When I First Believed and Didn’t

“What could be more foolish than to base one’s entire view of life on ideas that, however plausible at the time, now appear to be quite erroneous? And what would be more important than to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs?”—-Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, 1988

“Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.”—Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere’s Fan, 1892, Act III (Mr. Dumby to Cecil Graham)

I was baptized before I was two weeks old. I don’t recall much of that day. I don’t think I believed in God or any of the other religious things I later would. The religious reason for the Catholic Sacrament at that age was that if I had died, I would not go to heaven unless baptized. I would go to Limbo with all the other unbaptized, until the Church decided that Limbo did not really exist.

I went to a Catholic school taught by nuns. We didn’t go to Mass in Kindergarten, but starting with First Grade, 9:00 a.m. Mass (in Latin) was mandatory. We sat up front with our class, boys on one side, girls on the other until graduation at the end of 8^th grade. I went to public high school for 9^th through 12^th grade.

In grade school, I was taught about God, Jesus, the Blessed Trinity, and all the religious stuff I could fit into my brain. I believed it. I had some arguments about it with my father because I stood by what the nuns and priests told us. He was old school and much stricter. He always had the option of asking the ordained and religious, but he never did.

To the extent that a boy between the ages of six and fourteen can believe what he has been told about god and all the other religious stuff, I believed. I can’t say that I had a specific Jesus is my lord and savior moment because we didn’t do that.

In my personal world, I believed two other things: everyone I knew was Catholic and everyone believed in god. Neither was correct. I can’t say exactly when I came to believe of my own volition, or even if I did.

In the summer of 1960, I turned 14. That September I began an excursion into the realities of the somewhat secular educational world. I did not escape having god and religion forced upon me. We still prayed in school and had bible readings (mandatory state law) until June of 1963. My senior year began the following September.

After that, neither prayer nor bible reading could be constitutionally mandated or school sponsored. I would not have labeled myself as a nonbeliever at that point. A serious doubter might work. During that final year of high school, I was probably a practical atheist in that while I considered myself to be Catholic, I did not practice the religion.

Thirty years later, during the 1990s my religious opinions and behaviors might be viewed as a metal ball bouncing around the playing field of a pinball machine. The flippers and bumpers would knock me into other ideas or possibilities. I’d bounce off one bumper and into another, then another.

In the mid-90s, my spiritual reading and experimenting increased. I was a nonbeliever trying to believe. I was a seeker or searcher in the spiritual sense. I became seriously interested in eastern religious thought, spirituality, and meditation, some of it New Age nonsense. During that time I read Thomas Merton’s autobiography, The Seven Story Mountain, and decided to give Catholicism one more try.

Merton described seeing a deeply religious woman in a church. He envied her faith. I had the same experience. I was going to do everything I could to get this god and religion thing right. I convinced myself that there was a god. I felt that I had overcome my doubts forever. For almost 12 years, I did.

It was a cannonball dive into the deep end of the Christian religion and the Catholic Church. I did everything I could: taught bible study and religious education to adults and children, belonged to as many ministries as I could make time for. Eventually, I was elected President of the Parish Council for two years in our large Parish of more than five thousand families. I even began the process of being ordained as a Deacon, something not taken lightly in the Church or by me, and second only to becoming a Priest. I withdrew late in the process.

I recall teaching an adult class on The Problem of Evil. It had gone well. At the end of the class one lady raised her hand and asked me how I reconciled everything that I had just said with what I believed as a practicing Catholic. I don’t recall my answer.

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.
—Leonard Cohen, lyrics from his song, Anthem

That was when my transition from Christian to Atheist began. Within two years I walked away from the Catholic Church for good. I disavowed my Catholic faith in writing. Soon thereafter I realized that I did not believe in the existence of any gods, demons, spirits, heaven or hell, or any of it.

I retired three years after leaving the Church and we moved again to yet another state. After about a year there, I was openly atheist. There are several key events and conclusions along my road to disbelief. Each conclusion was preceded by a long time of study, thought, and deciding. That continues.

Just as there was not a date and time when I believed, there was not a specific moment when I decided that I’m a convinced atheist. The metamorphosis was gradual. I simply and incrementally walked away from it all.

Why I Decided to Identify as Atheist

At my first job after college graduation, I worked with two guys about my age. One was my boss. The other was a guy named Spenser. One day as we walked to the car, Spencer asked me, “Are you a Christian?” I thought it an odd question, but Spencer was an odd man. I said yes. He then asked if I had accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I tried to explain that Catholics don’t use that phrase or see baptism in quite the same way many protestant denominations did.

Then Spenser informed me that unless I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I was not a Christian. I had been baptized at eight days of age, had the sacraments of first confession and First Holy Communion, believed that the consecrated wafer was the actual body and blood of Christ, and I took my middle name during the Sacrament of Confirmation in honor of Saint John the Evangelist. I had prayed my ass off for over 20 years to Jesus, to his mum, and (mainly) to his biological father, as well as to other long-forgotten saints. Spenser’s got saved point of view seemed shallow simple to me. However, here in the Bible Belt, it remains the trope de rigueur.

Yet this smugly self-righteous graduate of Ouachita Baptist University and ordained Southern Baptist minister, refuted my claim based on how he and his denomination defined members of the world’s largest religion (Christianity). The differences were how Spenser and I defined a Christian based upon our diverse cultural and religious backgrounds. Despite our hairsplitting points of view, when someone identifies as Christian, Muslim, Jew, or as members of most religions, we generally form a somewhat accurate idea of that religious claim.

For religious purposes, I am forced to classify myself as a none. Apostate Catholic is not an option, even if true. My rejection of all religion is not the same as no preference, but I don’t make the lists. I am ok with Atheist, but it is not a religion, even though some numbskulls claim it is. Since athesit identifies me for what I’m not, I wish there was a better word. There’s not.

Thus, I identify as atheist. I also use skeptic, nonbeliever, freethinker, heathen, or whatever synonym fits the situation. Today, Spenser would be correct. I am not Christian. Some believers who came to know me before discovering my unbelief said I am was one of the good (or nice) atheists. Sometimes that aspect of me can be called cooperative. But I hold a dim view of religion, which would make me neither good nor nice in their view

I avoid the less-offensive terms like agnostic, humanist, or non-religious, even though a case can be made for each applying to me. I eschew the term spiritual because it is confusing (even among atheists) and has its own baggage. The stigma associated with embracing atheism (or any form of religious doubt) troubles me because even as a believer I never shared that negative view most others held of atheists.

I openly identify as atheist so that I can help others understand atheists and atheism. I would like to demonstrate that I am no better and no worse a person because I believe in no gods. I would also like to think that by being open and out I can encourage others to step forward and claim their truth.

Bill

Obsessed with Sex

“For some reason, churches have decided the most important thing about you is what you do with your genitals.” Neil Carter, Godless in Dixie

Last September, I posted a dialog piece that was sort of about sex, if that’s possible. I didn’t say it was a sexual discussion, but the dialog implied it without directly making the claim. I never gave the sex (gender) of the people in the dialog. Either person could have been male or female. Both could have been the same sex or anyone from the long list of diverse human sexualities (preferences, orientations, or whatever the correct term may be).

The discussion could have been about any experience from paragliding to spelunking. I never said that one of them had sex with someone else, especially outside of some committed relationship. However, I was not clear with my implication. Thus, anyone could infer that one of the speakers had illicit sex, or at least some sort of untoward relationship. Readers had to assume and some did.

While I made no direct claim to a difficulty with the relationship of the two, some readers made that additional assumption. That was fair enough.

One comment compared the dialog to a real discussion with his spouse who’d had sex with someone else. Apparently, a fundamentalist Christian man, he made this comment: “Sex isn’t everything.” Indeed. I agree.

However, while nothing is everything, sex is important. I’ve heard it referred to as a need or a drive. We humans are sex-obsessed in both good and bad ways. It can be rewarding and loving or many other things, including disastrous.

The human sexual nature is a strong, powerful, and wonderful aspect of our nature that can be troublesome on its own, with no help from religious dogma. But the general nature of our sexual disguise is culturally prudish and problematic. It’s certainly obsessive. And religion adds a phenomenal trail of embarrassment and disgust.

When it comes to sex, I usually avoid the topic altogether or I can talk open and plain about it. The latter occurs more in writing than verbal.

The topic is ubiquitous. The Atheist Community of Austin, Texas, (ACA) the organization that does the internet call-in show, The Atheist Experience, also now does a show and podcast called Secular Sexuality.

Over time, human prudishness seems to be wilting, depending on the culture. But not so with religion. In the US, religion will have its hooks in the private sexual lives (genitals) of everyone, not only members of those religions for a long time. However, over time reality and human nature seem to slowly bubble up like a lava lamp in super slow motion.

Sex is not a bad word. It is neither sinful nor dirty. While it can be socially and psychologically harmful, and all forms of human contact can communicate disease, the fact is that we think about it and do it a lot. Sexual hang-ups (anxieties) can be caused by many things, religion being numero uno. There are words for our attitude toward sex.

Erotophilia is our disposition to respond to sexual cues either positively or negatively, measured on a scale from erotophobia to erotophilia. Erotophobes are more authoritarian, need achievement, observe traditional sex roles, experience more sex guilt, and have more negative reactions to masturbation and homosexuality than erotophiles.

Erotophilics masturbate and fantasize more frequently, think about sex often, have sexual intercourse at an earlier age, have more past sexual experiences, and a greater number of intercourse partners than erotophobics. Erotophiles are more likely to breast or genital self-examine, have more regular gynecological visits, and to engage in preventative behaviors regarding sexually transmitted diseases (i.e., have healthier sex lives).

If anything, many religious sexual views are downright unhealthy, even leading to physical mutilation of children without their consent, not to mention unwanted pregnancies. I don’t know the level of mental damage that is done.

I agree with Neil, with the ACA, and with Hitch when he said,

“If anything proves that religion is not just man-made but masculine-made, it is the incessant repetition of rules and taboos governing the sexual life.” Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist

And then there are all the other books on this topic: books and books and more books. It must be a big deal.

Bill

When was the last time you prayed?

About a year ago a midwestern friend asked people to pray for rain. I thought, if god exists he should make it rain there. It did! In fact, I think they’re having problems with floods now. Apparently, sometimes folks need to tell him when to stop. I also tend to pray when I’m upset. I’ve invoked deities with things like god damn it (or dad gum it), Jesus Christ (or the family version of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph), Oh, God!, good god (or good grief), god help you, god only knows, bless her (or his) heart, and so on.

My last in earnest prayer was reciting part of Mark 9:24, I believe, help my unbelief, which is an alleged quote said by a father during a scene in which Jesus performed an exorcism on the man’s son. That prayer was eight or nine years ago as I was dealing with doubts about religion and god.

Roughly five years later I openly embraced my own atheism. My only prayers since might be called sarcastic blasphemy by some. I do not seriously pray. I would not pray if I ever came to believe in some god. I do not say amen after someone else prays, but I do (for now) sit or stand quietly while they pray or say some form of grace or meal blessing. I’m not sure how much longer I will cooperate with the holding of hands since I see that as me participating in the act of prayer.

What about people who believe in gods, especially the Abrahamic one, and never pray? Are they theists, deists, or practical atheists, as the Catholic church claims?

I have always thought that what people do matters most. I have never bought into the once saved, always saved; or what people believe matters more than what they do. In my mind, it fits well into what we do matters more than what we say.

I can’t recall ever being told that it is a sin to not ever pray. Is it wrong to never physically and verbally acknowledge a god, even if you do believe in one or more?

I no longer pray because I am mostly convinced (97.7%, if you need a degree) that no gods exist, and if they did, prayer would still be nonsense. When I prayed it was because it was a big part of the religion I practiced, not because I thought it was working. I prayed for dead people to be in heaven and I prayed for sick and dying people to recover. The sick got well, the dying died anyway.

Of the 80 or 90 percent of people who claim to believe in some sort of deity or woo-woo, how many never pray, never go to church, never practice a religion, and never dance naked around the fire during a full, or new moon?

Bill

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 after ten years. 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

It’s Not Me

I used to say, if there is a god, it’s not me. I now joke about my mid-life crisis being long ago. That time has passed. There was no crisis. What do those two things have in common? Timing. In my forties and early fifties, I needed to change my behavior. During that process, my other mantra was do no harm. I was sure that I often did. I needed to stop.

I was caught up with being a poster-model for the middle aged, American adult male; the father, husband, friend, boss, or whatever people wanted me to be. It seemed right, until it wasn’t. I thought I was normal.

My focus was on my family, my job, and my role vis-à-vis what others wanted me to be. I was a responsible breadwinner and patriarch. I was also seriously dysfunctional because I was not true to myself and may have behaved god-like. So, if there was a crisis during my midlife years, it was with my world view and something of an existential WTF?

I can’t honestly go with crisis here because I thought I was fine. I got through it, and things worked out. That’s how it usually goes, but disasters happen more today.

For the record, this was serious shit. At one point, I recall having suicidal thoughts. I was unconcerned with what any god would think about that, but I placed a high value on what everyone else thought. Luckily, I managed. They were just my thoughts reflecting frustration and an internal transition. Good things, as it turned out.

My past adult years remind me that I’ve always been of two minds—sometimes dissonantly conflicted. I would not have recognized or admitted it to anyone except that Christopher Hitchens made the same confession. I am not like Hitch, but when I read in his last book that he was of two minds, I thought: Good god man. At least two! It was not so much the road less traveled for me as it was that they both made sense, and I was split going both ways. It didn’t work very well.

I couldn’t have untangled things by trying. During that time of my life I began to look deeply to religion from what I still consider my rational point of view. I became interested in what many call eastern religions (really philosophies) and ways of thinking (Zen, meditation, centering prayer, introspection, and the spiritual self) to deal with life and all the challenges I faced. I read books about such things and tried every suggestion I could manage. I still think it all helped me in some way.

This eventually led me back to my Roman Catholic religious roots and 12 years of immersed participation. I regret nothing of those years. I am thankful for all I learned and the opportunities I had. I gave it my best effort, and I held nothing back.

I knew before I left what would happen. It was a graceful exit in that I kept my commitments and moved to another state due to a job change.

I will always be angry about the obvious sexual and cover-up scandal in the Church. I think every Catholic person should feel shame and remorse. Every person of every religion, or of none, should feel anger because of it. But the perv priests and the complicit, lying bishops had nothing to do with me. I did not leave religion because it had failed or that men behaved criminally.

Following the move to another state and my new job, I became religiously inactive. I had time to ponder, read, and to ask myself questions. I was sure that I did not believe in any god and probably never had. I was more certain that all religions had been created by people. I began to realize that I had wanted to be like my ancestors and people I knew. Even my practicing a religion was me trying to be what I thought others (dead or alive) wanted me to be. I am grateful that what I did eventually led to my clear headed giving up.

There was still no existential crisis. I was finding comfort dealing with what I saw as reality and defending it with my own truth in discussions, much to the vexation of some others. I was aware that I was moving toward embracing atheism, but I would not have stated it like that. I would still say, if there is a god, it’s not me. I was still working on me; on my tolerance and patience; on my understanding and knowledge.

Today, I try not to take myself too seriously or to cause problems with the things I say or do, but there are those moments when I feel that I may be giving others a vote concerning me being myself. That was the root problem in the first place. I’m sensitive to letting anyone mold me at this age.

On the other hand, I don’t want to be a jerk. It’s not me, but it happens.

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,

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.