BRUCE’S RAMBLINGS

[THE FOLLOWING LETTER IS THE THIRD INSTALLMENT IN A PREARRANGED EXCHANGE BETWEEN MY VERY GOOD FRIEND BRUCE HOPLER (PASTOR OF CORNERSTONE CHURCH IN COLUMBIA, MARYLAND) AND ME, STEVE ARCHULETA, OWNER OF THE GOOD LIFE MARKET, A GARDEN GIFT SHOP IN HISTORIC ELLICOTT CITY, MARYLAND. I AM VERY LUCKY TO KNOW BRUCE, AND HAPPY TO ACCEPT HIS INVITATION TO FORMALLY SHARE OUR THOUGHTS ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY READ OUR TWO PREVIOUS LETTERS, WE INVITE YOU TO START FROM THE BEGINNING AND STAY TUNED FOR A RESPECTFUL AND AMOROUS EXCHANGE].

Dear Pastor Bruce,

…so I’m working in my garden shop yesterday and in walks your teenage son with two of his buddies. Naturally, I expect to see you trailing behind them, but then Caleb tells me that he drove his own automobile into town. It was very good to see him, and what a car! Back in the day, we called a ride of that magnitude a “Hooptie!” I must say that you and Terry have done a wonderful job rearing him. I love you guys, and it’s always a joy to see your family. Hopefully this project of ours will allow us to experience many more milestones in the future; heck… maybe even a driver’s license for Little Levi.

In response to your first letter, kindly allow me to begin my reply with the final sentence that you wrote and then, in a separate correspondence, I will address your less personal statements. For the record, your last sentence questioned me: “Why do you personally struggle with the concept of God?” In truth Pastor Bruce, I do not struggle with the concept of a god, nor do I struggle with the concept of many gods. Not unlike all ideas that I ponder, these two concepts are conventional and had been conceived by many humans that lived before me. The conventionalization of concepts has little to do with the idea itself and more to do with how humans struggle to universally employ the idea. Whether it is the spiritual concept of multiple gods or the scientific concept of plant metabolism, I am merely a sounding board for the descendents of those who originated these concepts, upon which resonate some conflicting interpretations.

As people differ, societies differ. As people struggle, societies struggle. Thus, reaching a consensus by convention is inherently difficult. This struggle applies to the idea of polytheism; it applies to the idea of monotheism; and it applies to all other original ideas, particularly those that have been independently derived within varying geographic regions of our planet. Sometimes, the very discovery of a new concept in one area might nullify (or perhaps create) another idea in different area, exacerbating this struggle. When a specific observable phenomenon like plant photosynthesis is translated into an original mathematical calculation, it may appear foreign to other horticulturists depending upon where the originator of the translation lived, when the originator lived, who the originator was, and how the originator viewed the natural phenomenon. So it is true that the translation of a unique natural experience into mathematical language can occasionally cause struggle between scientists. Likewise, it is true that the translation of a unique godly experience into linguistic form can easily cause struggle between clergy, especially when this experience is continually shared with other humans. Again, relying on who experienced this godly happening, what they experienced, when they experienced it, where the experience occurred, how that person interpreted the experience, and why a choice was made to communicate this experience to other people, history proves that the translation of supernatural experiences tends to produce immeasurably more conflict between humans than those of natural experiences. Perhaps less in-fighting would occur if humans fully contemplated the differences between a novel concept and the experiences that this novel concept invokes.

Admittedly, the originators of most novel ideas – godly or ungodly, observable or non-observable – usually opt to communicate the discovery of these new concepts despite the inevitable conflict that arises. Rather than selfishly reserve the discovery of the new concept (not that I am advocating this), the originator of a new idea quickly expresses it to other humans. We have learned that the explication of natural (or ungodly) concepts will, over time, always filter out erroneous interpretations while transparently creating a sound model for advancement. Unfortunately however, a major hypocrisy exists within the perpetuation of godly concepts because these supernatural ideas continually fail to sift out any of the miscommunication and misinterpretations that plague them, not to mention the errors of contradiction. Since the time that man invented gods, the concept of deities has caused great conflict. Partly, the failure of godly interpretation is the fault of those who translate these supernatural ideas, during which they refuse to explicate the existence of a concept’s truthfulness. But partly, it is due to those of us who fail to demand that these translators distill their supernatural differences into a transparently unifying model – one that will finally dispel godly incongruities. The effectiveness of the latter seems highly improbable while the responsibility of the former seems very ignorant.

If people refuse to accept the distilled calculations of plants metabolism, they can examine countless situations where an analysis of photosynthesis (which happens to be just one component of plant metabolism) has uprooted error after error, finally leaving a detailed count of all carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms, as well as every subatomic electron involved in the process. This examination is both fair and acceptable. Conversely however, history has proven that when people do not like one interpretation of god(s), they band together against the original concept and against the humans who preach it. “My god(s) are better than your god(s)” is just one of many falsehoods upon which deism is practiced. Using little logic or rational they reform the old calculations that they had been previously taught about god(s), creating yet another interpretation of a godly concept. So, Pastor Bruce, though convention exists in godly ideas, it varies greatly within both polytheism and monotheism. For me, stepping outside these belief systems reveals a clarity that exposes many fallacies surrounding the concept of god(s). Even worse than the fallacies, I now recognize that religion receives a “free pass” when challenged to prove its godly claims. Atheism brings home a natural state of consciousness and removes any make-believe notions of deism that may clutter the mind, be they monotheistic or polytheistic.

Throughout history, many human beings have propagated the concept of god(s) without the use of logic or reason. And while some societies change beliefs over time (in god(s), and in other concepts), their standards for godly beliefs perpetuate a multi-faceted approach to, not one… but, multiple deities, all of which are imaginary. If the same standards were imposed for the translation of plant metabolism into language, or for describing plant biochemistry as a truthful recipe to ecological health, or even for plant propagation as a tool to improve spiritual development, then any and all claims about plants would be free of examination, and it is precisely examination that makes it necessary to harvest the truth of the aforementioned concepts. Without impunity, a miscommunication and a misinterpretation of plant phenomenon would erroneously perpetuate. How disastrous! Yet for some illogical reason, humans allow the concept of monotheism to escape explicative examination, allowing loose standards to double as an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-influential mandate for human kind, through which we must believe or risk damnation. Why do humans continue to allow these uniquely malleable standards to propagate the mysterious concept of almighty god(s)?

I do not know the answer to that question, but perhaps the following can help us gain insight. Whether we admit it or not, when we simply learn about a new concept we are forced into inevitably accepting or rejecting its validity. Despite the observable or non-observable nature of its existence, a new concept requires belief or disbelief. Fortunately, however, we are biological creatures who are wired with the ability to toggle between belief and non-belief. ‘Time’ is the only constraint that keeps a healthy mind from toggling; it is the final constraint that keeps us from changing. Once people learn about a novel concept, they may choose to believe it or they may choose to disbelieve it. Then, at any given moment they may change their disbelief into belief, or vice versa; and still again, they may opt to change their mind a third time, …a fourth, a fifth, or a sixth. An old Mississippi woman once taught me that “a wise man changes his mind, but a fool remains steadfast,” which always reminds me of a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson from his essay Self Reliance: “Speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon-balls and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.” Our beliefs shift rapidly and are dependent upon ‘why’ each of us believes in a concept. Our faith, however, moves at glacial speeds neither relying on the obvious nor the detailed, but rather upon ‘what’ we believe, ‘when’ we believe it, and ‘how’ we choose to employ our beliefs. This disparity between the shifts in belief and the shifts in faith might explain why we discern concepts differently. For me, it explains why reaching a conventional agreement regarding the existence of god(s) continually produces struggle.

Although understanding a concept is relatively easy, it is the introduction to differing interpretations of this concept that leads to struggle. Once I am introduced to a concept, I rarely struggle to understand it. Moreover, few of my fellow humans struggle to understand most ideas because, fortunately for us, most concepts are simple. Though I admit that a brief observation of our peers may suggest otherwise, even the dullest of human minds electrify trillions neurological synapses in order to grasp observable and non-observable concepts. But once we are taught about an original idea – even within the discipline of a stepwise instruction – we are forced into doing one of two things with that concept: 1) we can either believe that concept or, 2) we can reject our belief in it. The introduction of a concept then becomes an issue of discernment (if not struggle) as we reference the concept within our experiences. Even if you do not agree that concepts precede struggles, many humans have proven that people experience events differently. Thus, a distinctive experience based on one concept will formulate a distinctive belief, and the chronology of events within those experiences has a propensity to form the ability to believe, or to form its antithesis. Gradually, Pastor Bruce, our inability to believe begins to wrestle with our ability to believe, so we are forced into choosing one concept over its inverse. This becomes our struggle. Do we abandon our forethought or do we manage only what we are able, even when it is rooted in myth?

Kindly note that our inabilities precede our abilities, just as our absence of thoughts precede our thoughts. This means that prior to learning of a concept we are all ignorant of it. Since you and I are essentially the same – unless either of us discovers an original or unique concept – then we have but two basic outcomes when introduced to a new idea – we can either believe that idea or reject that idea. As I stated earlier, during our lifetime we can toggle back and forth between belief and non-belief. However this applies to the belief “in” a concept, not the belief “of” a concept. For instance, I believe in the concept of god(s), but I do not believe in god(s). Nonetheless, I realize that neither of my carefully distinguished statements brings truth to the existence of god(s). But once conceived, a concept exists, and believing in this concept becomes more than a matter of faith. You will agree that faith is difficult to abandon. You will also agree that most strong faith, if not all, develops from the trustful teachings of those who love us. I will attempt to explain this later, but for now I would like to establish that faith is a feeling, though not necessarily a belief.

Because beliefs shift quickly, where faith shifts slowly, humans tend to easily dismiss our associations with various changes in beliefs. However when we examine our changes in faith, we are much less forgiving of ourselves and others. In a normal human mind, almost all thoughts have been associated with feeling. In an abnormal mind – one lacking neurological activity in a particular region of the brain that is associated with feeling – not all thoughts arouse feelings. Unlike the deep feelings of faith that we arouse while trusting in a particular concept, our beliefs in a concept are a matter of reason, of logic, and of universal experience. We cannot dismiss the differences between the neurology of faith and the neurology of belief and, as biomedical research expands, I feel confident that these differences will become more apparent. I am not confident however, in the abilities of deists to incorporate the neurology of faith into their religions.

Sociologically, humans alter many concepts. Through these alterations, we have yielded a battery of struggles that attempt to universally control the slow-moving faiths of other humans. In other words, humans alter concepts by altering the chronology of events, and they do this in order to manipulate belief. Whether intentional or otherwise, we routinely behave in such a manner that alters the origin of an idea. People alter concepts for many reasons; some of which are sane, some insane, some of which are benign, and others malignant. Here is a brief list of inexhaustible reasons why people might alter a concept, it includes, but is not limited to: 1) preserving the dignity of our forefathers, even when they are wrong, 2) protecting a network of ethnicity, or country or creed, even when the facts dictate otherwise, 3) maintaining a loving relationship with parents, even when schisms arise and, 4) propagating falsehoods to suppress another group of people, the most egregious altering of concepts. But most people choose not to ponder the alteration of concepts. Most people choose not to ponder the temporal differences between belief and faith. Most people find it too easy to accept the status quo and, frankly, many are too lazy to explicate these secular differences between belief and faith. Some fool their own beliefs, some solidify their own faith based on foolishness, others just lie to themselves, and most create delusions of grandeur within their realities.

In reality, there is no god, and there are no gods. So any passionate belief in one, two, or twelve-hundred deities will not change this. Yet, Pastor Bruce, you are correct – I do struggle. I sometimes struggle with many things: conjugating irregular verbs, factoring polynomials, balancing chemical equations, stabilizing my weight, operating a retail store, maintaining familial relationships, exercising regularly, and discerning foreign policies. Especially, I struggle to understand why humans deceive, lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape, and torture. But, I no longer struggle with the concept of god(s).

As you know, I once believed in one, true God. During my development, many of my relatives (if not all) taught me about this God. These relatives are wonderful people. They taught me how to worship this God. They taught me how to pray to this God. The taught me what this God would do for me and what I should do for this God. Throughout my elementary school years, as well as my time in secondary and undergraduate institutions (all of which were dedicated to the existence of this God), I was taught well. I was treated well. I was given love, and guidance, and assurance, and the capacity to pray, sacrifice, and worship. I honestly appreciated their efforts then, and I still appreciate them today. From infancy I was baptized in His Holy Name, and then I traditionally re-confirmed my beliefs in worship, in prayer, in silence, in celebration, in song, and in communion with thousands of exceptionally devout people. I loved these people then, and – with no more or less intensity – I love them still today. In fact, I am gleefully tickled when my mother reminds me that the first word I ever spoke was “Jesus.”

I am the oldest of six children, and my father and mother reared us all to be selfless Christians. In earnest, they did a great job. The love that I feel for my parents, my grandparents, my aunts and uncles, my incredible elementary school teachers, my coaches, and the self-less and sincere priests and nuns who shaped my character and developed my moral compass… well, this love is strong and enduring. But I know today that, as extremely difficult as it is to profess, all of them were wrong regarding monotheism and the existence of a deity. And after much contemplation, I now understand why they were wrong. The emotional connections that we form with our most trusted and loved family members far surpass our abilities to either rationalize or logically balance the notion that their care for our spiritual development trumps their care for our physiological and psychological welfare, whether intentional or not. From the womb, we are subservient to their teachings. These emotional connections are biologic, created via real experiences and registered neurologically within our ever-evolving brain. In short, our love blinds us from myth. Fantastical stories have been passed down from generation to generation. Love enveloped those stories to the point of intoxication. I am not writing you to dispel love, or morality, or meditative prayer. Nor am I writing you to cynically degrade the powerful spirituality that religion enforces. On the contrary, I actually value the positive aspects of congregational worship. What I hope to express in future letters is how the foundation of religion is mythical, neither provable nor improvable. And I hope to ease the chastisement or anxiety that arises when a human being professes that they are an atheist.

With love and affection,

Steve Archuleta