#MONDAYBLOGS – RANTS ON FAITH: WHAT WENT WRONG PT 4

So now you know the bits that knocked holes first in my trust in the church, and then in my sense of belief.  All faith really is in the end is a surety of belief combined with unbridled trust.  I disagreed with the Church in virtually all of the hot topics, couldn’t reconcile the comedy of errors that comprised the writing of the Bible, and found that the teachings spoon fed me through my life were at heart to me, violations to human rights and dignity… and that was just the start.

As the years went by, I honestly started to be truly embarrassed and ashamed to be Catholic. But I found that virtually any and all permutations and combinations of Christianity were no better as it was all founded on the same mistakes and philosophies that I was opposed to.  And as I thought about it, I realized that it really didn’t matter about the religion in question, as that while the rituals and names of the deity in question were different, they were all basically a variation of the same belief whether it be God, Allah, Yahweh, Kali, Zeus, Odin or even the Man in the Sky. Religion then and there ceased to mean anything to me.

What was I exactly? I ceased to believe in any spiritual being, and even found myself quite outraged to have ever been part of that mindset. Back in high school, a fellow classmate, Dave M, had described himself as a secular humanist and not a catholic. Those words echoed back to me in those days of revelation, and I decided to check deeper into this. And it was in that definition, I finally found a truth that rang true.

“[Secular Humanism] posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianismethical naturalism or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.”

In other words. we control our choices and define our humanity, good or bad. More importantly, it means that the decisions we make, the people we are, isn’t because some deity somewhere had defined us as such… it is because we are responsible for who we are and what we choose as our actions.

With this, I found that a great weight had lifted from me, and strangely enough a fair amount of self-hatred as well that I never realized I was burdened with.  I still didn’t quite understand it, but a chance viewing of this debate with Christopher Hitchens put it all into perspective:

There it was. Religion poisons everything. Sure, there are examples of non-religious violence and so on, but compared to the carnage through the millennia, it wasn’t even a close comparison. And with the old saying, the truth will set you free. And without the shadows of religion of any sort, I now found myself with a new feeling… anger and rage to all things religion. That was a new one.

End of Pt 4. To be completed.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “#MONDAYBLOGS – RANTS ON FAITH: WHAT WENT WRONG PT 4

  1. A few articles for your consideration; somewhat long, but worth the read.

    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0005.html

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0131.htm

    By the way, Hitchens is not even a scientist. Jaki is a mathematical physicist—as was Lemaitre, who was a contemporary of Einstein.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Jaki

    As for your current predicament, see http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/FR91102.HTM

  2. Um, Hitchens was not a scientist, unlike this mathematical physicist:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Jaki

    http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=76

    Or this one:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

    http://www.decodedscience.com/georges-lemaitre-discovered-the-expansion-of-the-universe/5588

    You should pick better intellectuals to back up your views. A good place to start would be the physicists who have come up with the best current scientific hypotheses of the origins of the universe. That they happen to be Catholic priests is beside the point.

    • I know Hitchens was a journalist, but you’re missing the point… I followed his argument simply because it made sense, regardless of being a scientist or not. The writers I followed that brought me to where I am are mostly NOT scientists, but comes from different walks of life.

      And as I’ve explained in the blog, it was disgust with the Church as a whole that drove me away in the first place. Hitchens, Dawkins and the like simply helped define to me what I know myself to be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s