What is Reality?

I forget the exact words of my friend’s conversation with me. It must have been after one of her trips to Austin for a Deepak Chopra thingy. At the time she was New Age and I was trying to be a practicing Roman Catholic. She did not criticize my religion, but I am sure she thought it wrong (as did evangelicals, Lutherans, and the anti-organized religion crowd, and me today). Something she said led me to a question.

I asked, What about reality? She said, don’t be negative and depressing. I was surprised by her dim view of what she considered reality. Indeed, she’d had a shitty life for the most part, being married to a hopeless misogynistic alcoholic. But my friend’s negative view of reality and her refusal to consider it still troubles me years after. Hers was not a unique way to see the world.

Many people deliberately shun all forms of reality. And in my opinion, the same goes for human nature and truth. That was not the only time she assumed she knew my thoughts and motives. The discussion of reality stopped.

Some years prior to that, a professional therapist looked at me and said, “We each have our own reality.” I understood her comment as a mental health professional, considering how individual psychological perspective effects behavior. While I may have bought it at the time, I was skeptical then and don’t agree with her now. Schizophrenics and hypochondriacs may think they live in their own reality, but that reality is part of the illness. It is not part of physical reality, except to them. It is not true (voices or illnesses).

What is imagined does not necessarily exist, although the discussion goes on and on. Because hallucination is a real thing does not mean what is imagined physically exists.

Apparently, reality in the sense of the real physical world is not as simple as many of us see it. However, most of us only deal with our immediate surroundings—the reality we live within. The reality we can sense.

Few of us are philosophers or physicists in the professional or technical sense. Most of us claim to have some form of belief in a god/higher power/supreme being, or some form of yaddy yadda woo-woo, whatever. That belief often goes beyond the point of I think god is real to there is a god. It’s okay to believe (own reality) whatever, but belief or faith does not make it real.

Said belief is either fun, gets one laid, or makes one superior to others. Equality is wonderful. But we seem to want to feel superior to others and to have them acknowledge our better-than-you-ness. The accoutrements of beliefs and corresponding religion make for problems which too many believers are in denial of or blind to (but not all).

In order to solidify objections, we want to engage in the demonizing of others. This is done at every level from the presidency (not just this one) and the popes and virtually all religious leadership, down to the most ordinary of people, some not even practitioners of any religion.

Reality is real stuff. Real people, places, and things. It is not an idea, not a may-or-might be, or any possibility. Reality is what is. You can see it, taste it, feel it, smell it, and hear some of it. If you either want to, or for some reason must, believe something else: fine. It’s not real.

Bill

How I see it: Bibles

The Source

I once balked on an atheist’s blog because the writer implied something about all atheists. He said we all view the bible as fiction. While I did not agree with that description, my real squabble was with saying anything about all atheists beyond some sort of negative conclusion regarding gods. Atheists debate, argue, and many of us commit logical fallacies, especially the owner of the blog I questioned. I recall no response by him, but one comment by another atheist did make me wonder.

Her comment questioned me directly as to what we (presumably we atheists) should call the bible (or how we should see it). I did not respond. I cannot answer such a question quickly because I would be presuming to speak for how others should, or do, see something and identify it. However, I can state how I personally regard the collection known as the bible. I can also explain why I see it as I do. I can further say why I think it incorrect to refer to the bible as a book of fiction. While I don’t care how others refer to the collection, especially if their motive is antagonistic or trolling for reactions, I feel my opinion should carry as much weight as the original blogger; and I was asked.

My Background

While I grew up religious (Roman Catholic), my world was not dominated by bibles or thumpers. I went to a religious school through 8^th grade, but I only recall studying a lot of Catechism for eight years and Bible History in 7^th and 8^th grades (textbook and academic course title).

We had religious paraphernalia in our home, but I recall no bible. So, I was not indoctrinated into a bible-based form of Christianity during my formative years, although Catholic liturgical practice (Mass) included several bible readings according to a liturgical calendar which is followed closely today by several main-line protestant denominations. This probably left me with a more flexible view of scripture compared to those raised in bible-based and sola-scriptura faiths (protestants). It was many years before it dawned on me that everything in the Catholic Mass is based in some fashion on the contents of the bible.

I have attended a variety of protestant churches (I married a protestant) over the years during which I gained a greater appreciation for, and knowledge of, the bible. I have studied the bible and read all of it, including the additional books of the Catholic bible, and others for comparative analysis. I’ve read most books more than once or twice. I have read and researched various versions (side by side) and miscellaneous translations. I have taken and taught courses about the bible. For years I taught what is called Bible Study in many forms and attended same. I became something of a lay expert on the bible. I also became very aware of people reading and studying the bible and the various views and ways to interpret it.

Understanding the Bible

Hermeneutics is the study of the various ways to interpret the bible and other literary texts. How one interprets the books of the bible is important, especially for people who apply metaphysical value to them. While there may be others, there are four main types of bible interpretations: literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical.

I have never considered myself a literalist in biblical interpretation (or in much of anything), but I confess to using all four variants in interpreting scripture. When atheists (and some believers) challenge biblical content, they are often told that they are misunderstanding the text. This is often the case when a literalist is challenged and needs to jump into an allegorical or anagogical defense because literal interpretation is often what the atheist is doing, and what the biblical defender has been doing. Such arguments become a silly game, especially when one or more participants are basically biblically ignorant.

Is the Bible True or the Word of God?

The bible was written by humans. To believe or say otherwise is nonsense. To get around this fact, the claim of being inspired by god works well. But then the problem becomes how we are to determine which religious documents were inspired by god (or an angel). That water gets mighty muddy, but someone made such decisions regarding the biblical cannon, and the result is scattered scripture within all three Abrahamic religions, and fractured Christianity being lost within itself.

Can such variety be both true and the word of god? Not in my opinion. But it is a fact there are many bibles. None of them are original documents, and they do not all agree. All of them have been tampered with in one way or another over two millennia. All must be read in languages other than the original (Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek [not Latin], all now dead languages) which confounds already questionable authenticity.

The number of books in the bible and what they say are not agreed upon. If there is a god, one would think that He would have been a better steward of the only valid communication he has ever made with his creation.

I attended an event at a church this weekend. I saw no visible signs (a cross or something) to determine its denomination, so I looked it up. They claim to be Christian in some new age, inclusive way. They also state that their biblical interpretation is metaphysical. Ok, but what they are claiming is to be philosophically interpreting the bible which is a highfaluting way to say whatever. That makes truth relative (or subjective) and literalists would have a fit.

The so-called word of god seems subject to human opinion so much so as to negate any god’s involvement with the bible.

Then What is the Bible?

Try this familiar children’s tune.

Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so;
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak but He is strong.
Yes, Jesus loves me! … The Bible tells me so.

The original poem for this was in a novel and used to comfort a dying child. But this is not biblical, and it is not being used for any reason other than to provide solace and perhaps courage in the face of death (in a book of fiction). But notice that justification and truth are supported by reference to the bible. The bible says so, therefore it must be true.

Other descriptions of the bible include fiction, wisdom, poetry, history, and religion. Indeed, the bible contains all of this (although much of the historical value is questionable). I prefer the last. It is a book of religion. Classifying the bible as fiction is confusing even though it is without doubt fictional in many ways (parables are not true).

I do not believe any god exists, but even if one or more did, I seriously doubt they would claim any authorship of what we today call the bible. If you want to refer to the bible as fiction, that is up to you. Much of it is. If you want to claim all atheists see the bible as fiction, you’re wrong. I do not.

Shalom,

Bill © 5/7/2019

A to Z Challenge: Vampire Victims Vital to Vastu (V)

Vampires – bite people on the neck, thus making more vamps, drink human blood, cannot endure sunlight, and seem to be distant relatives to zombies. Let’s not forget the effect of a crucifix, or a stake in the heart. These fictitious beings used to be evil and ugly, but Hollywood has worked hard to make them cute and cleaver and all cuddly like, except when the vampire hunter is the protagonist in the fictional story. Fun stuff, but not real.

Vastu – is India’s version of feng shui. It may also be known as vedic architecture, sthapatya ved, vastu vidya, and vastu shastra. The goal is architecture in harmony with nature (sounds good to me). However, apparently, that can only be done with astrology and numerology. If your house is not aligned, you ostensibly get sick. Sure, poor workspace design can cause stress. But your west facing front door? Nah.

Last year a real estate agent explained to me that people with these beliefs do not want to buy homes with kitchens on the southwest side (as mine was). It could lead to divorce or a bunch of maladies. It’s woo-woo but not the exclusive superstation of people of India.

In a similar way, a German cemetery in New Braunfels, TX has the oldest graves canted about fifteen degrees to the right of the property line (newer gravesites don’t do this). This was done so that when Jesus comes again from the east, the graves will be properly aligned directly perpendicular to due east, for resurrection purposes. They wouldn’t want to be missed. This factual explanation is posted with the history of the cemetery at the visitor’s station.

Victim souls – are people who suffer pain or sickness for other people. The logic is a clear reference to Jesus as a scapegoat. But people believe this of other people, and it is supposed to be a good thing, in a martyr-ish kind of way. More popular in the 18^th and 19^th centuries than today. Audrey Santo (Little Audrey) was a victim soul.

Vitalism – is the metaphysical doctrine of a nonphysical inner force of energy. It goes by chi, qi, rana, ki, orgone energy, and animal magnetism (vital force). Many kinds of alternative health practices (or energy medicine) are based on a belief that health is due to this alleged energy. It focuses on good juju – not science.

A to Z Blog Challenge: Good God of Glossolalia’s Ghost (G)

God or gods – are:
(1) In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

(2) In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, supreme being, divinity, immortal creator, a demiurge or godhead; maybe an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.

(3) An adored, admired, or influential person.

(4) A word used for emphasis or to express emotions such as surprise, anger, or distress, such as, “God, what did I do to deserve this?”

God of the Gaps – is a religious argument presented to fill scientific gaps of knowledge. This fallacy assumes that an act of God is the explanation for an unexplained phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. It’s nuts, but it gets worse.

Ghosts (poltergeists) – are alleged disembodied spirits of dead persons. A poltergeist is (literally) a noisy spirit. People believe ghosts exist, but they don’t. The idea is fun, the stories are scary (fun), and Casper serves a purpose. But the reality is there are no ghosts. Sorry.

Glossolalia – is speaking in tongues, which is semantically and syntactically unintelligible speech. If one is schizophrenic, it is called gibberish. If one is a charismatic Christian (including some Catholics) it is called the gift of tongues. I think it is crap and many believers agree with me. Mumbo-jumbo which fails to rise to the more respectable level of woo-woo. The trick is to maintain one’s composure when one of them starts this crazy shit.

A to Z challenge: Equivocating Extreme Ecotoplasmic Exorcisms (E)

Equivocating – is using ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself. It includes being evasive, noncommittal, vague, or ambiguous. One may evade or dodge the issue, beat about the bush, hedge, hedge one’s bets, fudge the issue, or parry questions or shilly-shally. I’m sure that I have wrapped myself in this when cornered. See also palter and tergiversate.

Ectoplasm – is clear in the movie Ghost Busters. See it if you haven’t. It’s in the movie, as are the producing spirits. You gotta be a true believer to buy into this garbage, but that is what it’s all about. Mediums and psychics have allegedly produced this stuff, fake ghost snot, of course, but some mumbo-jumbo types still believe it’s real.

Exorcism – is real. There’s even a movie, The Exorcist. Scared the living shit out of me, back in the day. The problem here is the reason for exorcisms is bull shit. There are no evil spirits. Real harm has been done to people with and without serious mental health problems. The Catholic Church stands behind this crap, but I doubt if all RC’s find it believable.

Extreme Unction – used to be last rights for the dying, and for many it still is. A sacrament “instituted by Christ” for spiritual aid and health, includes remission of sins, and to restore bodily health to a seriously ill Christian. The priest rubs blessed (by a bishop in RC, or by priests in orthodox) oils onto body parts (maybe even men’s loins; women, maybe not).

Every RC priest I’ve known hates this. Tipping is allowed. Only priests can do it, not deacons or nuns. Therefore, you might call a priest for a dying Catholic. The priest may condemn you to hell for interrupting his dinner/sleep/poker-night or whatever for such nonsense. It’s BS, but if you’re trying to cover all your bases, make the call.

Catholic Church Says Agnostics Indifferent

This is my third and final pitch on how the Catholic Church (RCC) views the non-believer community. The words of the Catechism (in italics) try to parse clarity of agnosticism. But, I think it still fits into what I’m trying to get at: the RCC is no expert on anything outside her own stained-glass windows. While these paragraphs twist being agnostic into a bad light, I end with my own view of agnosticism.

2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God’s existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.

So let it be written, so let it be wrong. Again, the CCC tries to decorate the tree of logic with ornaments from other trees. First the basics. How many forms? Agnostic is the view that ultimate reality (such as a deity) is probably unknowable. I am atheist and I agree with that. It is a philosophical or religious position characterized by uncertainty about the existence of a god or any gods. That’s it. No forms. Easy button pushed. If the author of paragraph 2127 can prove the existence of god, just do it, man!

2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.

Same wrong song, second verse. Anyone can do any of these things. A believer of any religion, an atheist, or an agnostic can search for god (among other things), be indifferent, question existence (or science), have a sluggish moral conscience, or exercise practical atheism. None of that is confined to agnostics. Furthermore, nonpracticing RCs can be living the life of practical atheism. Anyone can.

I don’t care what anyone says, an invisible deity (as well as many other things) is impossible to prove or disprove.

Throw whatever kind of arguments you want on the fire, we are all essentially agnostic. Nobody knows. Some swing hard to thinking god exists, some are playing a game with Pascal’s Wager, while others of us are confidently smug in the certainty that there are no gods. In between everyone else slides along a scale that excludes nobody. That makes us all agnostic. It also makes the term useless.

It tells us nothing more than how a person chooses to identify, which, when you think about it, is what this entire discussion has been about.

If you say you believe in a god or gods, then you are a believer. If you cannot say that you believe god exists, then you are an atheist. It may be a weak, flippy-floppy, and unsure atheism. But a non-believer is what you are.

Yes, there may be a god, a devil, a tooth fairy, and one each leprechaun under my bed. But I am uncertain and that should be good enough.

I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure — that is all that agnosticism means. ~ Clarence Darrow

Catholic Church Imputes Atheism to Believers

This is my second discussion dealing with The Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) positions on atheism as presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Two numbered paragraphs from the CCC are in italics followed by my retort.

2125 — Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. “Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.”

The first part of the above would be improved by saying “…it denies the probability of the existence of any gods…” but the struggle here is with truth and clarity. I use the plural for all deities. Keep in mind that the RCC agrees with me about all gods except theirs, be it one, two, or a trinity. Would this mean that the RCC sins against the virtue of other religions?

Many Christians are 100% certain that one god exists, yet they reject virtually everything about the Catholic faith and the Church. They also get a lot wrong about the RCC, but is that not sin?

Atheists simply conclude there is no god. That is a little different than rejecting, a word used to mislead the misled. Indeed, many contemporary atheists reject religion for two reasons. First, since there is no god, religion is pointless. Second, religion is harmful.

If you want more on how religion is harmful, read Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless by Greta Christina. I will soon post a review of Christina’s book.

Regarding the impunability of the offense, I ask no forgiveness, nor do I credit any religion for my conclusion that no gods exist. A big up yours to the writer who would suggest such shallowness on the part of people who would subject themselves to threats of death or violence by the people of god for simply telling the truth. Many people claim a belief in god (or gods) and reject all organized religion. That’s a good start. But they are not atheist.

However, there is a valid point made when the Catechism implies that some believers (without saying evangelistic Protestants) contribute to atheism. I know many atheists who would agree, but in my case nothing about any religion or the Bible contributed to my conclusion about any gods. Indeed, the failure of religion to address reality and truth reinforce my already embraced convictions that no gods have ever existed, and that religion is generally bad.

2126 — Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God. Yet, “…to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God…. For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart.”

If there is no god, humans are autonomous. That is just how it works. It is called secular self-government, self-determination, or if you like, separation of church and state. This truth has been a thorn in the side of religion for as long as there has been such a thing. The basic assumption of most Christianity is that atheists will spend an eternity suffering in Hell along with many others, most of whom simply slid off the rails of righteousness in the eyes of a god or some religion. What is dignified about that? Threatening, yes. This paragraph has no credibility, in my view.

Be it because of ignorance or anger, the CCC has a lot wrong about atheism. I think the one thing they do have correct is that contemporary atheism is as much a threat to all religion as free thinking is to all despotism and for similar reasons.

“The Catholics get rid of the difficulty by setting up an infallible Pope, and consenting formally to accept his verdicts, but the Protestants simply chase their own tails. By depriving revelation of all force and authority, they rob their so-called religion of every dignity. It becomes, in their hands, a mere romantic imposture, unsatisfying to the pious and unconvincing to the judicious.” ― H.L. Mencken, H.L. Mencken on Religion

Catholicism Challenges Atheism

“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

This poetic quote from the Book of Ecclesiastes applies to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and its interest in and argument with atheism.

This is my first (and longest) essay about how the RCC officially views atheism and my retort. I used the official Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) as my primary resource for the official stand. It was produced by the Vatican and approved (blessed?) by a pope.

I don’t expect the RCC to know much about or to understand atheism (they are not atheist). During Vatican II, they tried. I do expect them to be honest, even if that means saying we don’t know. Maybe they feel that if they were honest, they might provide support to non-belief. Perhaps they would. I was Roman Catholic (RC), so I know that church officials should understand the frustration when others get you wrong. Even many Catholics do not understand their faith, much less Protestants and non-Christians.

I prefer to charge the writers of the Catechism with ignorance rather than malfeasance. Yet they seem to equivocate and create things that are not contextually correct. I realize that the text on atheism was written for the faithful to ensure that they reject any forms of thought leading to atheism. The CCC says, “Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time.” I expect that. But they got a lot wrong.

In the apostolic constitution Fidei depositum, John Paul II declared the CCC a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.

The following, paraphrased or quoted in italics, are taken from the CCC.

Forms (or phenomena) of Atheism

(see CCC paragraphs 2123-2124)

Atheists either do not perceive man’s vital bond to God or they explicitly reject it.

If there was or is a god for man or woman to bond to, we’d be quite bondable. To us, this is like discussing the contents of a vacuum. It makes no sense. But worse, it implies and encourages the idea that atheists reject a god that exists, which is not the case. One cannot reject that which does not exist. God is a myth. How does one reject myth?

It follows, however, that if no god exists, all religions, which are man-made, are coincidently rejected. When you believe that the priest does Mass in place of a god (Jesus), and that the wheat wafer is the actual god (Jesus), and you do so for two-thousand years, it is a huge mental leap to understand the non-existence of your basic premise: a god. Consider this: is it possible for a practicing Roman Catholic not to perceive man’s vital bond to God? Of course, it is. But would that make him or her atheist? No!

Atheism takes many forms (different phenomena):

Belief in a god or gods and the multitude of accompanying religions do indeed take many forms. Philosophies and world views take many forms. Not so for atheism. This may be the most difficult concept for people to grasp, especially members of organized religions such as the Vatican-based, bureaucratic, RCC. Maybe it’s too simple for them.

Few believers (if any today) conclude on their own that there is a god. However, virtually all atheists conclude (to varying degrees) that no god exists. A person in Africa, another in South America, a third in Europe, and an Eskimo floating on the Bering Sea may have different opinions and philosophies, but their atheism would be the same: gods do not exist or are at least very unlikely. Other thoughts and opinions probably will be different, but on the one single issue, they see that the same way.

One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to life on earth (space and time).

Or, in my preferred words, right here, right now. Practical materialism is a philosophical concept that applies to the rise of health and wealth Christian religious denominational beliefs and practices. It is not a form or type of atheism, although any person may be atheist and accept or follow it. This mixes two independent things and misleads people who read the Catechism. I live in America. I want to have my health and enough money. I would like to think that is practical. RC religious are paid employees with health insurance. They are no less materialistic than I.

As far as materialism is concerned, is not unbridled capitalism focused on materialism? And the Vatican? Good grief. The RCC is no stranger to materialism. As we say in Texas, that sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black (Trappists notwithstanding).

And yes, a good life on earth is what many atheists work hard to make happen. It is very much a part of the anti-religious sentiment held by many (probably most) atheists, because religion with an eye toward life after death tends to degrade the value and importance of life on Earth. I would not accuse the RCC of that. But not believing in any afterlife, much less a permanent one, has nothing to do with practical materialism. Here again, the Catechism, its writers, and approvers are misleading the Catholic faithful.

***Atheistic humanism which sees man as having supreme control of his (*or her) own history.**

This is another deceptive twisting of truth. For example, all Catholics are Christians. Not all Christians are Catholics. And, some Christians do not consider any Catholics to be Christian. Many (about 75%) Humanists are atheist, but not all. And not all atheists are humanists. I’m not. Humanism is a philosophy relating to the role of mankind, whereas atheism is the conclusion that no gods exist. I doubt if anyone controls the past or even thinks they (or we) can. If the Catechism were to say that Humanists see man as having control or responsibility for the future, that might be closer to the truth.

Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. “It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth.”

Any person’s philosophy could be all of this, but that does not define atheism. I am sort of stuck on the liberation of man through economic and social liberation thing. I am a contemporary atheist, so I should see it that way. Even the RCC would agree that some religions do thwart a better life; many Muslim sects, for example.

Important note: all religion is not the RCC. Some very clearly do exactly and openly what we accuse them of.

Indeed, when it is all about life after death, earthly progress can be thwarted. However, I do not see the RC Church having that problem nearly as much as the more evangelical crowd. There are topics such as birth control (practiced by many RCs), stem cell research, end of life or right to die, and abortion issues that the RCC would be pleased to force on others, including atheists. Thus, discouraging or preventing progress and people’s right to make choices (pursuit of happiness?).

Bill Reynolds 3/11/2019

“I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all. On the contrary, what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their minds.” ~ from The Unbeliever and Christians, in Camus, Resistance, Rebellion and Death: Essays, [1948] 1964, p. 48.

Catholicism Explains Athesism

Goal

I am in the process of writing a few short essays about how the Catholic Church views atheism, agnosticism, and (by default) much of Protestantism. I intend to present the Church’s outlook in the sense of Roman Catholic leadership and authority of that old religion, and The Church as an institution. We do not need another tiresome bashing of any of the -isms, but the errors of understanding should be corrected, even if that boils down to my opinion. I shall not address the sexual abuse problems.

Credentials

I am a cradle catholic who was raised in the church. I remained a catholic (either practicing or not) from my baptism at about 8 days of age until my mid-sixties, when I finally began my apostate transition into a convinced atheist. I have attended protestant churches with my family as a Catholic member, but I never claimed to be Episcopalian, Methodist, Disciple of Christ (First Christian), or another Christian variant, and no one ever seemed to care. I would not like to be called a catholic-atheist, but I would not object too loudly, oxymoron or not.

I grew up in a multidenominational Christian family, which included elements of Presbyterian and Lutheran by intermarriage, and Episcopalian by my choice. I have read all books of the Bible. I attended Bible Study Fellowship (Baptist) for a time. I taught Bible Studies and Religious Education classes to both children and adults for years in a large Catholic Parish (church). I served as a church leader in several ministerial roles including four years on the Parish Council, the last two as the President.

I have read The Catechism of the Catholic Church in its entirety, and reread passages many times. I may not recall all of it. My copy was multi-colored with highlights and underlines and was well-worn with yellow tabs marking more than a hundred pages. It’s a really big book (sorry, AA).

Since coming out by saying, “Yes. I am atheist” I have read, written, watched, and attended; atheist books, articles, blogs, discussions, and videos as a manner of self-education regarding the confusing maze known as free-thinking, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, or other unbelief-ism variants. The pile gets higher and deeper with all the science, philosophy, psychology, and miscellaneous facts that one must plow into to protect oneself from the flow of self-righteous animosity and self-pity of the people who demand that I know as much as any god (and then some). As research for this effort, I travelled back in time to personally observe how the universe came to be, since I could no longer fill that gap with any god as a scapegoat for my ignorance.

Purpose

My reason for this is to justify the atheist (mine) point of view and to point out the errors of the leadership of the largest Christian denomination in the world. I believe that in background, education, ability, and desire, I am suitably qualified to write these essays. I want to defend atheism and all forms of free thinking. I do not wish to attack anyone or any religion (for now), but I will disagree. So, it should be safe for believers to read my essays. I cannot predict what will happen in comments or how individual interpretation may affect reactions. But I promise to be nice.

Bill Reynolds 3/6/2019

Tag: Catholic

What is Reality?