novel, not the least of which is the idea that it might just restore my belief in a God. I thought I would give it a valiant last attempt, so I'm reading the book.

So far, I can't get the humanist out of my head, but I'm only on page 30.

Let me tell you how my mind is working now. On page 27 it talks about how Multnomah Falls was named.

"The tale centered on a[n Indian} princess, the only child left to her aging father. The Chief loved his daughter dearly and carefully picked out a husband for her; a young warrior chief of the Clatsop tribe, who he knew she loved. The two tribes came together to celebrate the days of the wedding feast, but before it could begin, a terrible sickness began to spread among the men, killing many.

"The elders and the chiefs met to discuss what they could do about the wasting disease that was quickly decimating their warriors. The oldest medicine man among them spoke of how his own father, when aged and near death, had foretold of a terrible sickness that would kill their men, an illness that could only be stopped if a pure and innocent daughter of a chief would willingly give up her life for her people. In order to fulfill the prophecy, she must voluntarily climb to a cliff above the Big River and from there jump to her death onto the rocks below.

"A dozen young women, all daughters of the various chiefs, were brought before the council. After considerable debate the elders decided that they could not ask for such a precious sacrifice, especially for a legend they weren't sure was true.

"But the disease continued to spread unabated among the men and eventually the young warrior chief, the husband-to-be, fell ill with the sickness. The princess who loved him knew in her heart that something had to be done, and after cooling his fever and kissing him softly on the forehead, she slipped away.

"It took her all night and the next day to reach the place spoken of in the legend, a towering cliff overlooking the Big River and the lands beyond. After praying and giving herself to the Great Spirit, she fulfilled the prophecy by jumping without hesitation to her death on the rocks below.

"Back at the villages the next morning, those who had been sick arose well and strong. There was great joy and celebration until the young warrior discovered that his beloved bride was missing. As the awareness of what had happened spread rapidly among the people, many began the journey to the place where they knew they would find her. As they silently gathered around her broken body at the base of the cliff, her grief-stricken father cried out to the Great Spirit, asking that her sacrifice would always be remembered. At that moment, water began to fall from the place where she had jumped, turning into a fine mist that fell at their feet, slowly forming a beautiful pool."

And they all lived happily ever after.

As the author writes, "It had all the elements of a true redemption story, not unlike the story of Jesus that she [the little girl in the story] knew so well. It centered on a father who loved his only child and a sacrifice foretold by a prophet. Because of love, the child willingly gave up her life to save her betrothed and their tribes from certain death."

As for me, as a humanist, I fail to see the difference between the two fables. One is from a small little-known native American tribe that relied upon verbal accounts to preserve their history, and the other from a people well-known in world history. This well-known people likewise relied upon verbal history for about 60 years before somebody wanted to organize the people (now a captured people who were ready to capitalize on their "victim status") and decided to commit a common and well-liked fable to parchment as a tool to bring the people who loved to tell that fable together into an organized religion.

Both fables were likely based on actual historical events (the wasting disease for the native Americans, and the crucifixion of a man in Jerusalem), but that is where the facts end and the sensationalizing begins.

I will never again be so blind as to not realize that the "winners" get to write history, so I now read or listen to each account of history through the prism of the author. When you read the scientific account of history that documents the New Testament time period, you can clearly understand the motives in why those scriptures were written and what those fables were intended to teach.

They were written to "shape" history, and were never intended to "record" history.

No, so far, as a humanist, I wasn't inspired to see that Christianity has any more claim to the truth than the native-American tribes of Oregon, but I am committed to continue my reading of "The Shack".