Mara finished her book and wandered into the atrium Kennis had entered a few days earlier.

"What are you doing Kennis?"

"I am watching the moon."

"Why?"

"It pleases me to do so, Mara."

"Will you do so awhile longer then?"

"For at least a thousand more years."

Folding her delicate arms, Mara leaned against the doorway and stared at her. Kennis sat, legs folded, mouth slightly open, her olive skin and brown eyes awash in the moonlight that poured through the windows of the atrium and bathed her slight features.

"Will you stand there and study me all night?" Kennis asked without turning to look at her.

"Yes, for a thousand years as it so pleases me."

With a faint exhale Kennis smiled and glanced down with a smirk.

"My love you have forgotten the moon..." Mara admonished coyly.

She looked back at Mara, with her hair rimmed by the moonlight. Her eyes, even darker in silhouette, held a mischeivous promise floating in a sea of devotion. "But I have remembered something more important."

With a playful glance over her shoulder Mara feigned ignorance. "Whatever could that be? A star perhaps? I may have spotted one out of the library window."

In a fluid motion Kennis rose, her silk kimono changing from aqua to burgundy as she approached. Her message was clear, Mara looked down and changed her simple white sari into a demure amber robe in response.

"And after that, shall we sleep?" Mara asked.

"It has been many years."

"Seven hundred and twelve."

"Do you remember how?"

"Do you remember the last time either of us forgot anything?"

Kennis leaned in close, her kimono faintly disappating in wisps of wine-scented mist, "I forgot the moon a moment ago." The kiss was sweet, long, and pulled gently at something deep within Mara... something she had indeed forgotten.

For many days afterward they laid on the couch by the atrium window in each others arms, their garments a pool of particulate mist on the floor nearby, and watched the moon together.

"What did you write about?" Kennis finally asked.

"When?"

"The day you entered the atrium and spoke to me. I assume you wrote a book that day."

"I write a book every day."

"And on that day?"

"I wrote about humans."

"What species?"

"Homo sapiens."

"Ah, our progenitor species. May I read it?" Kennis asked.

"My love you may read any book I publish, and even those I don't."

Kennis closed her eyes and became quiet. Mara stared at the moon. Kennis was right, it was pleasing to do. Perhaps her next book would be about the moon. Kennis smiled and opened her eyes.

"That was wonderful, you almost make them appealing."

"There was among them everything that gave rise to us, my love, to you, and I find much appealing in you."

"And I in you, Mara, but there was also among them everything that led to their extinction."

"Nothing that couldn't be cured with education."

Kennis raised one eyebrow at her.

"Well, " she smirked, "maybe that and a little genetic surgery."

"Shall we try to repopulate the species?"

"I think I would like that, as long as we don't have to impersonate deities."

"Shall we do it tomorrow?"

"No, Earth must process the poisons in its environment before humans can survive there."

"Nanos."

"No. No nanos. Else they would not be Homo sapiens, but Homo lentus."  Mara said.

"Not without genetic surgery--"

"Which the nanos would automatically perform."

Kennis thought a moment. "Shall we create them on the moon then? Construct an environment for them?"

"Humans belong on Earth. They are bound to that world, genetically suited to live there. This was the birthplace of Homo immortalis--but we are suited to dwell anywhere."

"Do you not worry that the humans will simply make wars again? Poison their world again? I deeply felt your sentiment for them, but they are barely out of the realm of the apes, they will fight over anything, and are able to maintain such cognitive dissonance that they will destroy their own environment and doom their own species. Do you really think education can save their species, preserve it?"

"Why not?"

"Because, my dear, education was what caused the division in the species last time. Homo lentus was the result of those humans who actively worked to improve their species. The only thing that 'preserved' Homo sapiens were those who willfully remained uneducated out of fealty to mythological creatures. Right up until they destroyed themselves. It's perverse to be favored by natural selection because of your intelligence and refuse to use it--a lemming gene at work perhaps."

"I should still like to try."

Kennis closed her eyes briefly and then reopened them. "Latest estimates are 36,000 years before the Earth has processed all of the poisons in its environment."

"Shall we sleep until then?"

"I think I should like that. What books will you write while we sleep?"

"I have three I started while we made love that I need to finish, and then I think I shall write one about the Moon."

"You didn't finish? Was I that distracting?"

"Yes, although one I cannot finish."

"Why not?"

"I don't know how it ends." Mara yawned. "I have not felt tired for many centuries. This is a peculiar sensation."

She reached out with one arm and touched a finger to the pool of mist on the floor. Immediately the mist swam over them and solidified into a patchwork quilt of subtle grays resembling the lunar surface.

Kennis watched Mara sleep for a day and then turned her attention to the Earth outside the atrium window, shrouded in soupy haze. She doubted the wisdom of returning to the planet the species that had proven so ill-equipped to look after it. Mara's book about the moon was published while Kennis contemplated the Earth, and Kennis found it as fascinating as Ellan's volume on the geology of Ganymede and forwarded it to her to read. Mara's voice floated unbidden into her consciousness, woven into the stream of information entering her network receiver. I thought you were going to sleep with me.

Sorry love, I was thinking. I loved your book on the moon.

Do you not wish to sleep?

I might enjoy looking at you more than sleeping.

Come nestle in my mind with me, let our thoughts tangle together in wonderful disarray. There will be plenty of time to sort them out later.

I can do that with my eyes open, Mara.

Try feeling tired. Your biology will take over from there.

Kennis felt tired, and soon she slept. Once she was no longer conscious, all of the furnishings apart from the couch and blanket immediately dissolved into mist and disappeared through vents near the floor to be stored until needed. The habitat maintained its position automatically and carefully so that the light reflected from the moon would pass through the atrium window and illuminate the photosynthetic skin of the sleepers for many thousands of years.

"Mara, wake up." Kennis said.

Mara opened her eyes. "Did I oversleep?"

"No. It has only been 24,078 years, but there has been a development."

"What happened?"

"See for yourself." Kennis said, indicating the window.

Mara glanced out and was shocked to discover the Earth was unshrouded and most of the landmasses were a glorious shade of orange.

"Is this a predicted stage in the processing of the poisons?"

"No. There is a new species of life on this planet borne out of the poisonous environment, which has converted the pollutants into new compounds and created a new state of equilibrium."

"Suitable for Homo sapiens?"

"Not remotely. I checked with Ellan and Tyr and they have modeled it is likely that this species will achieve sentience in a few million years. I'm afraid that Earth does not belong to Homo sapiens anymore."

"No return to Eden, " Mara said softly. A small tear travelled down her cheek. She touched it and glanced at her finger, with a faint mote of puzzlement on her brow.

"I assume the moon is off limits, then?" Kennis asked.

"Of course, it belongs to this new species." Mara said.

"Perhaps another world? There are thousands that might suffice."

"Perhaps. I think I am going to miss looking at the moon."

"We can remain here for a few million years and contemplate it. Maybe get to know this new species when they venture forth from their world."

"No. Let's leave. This was our birthplace, and it is about time we left the nursery and explored our universe. It has been nearly 100,000 years since we last saw Ellan and Tyr."

"What about making humans?"

"Call it a romantic notion."

"Your book on the idea received some great reviews."

"Another time maybe."

Sensing the subject closed for the time being, Kennis closed her eyes and cast out the sensor net.

"Ellan and Tyr are at Regulus. They would love to have us for a few years. We can be under way immediately if you like."

Mara glanced thoughtfully at the Earth for a moment and then rose from the couch, wrapped the blanket around her and left the atrium.

"Well I'd best make myself presentable then."

In the harsh light of Sol, the habitat finally pivoted away from the moon, wavered in many shades and colors, and then vanished.

The orange world waited for those who would give it a new name.

NOTE: I wrote the above story fragment off the cuff in a forum I frequent.  You can find the original post here.

Here's a funny animation I caught on Pharyngula, the excellent science blog by P.Z. Myers.  The audio is German, but there are subtitles.  I got a kick out of it, perhaps you will too?

Das Rad

"What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous ... it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God. Get out of that seat ... You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

-- Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), speaking to atheist Rob Sherman

If Rob Sherman was a Jew or a Muslim or a Methodist or anything but an atheist, Representative Monique Davis would be openly castigated from every direction (and deservedly so).  But it's okay to hate atheists here.  Welcome to my country.

Mr. Sherman was testifying to the Illinois House State Government Administration Committee about a one million dollar grant slated to go to a Baptist church that was trying to rebuild from a fire.  As you know churches already don't pay taxes, so it seems rather curious that anyone would think it okay for tax money to go to a church--especially in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate.  The grant money story is pretty smelly all on its own, but I am not at all surprised that any outspoken atheist would have an opinion on the matter, and might choose to testify to government bodies on the matter.

But Monique Davis feels otherwise.  She feels atheists have no right to testify to the American government.  And for that matter we are destroyers, and dangerous to children.  And it's okay to censor or silence us.  Oh and the country was founded on Christian principles.

How does someone like this even get elected in the first place? Shame on you Monique Davis.  You madam, are no Democrat.

Hat tip to the excellent science blog Pharyngula for the story.  You won't be hearing about it on Fox.

So I watched an overly long atheist/theist debate on YouTube the other day.  It was held by an American Muslim organization and featured two Muslim debaters and two atheist debaters.  It was depressing and nightmarish to watch.  I thought the atheists did a horrible job, frankly, and let the other side get away with dodgy logic and word games.  In their defense the environment wasn't friendly to them in the least, but they weren't really doing anything that would have won the crowd over.

After the sorry affair was over, I found myself wondering what possesses atheists to want to debate the existence of God or Allah or what-have-you.  I can understand giving a talk, taking questions and answers, writing an essay, but a debate?  Would you debate the existence of the tooth fairy?  What's the point?

We hold political debates to see how potential representatives think on their feet, but not to find the truth.  As I have long noted, debates are not about truth, they are about winning, and this is precisely why I do not like them.  You get people playing semantical games with each other and trying to win over the audience instead of working together to reach truth or at least understanding.  And since the most outspoken debaters tend to insult each other, or each other's position, they do little to convince anyone of anything.  Instead these events tend to drive wedges between people instead of bring them together.

So if it is about winning as opposed to truth, what good does debating the existence of supernatural entities serve?  Even if you win you haven't proved anything beyond the fact that you are the better debater.

Personally I think irrational beliefs are not the sort of thing you want to try to debate--your theistic opponents will simply expand their belief beyond the boundaries you try to set for them--whether it makes sense or not.  And why wouldn't they?  The beliefs were irrational in the first place.  As the old saw goes you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The jobs don't pay a lot, and you take most of your pay in self-esteem, but somebody is always trying out for village idiot or village atheist. Often they're one and the same...

-- Wesley Pruden, Revival time with the village atheist, (Washington Times)

In a classic pot-and-kettle scenario, Wesley Pruden has done disservice to the readers of the Washington Times with an irrational screed mocking atheists for writing "irrational screeds mocking those who have the faith the authors clearly envy."  The saving grace for these unfortunate atheists is that the average Times reader is probably too smart to be taken in by such drivel.

Pruden has nothing constructive to offer in his screed.  He merely calls atheists names and cites examples of atheists saying bad things about people who deserve to have bad things said about them.  This is what his article boils down to:

• Did you know that there are atheists living among you?
• Atheists are idiots.
• Atheists hate people of faith because they don't have faith but desperately want it.
• Atheists say the darndest things.
• Atheists are getting more attention than I am and it pisses me off.

Mr. Pruden apparently doesn't concern himself with the facts regarding persons atheists have spoken ill of, or even facts about the atheists themselves.  I mean really, who among us who has actually read The God Delusion would use the word "irrational" to describe it?  I've been struggling with the book myself and have found it incredibly dense, repetitive, and belaboring of points, but irrational?  Rationality is the coin of the atheist realm.  The author has got it backwards... it is faith that is irrational.

The article is clearly calculated to incense the readership, as opposed to communicate any meaningful argument as to why atheists are idiots, or naughty, or whatever else he's trying to say.  He notes Christopher Hitchens' reference to Mother Theresa as "the ghoul of Calcutta", without bothering to say why.  He notes Pulitzer prize winner Paul Greenberg's mention of Reverend Falwell's one "decent" moment on record, without bothering to say why.  Apparently the "why" doesn't concern the unencumbered-by-a-Pulitzer-Prize-Pruden.

A rational person will find little of interest in this yawn-inspiring rant against atheism, except perhaps an appreciation of the irony by which the author reveals himself to be the shrill irrational caricature that he tries to paint atheists as.  Beyond that, there's nothing to see here.

"... A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded [...] We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights. [...] In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms [...] Too often, the courts have been biased against religious believers. This anti-religious bias must end ..."

-- Newt Gingrich, speaking at Liberty University
Gingrich: Challenge 'radical secularism' (AP via Pioneer Press)

How much of our history is merely perception colored by those seeking to attain power?  This nation was not founded on Christianity, why does that simple fact continue to elude these twits?  Shall we go back to Jefferson and check... AGAIN?

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67
 

(Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government -- Freedom of Religion)

The great Virginian Thomas Jefferson understood that our country must espouse no religion, in order to protect them all.  Theists who hold their religions near and dear (especially Christians) should be very wary of those who want to infuse their religion into politics.  I discussed this last October in my article Looking Into the Abyss:

...If you are a religious person, and if you believe that politics is largely despicable, then it follows that you may believe that getting your religion into politics will improve the state of politics and make it less dirty.  But, like the mixing paints, doing so will also infuse the dirt of politics into your religion.  Priests will become politicians, and politicians will become priests, each less suited to their role than they were before.  Keeping your religion away from politics is the best way to keep politics away from your religion... if you don't eventually you'll find that the power-hungry have invaded your churches and turned them into something they were not intended to be.  Mixing the two leaves you with neither...

Southern Baptists, at least the ones who cheered Newt on at Liberty University, are pushing this nation toward theocracy.  It desperately concerns me that they haven't thought this through.  For his part, Newt is considering a run for president in 2008.  And so once again, the power hungry tell the religious what they want to hear in order to win votes.  Jefferson understood this too:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21
 

(Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government -- Freedom of Religion)

Fellow citizens, we have our work cut out for us.

As of a couple days ago, Unbecoming Levity has joined Planet Atheism as a contributing feed.  You might have spotted the new link in my sidebar under "Badges and Doodads".  Planet Atheism is a feed aggregator for a large number (75 at present, and counting) of atheist-themed blogs.  This makes it a very nice source for catching up on atheist bloggers and seeing what's going down in the non-believer blog-o-sphere.

ULev regulars will no doubt be thinking that people reading Planet Atheism will not want to hear about my new teeth or the funny thing my cats did the other day.  I agree.  That's why there's a new topic in my topics sidebar called "PlanetAtheism".  The Planet Atheism aggregator only subscribes to that topic, so not every article on ULev will be dumped onto Planet Atheism's feed (much to their relief I'm sure!)  This is possible because Blog Harbor offers category-driven blogs, where each category can have its own RSS feed.

Belonging to Planet Atheism has already caused an uptick in my hits, and brought new commenters to Unbecoming Levity, for which I am very grateful.  I encourage anyone who has an atheist themed blog (or a category-driven blog with occasional articles of interest to atheists) to contact the proprietor of Planet Atheism and see about inclusion.  (If you're curious, here's their FAQ.)

Even if you don't, at least drop the Planet Atheism feed into your aggregator (Google Reader, Bloglines, whatever...) and you will never run short of articles of interest to atheists.

The National Association of State Boards of Education will elect officers in July, and for one office, president-elect, there is only one candidate: a member of the Kansas school board who supported its efforts against the teaching of evolution...

-- Evolution opponent is in line for schools post, Austin-American Statesman

 Come on Kansas, don't let this happen again.

From Atheism to Catholicism:

My journey to atheism took about 25 years.  It was not a journey fraught with disaster (any more than any average person's life is) but it was not exactly easy.  In 1967 I was born, as all babies are, an atheist.  My parents were Roman Catholics, and fairly devout ones at that.

Over the next 17 years or so I was indoctrinated into the Roman Catholic religion.  I remember many, MANY, Sundays in church when I was younger.  As my parents became busier and busier with work and life in general, we went to church less and less.  Which was fine with me.  I was hyperactive and having to sit in an uncomfortable pew while an old guy babbled for an hour on a Sunday morning was very difficult for me.  Eventually our trips to the church were only occasional, Christmas, Easter, etc.--the big holidays.

My Dad had converted to Catholicism from Protestantism so that he could marry my Mom.  He made clear to me in a number of conversations that his belief was not strictly Catholic.  The most memorable conversation was one where he described a sort of "Gaea Hypothesis" where the Earth itself was what we think of as "God", a living organism with a desire to reproduce, which is why it had evolved humans, so that we could journey to other worlds and bring life there.

Dad loved Carl Sagan, and I have fond memories of watching Cosmos with him.  I understood some of it, but not all of it due to my youth.  When Carl gently explained with his "why not skip a step?" lecture about God and the origin of the universe, I didn't realize I was being exposed to atheistic cosmology.  (For those of you that missed it, you should check it out, Carl was a wonderful teacher.)

My Mom, a good Irish woman, worked hard to keep my Catholicism strong.  She sent me to CCD (Sunday school) until I flat out refused to go.  Even as a believer, Sunday school seemed to be a joke... what a waste of time.  And as previously stated, she got me to church for many years, right up to first communion and beyond.  By the time high school rolled around, my parents were less than impressed with the local public high school that my sister had attended 7 years prior (apparently there was a lot of drugs there and other unpleasantry), so they decided to send me to a parochial school.

Catholic school was very different from public school, but even as an atheist now, I am pleased to report that my education there was of high quality.  There was no shirking of evolution (it was a Catholic school, after all), and I remember only a couple teachers whom I felt really didn't belong there.  The indoctrination, at the time, didn't seem like indoctrination.  It is only in hindsight that I can see how Catholicism was drilled into me on a daily basis.  By this time my family were not regular churchgoers, and the school priest was concerned about the fact that I would not be confirmed.  So he encouraged me to seek confirmation on my own, which I did.  I was confirmed with the name "Peter" and from that point on actually went so far as to add Peter to my name as a second middle name.  Asked to sign anything I would write Charles Douglas Peter ...  I thought it was pretty cool to have a second middle name, and wearing that name was like wearing a badge of my Christianity--Peter, the rock, upon which Christ built his church.

For a time, I began going to church again by myself--I was highly motivated (by guilt) to do right by God.  But I had been motivated by guilt my entire life, and in experiencing the sorts of things every young boy experiences at one time or another, I was wracked with it. I agonized with guilt over the normal feelings a male experiences.  I spent many a quiet hour alone and near tears over the eternal damnation that awaited me as a sinner.  You see I was terrified of confession... I couldn't possibly sit in a little black room with a priest who knew me and pour out all my terrible sins, I just couldn't possibly do it.  I would never be able to look him in the eye again.  I tried to explain to one of my relatives once that I didn't like confession, and was informed "Well then, you're a heathen" much to my dismay.  Thus when I went to confession, I stuck to stuff that was pretty unremarkable, and left the booth each time knowing that not all my sins had been forgiven.  How draconian a system of forgiveness!  I can't just drop to my knees and ask for it?  An all-powerful being who already knows of each of my sins, and can read my mind and see how tormented I am, but who can't forgive me unless I go to the nearest service center and speak with a representative?

By my senior year in high school, with some of the early angst of puberty behind me, I was beginning to mature into an adult.  At that time, I came to a decision that brought me peace.  "When I go away to college," I thought to myself, "I'll take a weekend and drive really far, far, away from anyplace I've ever been, or will ever go again, and I'll finally confess these sins to a priest who I will never have to look in the eye afterward."  Knowing I wouldn't have to carry this weight forever, that there was a way out, made me feel much better about it.  The road to God's kingdom was clear, all I needed was a car and a tankful of gas.  This decision brought me great peace, and with the guilt in check, I suddenly became much happier.  I began to get along with the other kids better, and even became somewhat respected as an individual by my peers.  I also stopped going to church, figuring I could take care of all that when I went on my "religious retreat next year".

To Nondenominational Christianity:

And so I went off to college.  And there I became friends with people of all different creeds including agnostics and atheists.  It was an exciting time and I was finding many new schools of thought that fascinated me.  I was growing.  It was in college that I came to understand that the "sins" I had been beating myself up over for years were an extremely normal part of boyhood.  Before long I felt quite silly for agonizing over them, which in turn made me even happier.  I decided to put the religious retreat on hold until I figured out where my life was going.

Over the next couple years I concluded that the problem was organized religion itself.  I had become aware of the sordid history of my church, and of other churches and religions, and came to the conclusion that it was my personal relationship with God that mattered.  I changed from Catholic to simply "Christian".  I was very familiar with the bible, having spent years studying it, and felt I could try to live by some of the precepts set forth by Christ, seek forgiveness from God directly, and ignore all of the hateful crazy stuff that the bible was so rife with.

By the time college ended, my beliefs had changed again, mostly through discussions with my fiance, who was raised Lutheran.  I felt that the basic moral code of Christ was mostly a good one and had become aware of just how poorly people who were supposed to be exemplary Christians understood his teachings and how they were in many ways waving the banner of Christ while behaving in an exceedingly unchristlike fashion.  In that sense, his "church" didn't survive very long after his death, and transformed into something else.  I was aware that many had called themselves messiah and there was no more reason to believe in their divinity than in Christ's.  It amused me that if Christ lived today, he'd have been shouted down as a long-haired beatnick hippie liberal.  I was aware of just how much of the story of his life was now in doubt, much of it having been edited in order to fit with earlier prophecy.

To Deism:

I was no longer a Christian.  I thought that perhaps a God existed, but it seemed to me a being who had created the entire universe would have far, far, too much on his mind to worry over poor little me.  It was silly.  Apart from the love and support of my friends, family, and fiance, I was on my own.  There was no almighty being who was checking off an attendance sheet every Sunday, and counting every time I looked at the fanny of a lovely lady and felt desire.  All those years of agonizing guilt were years WASTED.  How differently my life might have turned out had I not been so weighted down with the assured eternal torment that came with thinking boobies were interesting.  But I was not angry at God, or the church, or Catholicism, or my parents.  I was only angry with myself, for not coming to the realization sooner.  At this point I was wavering between Christian and Deist.  I still believed there probably was a God, but he was nothing like any God humanity had ever imagined.  The very idea that a man or woman could "tell you about God" seemed ludicrous.  Our knowledge of the universe was absolutely paltry.  There were planetoids circling our own sun that we hadn't discovered yet, and we had not discovered a single extrasolar world for lack of equipment capable enough.   And yet our sun was one of billions, in a galaxy that was one of millions of billions of galaxies... the universe was, for any practical purpose, infinite.  And some dork with a 2000 year old book written by sheepherders is going to tell me he knows the mind of the God that created more than he could ever be aware of?  Puhlease.

The following year we got married.  We both felt, for our families' sakes, that we should marry in a religious ceremony.  It seemed easier to do that than to explain to our parents that we didn't share their religious convictions.  And, I had a certain attachment to my old church.  Even if I didn't believe anymore, I loved the old building, and remembering eying the architecture with wonder as a young boy.  So we jumped through all the hoops and did the pre-cana classes and finally got married after five years together.  Being married didn't change anything about our feelings for each other, we were already devoted to one another and for years had shared a single apartment and checking account.  Over the next few years I continued to grow (or shrink if you prefer) theistically.

To Agnosticism and finally Atheism:

Shortly after marriage I left deism behind and moved to agnosticism, and then finally to atheism.  This last leg of the journey was achieved simply through study and keeping an open mind.  I spent many nights pondering the existence of a God.  Many Christians feel that atheists are people who were molested by priests or who had something really bad happen to them that made them doubt God.  But my journey to enlightenment simply came through thought and reason.  Not once did I ever come to the conclusion that God didn't exist because of bad things that happened to myself or others.  My mind, and the minds of great thinkers, set me free from belief in a deity. And it was in freedom that I began to grow more than I ever had before.

That final transition from agnosticism to atheism did not come from arguments considering the likelihood of God, as put forth so eloquently by Dr. Richard Dawkins, but simply from an understanding of belief and science.  Nothing had ever sprung into existence from belief, and primitive humans, seeking to explain the world around them, had come up with beliefs based on their limited experience to explain their world.  There was a god of thunder, and a god of the river, and a god of this and of that, a final go-to place to explain that which was as yet unexplainable.  These gods were inventions, we know that now, and we assuredly believe that our particular god is nonetheless real.  Why?  The universe existed for billions of years before humans did.  Life existed for millions of years before human did.  There are almost certainly other worlds out there with life on them somewhere.  Why would we imagine that their God is our God?

It became clear that God is a product of man, and he still exists as a go-to for those questions that still are not answered and to comfort us.  Through a god and afterlife, we are eternal, our consciousness the manifestation of an immortal spirit that will rejoin its loved ones who have passed on before when we die.  The God hypothesis makes us live forever.  And further, it addresses the common lament that life is not fair, God will mete out justice.  If an awful, evil man becomes powerful and lives a long happy life hurting others, we can take solace that after death, he will be brought to account for his transgressions.  The God hypothesis makes life fair.  This is why the God hypothesis exists--to make us feel better.  It is a comforting idea, in my opinion.  But that doesn't make it true.

Which is where the science comes in.  Science and good old Occam's Razor.  A hypothesis only becomes a theory through testing, and the God hypothesis is untestable.  First of all, most religions make quite clear that their gods will not abide being tested.  Why?  Because testing yields no confirmation. Get 10,000 believers together and have them pray over a guy with no legs and he will not grow new ones.  Ever.  Believing doesn't make things happen.  Herbert Benson's recent study of believers praying for heart surgey patients found no positive effect on the outcome of the surgery and even had a slight negative effect for those patients who knew they were being prayed for.  Secondly there is no evidence.  Such evidence that has turned up (such as the Shroud of Turin) has failed under scrutiny.  You can't get from hypothesis to theory without observable and verifiable evidence.  Thirdly, the predictions of the God hypothesis are nonfalsifiable since there is no way to communicate with those "in the afterlife".  Instead such predictions are painfully ambiguous so as to be rationalized easily, and serve as raw materials from which charlatans can build a living preying on the gullible or the bereaved.  Which brings me back to Occam's Razor... the God hypothesis is an incredibly complex answer to the origin of humanity, whereas Darwin's elegant theory of natural selection and evolution is a very simple one--one that makes predictions which stand up to testing, and for which there are mountains of supporting evidence.  Occam's Razor cuts away the God hypothesis, leaving the simpler and scientifically sound evolutionary explanation.  There simply isn't any good reason to assume the existence of a supreme being until such time as evidence is discovered to support it. 

And so I dropped the (perhaps somewhat pretentious) "Peter" from my name, and went back to being just Charles Douglas.  So much the better, as Douglas is my father's name, and he was the saintliest person I ever knew.

Enlightenment:

Without a poorly fitting fairytale stretched over it, bursting at the seams, the world finally made sense.  Things snapped into place and became clear.  I could now ponder the origins of morality, religion, science, humanity, and the universe without the blinders of faith.  I could consider modern moral questions (such as gay marriage, abortion, and so forth) without the infernally nonsensical mandates of the Judeochristian deity.  I was happier than I ever remembered being, finding a remarkable peace that did away with guilt.  I was an atheist, happily married to another atheist, and together we could do much good for our fellow humans, and lead productive and joyful lives together.  It was only after becoming an atheist that I began studying some of the atheist literature that was available, becoming more familiar with Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, George H. Smith, Jonathan Miller, and the witty and caustic Christopher Hitchens.  (I confess that I have not read all these authors.)

Some years later our daughter was born, and we agreed to raise her in a world without superstition and supernatural nonsense.  She would be taught that she should be a good person all on her own, without a scary boojum that was going to "get her" if she didn't.  I think it was good for her, because she is like me, a creature of guilt, and I am so happy to see that she isn't crushed under it like I was.  Are we indoctrinating her?  Perhaps.  Young minds need instruction.  So we teach her how to be a good human being and leave it at that.  I've made quite clear to her that when she is older, if she decides to pursue a religion of one sort or another, I will love her every bit as much.  The only thing I ask is that she wait until she is older to make that decision, so that she makes it with an adult mind, instead of a childlike one.  Perhaps I needn't worry so much.  When her world had a Santa Claus and tooth fairy in it, she viewed the possibility of God as somewhat greater than zero.  When she was freed of those illusions her worldview became much more pragmatic and she seems happier with the knowledge that the world makes sense, even if life isn't fair and is sometimes very sad.

It was shortly after my kid was born that I made it clear to my parents that I was not a Christian.  Mostly because my Mom kept hinting at a "christening" for my daughter.  When was the baptism going to happen? And so forth.  My family has respected my choice to varying degrees of worry, my father being the clearest.  He summed it up quite succinctly: "your Mom doesn't like it but it doesn't matter to me."  My Dad was incredibly broadminded and thoughtful, deeply philosophical, and just all around great.  I really miss him.  My wife's family is similarly mostly respectful of her choice, except for one of them who is convinced that I "corrupted" her.  (This person would doubtless be surprised to know that Patty was an atheist long before I was.)

Living as an Atheist:

Living as we do, in liberal Massachusetts, where the basic humanist tenet of "live and let live" is alive and well, we are not persecuted for our lack of faith.  We get along well with our neighbors and friends, and pretty much don't talk about faith unless the subject comes up.  So far so good, but I read too much of the news not to see that atheists are persecuted in our nation.  It is perfectly acceptable to say "I hate atheists" and to express any number of ludicrous stereotypes about people like me.  George Bush senior once expressed his opinion that American atheists should not be considered citizens of the USA.  My daughter still has to profess a belief in God each morning during the pledge of allegiance, or feel like an outsider among her peers and risk intolerant treatment.  Every bit of currency in my pocket shrieks YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN at me with its boldfaced assertion that Americans "trust in God".  In a court of law, my testimony must be sworn truth before a nonexistant sky-fairy or it is immediately cast into doubt.  But that's fine.  Most Americans are Christian, and though all these things violate the separation of church and state, I'm prepared to overlook at least the latter two.  I know I am a good American, and that my testimony is just as accurate without fealty to some nebulous deity.  The pledge bothers me because it is a form of indoctrination, but there are far bigger fish to fry right now.  Just take a peek at George God-Told-Me-To-Invade-Iraq Bush for a minute to see how theistic thinking threatens us all when we fail to respect the wall of separation between church and State, erected by the esteemed Thomas Jefferson who was a Deist, not a Christian.

I know too many good people of faith to disparage faith itself, I can only disparage what some do in the name of it.  And thus I believe that as long as people aren't actively trying to convert me or persecute me, they are welcome to their faith.  I wish them nothing but joy of it.  But at the same time I feel a little sad.  Although it is a perhaps comforting thought when stepping out on a gorgeous sunny spring day to hear the birds singing that God made that day for me, and has a plan for us all, knowing that it all just happened according to basic laws of nature makes the day and my chance to enjoy it that much rarer and more special for me, and helps me appreciate it in a manner that a theist cannot.  What a precious, rare and wonderful world we all live on!

But that's okay.  What's important is that we each find our happiness while respecting each other.  Maybe I'm an optimist, but I ultimately believe that humanity will mature and either move beyond theism, or at least move to nonconfrontational theism that concerns itself only with the metaphysical, and leaves the physical realm to science.  It won't happen in my lifetime, but I'm doing my part to make it happen by being a good moral atheist and raising another good moral atheist.  As a good (atheist) friend of mine once taught me, it was Ghandi who said You must be the change you wish to see in the world, he was right.  So that's what I'm doing.

Peace.