Pages

Sunday, November 23, 2014

The Constitution, Cato and the Kochs: One Libertarian's Journey to Disillusionment

This post was inspired by discussion with some of my young friends overseas who dream of coming to America, “the land of opportunity,” “flowing with milk and honey,” “with liberty and justice for all,” a nation based on Equality from its very beginnings, a place where any hard-working person can succeed.  I once believed all that, too, when I was young.  The only difference is, I have actually lived here for 51 years.  I love my country.  America is certainly one of the best places on earth and I am sure it compares very favorably to any third-world nation assuming, that is, that we don’t become a third-world nation ourselves, which is liable to happen if current trends continue and if our GOP Congress successfully implements their policies, which I once supported.

Our conversation began when I posted an article revealing that we now have many more empty houses in America than we do homeless people, of whom there are 3.5 million including, to our great shame, many military veterans who defended our country at the cost of limbs and PTSD, who upon returning from overseas, found themselves homeless and without medical care.  I was subsequently accused of being un-American or unpatriotic for daring to suggest that our wonderful country is less than perfect.

My accuser is a very bright and enthusiastic young man whose goal is to become an American citizen and serve in the Marine Corps, and I very much hope he will succeed in so doing!  In fact, I offered to write him a letter of recommendation.  I am from a military family myself and a member of the American Legion.  My young friend and I have some other things in common.  For one, we are both citizens of former colonies that had to fight for our independence from Great Britain.  Additionally, and rather coincidental to this discussion, we both attended college programs funded by the Koch Foundation, where we received a rather one-sided perspective on American politics and economics.  And like him, in my youth I believed in their claims whole-heartedly. 

By now it should not be a huge shock to most people who know me, that my voter ID card says “Libertarian” on it.  It was kind of my dirty little secret, until I blogged about it quite a bit over the last few years.  I refer the interested reader to these links which explain more about what happened and how I became disillusioned:

The Republicans Have Hijacked Libertarianism, wherein I discuss the utopian vision of my youth and how it has very little in common with what is called “Libertarian” today.

Why I Am Not Thrilled with Government, where I describe how, as a tax-paying citizen and owner of several [failed] small businesses, government regulation has had a negative impact on my ability to make a living and for the most part, social programs have not provided any help when I needed it.

A Liberal Libertarian, in which I discuss, “Clearly there is no way to get to my Ideal World from the Real World.”

But why a “dirty little secret”?  I was once proud to call myself  “Libertarian”!  In short, “Libertarianism” today has been taken over by the Tea Party, whereas when I joined as a teenager, I shared the views of Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky.  Of course, I also read Ayn Rand (obligatory for Libertarians), but while I enjoyed her books, even as a child I sensed that she was a rather disturbed individual and not someone I would choose as a role model.

In any event, what attracted me about libertarian philosophy was one thing:  Freedom!  The liberty of all men and women to live our lives as we please, so long as we do not harm anyone else, including, but not limited to, what business we may conduct in the free marketplace, what jobs we can have, whom we may marry, and very importantly, bodily autonomy including whether, when and with whom we will choose to have children, or even what types of plants, medicine, food or drinks we may ingest.  

It was my passionate commitment to freedom and the 13th amendment that led to my giving a speech at a rally against the draft in Honolulu in 1980 when I said on national television, “While it is important to defend our nation against foreign enemies which would seek to conquer us, we must also be vigilant to prevent the rise of tyranny from within.  If we enslave our own citizens, what is left for us to defend?”  I also knew, being a military brat, that an all-volunteer army has better morale and is a more efficient fighting force, but that is beside the ideological principle.

My opposition to involuntary servitude likewise motivated me more recently to become involved in reproductive rights.  I had believed in my youth that this was already accomplished, but it has since come under attack from the same politicians who most loudly proclaim their defense of freedom and private property, except when it involves a woman’s sovereignty over her own body.  One of the things that made me really question the Libertarian Party was when I discovered a group called, “Pro-Choice Libertarians,” which was founded in 1987, and I wondered why on earth such a group would need to exist.   Isn’t “choice,” after all, essential to the definition of “Libertarian” or, for that matter, “American”?!

Well, maybe not; at least, not in the beginning.  And this is where we must take a closer look at the doctrines we hold so dear and assume we know what they mean, or once meant.  Everyone loves to quote from the Declaration of Independence:  

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  

The problem is, when Jefferson wrote “all men” he clearly did not mean “all,” because he, like several other Founders, owned slaves.  What the phrase really meant at that time was “all white male land owners.”  It did not include Africans, Indians, or even the Native Americans who helped the Pilgrims survive their first year here, and women, of course, also were not included.  I and my friends who were discussing these unalienable rights would not qualify for them!  While the principle of Equality was there from the start, its actualization only happened recently in history.  Slavery officially ended in 1865, Black men got the right to vote in 1870 and their full civil rights in 1964, while women were not able to vote until 1920, and in 2014 our Equal Rights Amendment has not yet been approved by Congress.  America is still growing into her full potential.  Our Founders’ vision of Equality, Liberty and Justice for all is a work in progress.

So, how did we get here today where, in one of the wealthiest nations on earth, 3.5 million people are homeless while 18,600,000 houses are empty, and many people working full-time need government assistance to feed their families?

Many people mistakenly blame our economic situation on Mr. Obama.  Although the President has many talents, time travel is not one of them, and the collapse of our economy occurred in 2007, the year before he was elected.  Other people are quick to blame President George Bush Jr., because the expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan created a huge deficit, the economy was sluggish during his administration, and many of our jobs were sent overseas.  But Mr. Bush did not start this problem, either.  Rather, it all began 20 years earlier during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, whose economic advisors, including Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, convinced him to cut taxes on the rich and deregulate the banks and corporations.  The theory behind this policy was that the Market could be trusted to ensure that businesses would prosper, jobs would be created, and the wealth would “trickle down” to benefit everyone, not just the rich.  Unfortunately, it didn’t work.  Or rather, it worked extremely well, but only for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.  Over the next 30 years the wealth “trickled up,” making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class increasingly poor.  But, to be fair, it seemed like a good idea at the time, and Reagan had no way of knowing what would happen.

Now, I realize I will be attacked as stupid and naïve for saying that.  Most liberals like to paint Reagan as an evil, heartless man who purposely instigated the destruction of the middle class.  I, however, liked President Reagan.  My impression of him at the time was that he was a warm, caring person who genuinely meant well.  I prefer to believe that he was sincerely convinced those economic policies would work.  He, being a generous person, naively assumed that the wealthy CEOs of the major corporations would do the right thing, investing their wealth wisely for the benefit of the whole country.  Instead it mostly went into their pockets.  How was he to know?  Unlike our current President, Mr. Reagan was not a constitutional scholar.  He was a Hollywood actor who became Governor of California not because of his economic or political knowledge, but rather, his charm.  As President, he believed what his trusted advisors told him.

I am not sure that President Bush Jr. can be given the same benefit of the doubt, since by the time he was elected in 2000, the effect of 20 years of Reaganomics should have started to be noticeable.  Or, some would argue, it was noticeably beneficial to all of his very wealthy friends in banking and industry and therefore he chose to continue those same policies, which likewise were being promoted ever more vigorously by the Republicans in Congress.  Meanwhile, wages for 99% of Americans had been steadily falling since the 1980s relative to the cost of living, despite worker productivity and corporate profits being at an all-time high. 

In any event, deregulation of the banks led to unwise (some would say, "predatory") lending practices in which people were given loans that they were unable to pay back, and the banks would then foreclose and take their homes.  At the same time, the unregulated stock market was having huge success selling “derivatives,” a complicated sort of gambling whereby investors could make money on the sub-prime mortgage loans in a manner which I do not fully understand, and as with all gambling, a “winning streak” cannot last forever.  At some point in 2007 it all came crashing down, the banks and corporations began to fall like dominoes, and the stock market plummeted. 

That was not supposed to happen, according to what I learned at my Libertarian college summer school at the Cato Institute, which the Koch Foundation had given me a generous scholarship to attend.  The students were told that free market capitalism was essential to our constitutional freedoms, and that the government should never interfere.  The Market was something almost sacred which, if left alone, was self-regulating and could be completely trusted to provide the best possible outcome for everyone.  Therefore, regulation of banks and industry, and labor laws like the minimum wage and overtime pay were “un-American” and dangerous to Liberty.  This is the belief still promoted by the Koch Foundation and the GOP – not because it is true, but because it advances their agenda of corporate control over America.  Contrary to what we were told, deregulating Big Business over the last 30 years did not result in prosperity for most Americans; it was a catastrophe for 99% of us. 

While my favorite Libertarian, Dr. Mary Ruwart, describes in glowing terms how a truly free market would create jobs and opportunity and wealth for everyone, unfortunately we can’t get there from here.  There is no “free market” in America because the playing field is not even close to being level, and the game is already rigged to prevent competition.  I am quite sure this is not what our Founders intended, and it is the key point where I differ from "libertarian" philosophy as it is commonly presented today.

The word “Libertarian” as adopted by the GOP has come to mean the liberty of corporations to exploit peoples’ labor and rip us off to the fullest extent possible.  These faux “libertarians” who want to deregulate the banks and industry are perfectly happy to regulate the hell out of ordinary citizens in our own bedrooms and small business owners in our attempts to compete with Big Business.  That is why they support the Citizens United ruling which awarded “personhood” to corporations and equated money with “free speech,” thereby essentially handing over our elections to them.  This collusion of government and industry, i.e. fascism, is the opposite of liberty! 

In 2008, with an epidemic of people losing their homes in the wake of the stock market crash, the government stepped in to save the tanking economy, offering bailouts.  The GOP supported the bailouts as a necessary response to the emergency situation.  But, the bailouts were not given to the citizens who had lost their homes and their retirement, or people drowning in debt from high-interest student loans or credit cards, or those bankrupted by medical bills.  Family farms and small businesses were not eligible for help.  No, not a penny of the bailouts went to the American people.  Rather, the money was given to the same banks which had issued the bad loans, foreclosed and taken the peoples’ homes, and gambled with their derivatives, and to the insurance companies who had either refused to insure them, or else collected their premiums and then failed to pay the claims.

Because of my belief in the Constitution and the principle of Liberty, I supported Gary Johnson in the last election.  This was despite my affection for Barry Obama, with whom I attended high school in Hawaii and who I think has done an amazing job in the face of continual opposition from Congress.  Unbelievably, the GOP treason went so far as to shut down the government, including suspending pay for our active duty military, in protest of the Affordable Care Act because they did not want the American people to have the same health insurance that they enjoy, which our tax dollars paid for!  The President finally wrangled an agreement with Congress so that our military personnel could pay their rent and feed their families.  Since then Congress has agreed to hardly anything.

Anyway, while I respect Mr. Obama, Gary Johnson was the only candidate in the race with the balls to openly state in his platform that he would oppose “crony capitalism,” another name for fascism.  He also was the only candidate to fully support bodily autonomy, equal rights for all Americans including LGBT, and the legalization of cannabis, which our Founders grew and is now illegal in most states, primarily due to the pharmaceutical industry lobby.  Interestingly, while David Koch once ran as Libertarian VP and has funded many campaigns, he did not donate to Gary Johnson, on the basis that Gary was “too extreme” in his support of personal liberty!

Our Constitution states:
“We the People of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

While I still believe in the Libertarian principle that the primary function of government is “to prevent force and fraud,” over time I have come to a broader understanding of those terms which recommends government intervention to a greater extent than I once thought necessary.  The “free market” sounds good in theory, but what happens when unrestrained capitalism is unjust, upsets domestic Tranquility, fails to provide for the common defense, damages the general Welfare, and conflicts with the Liberty of individual citizens and their right to private property?  If it comes down to a choice between capitalism and the broader principle of the Constitution itself, which is to protect our country and its people, then I must choose the Constitution.

The sort of “liberty” advocated by the Kochs and the GOP is the freedom of citizens to be mercilessly exploited by the banks, insurance companies and corporations, to work long hours at low wages insufficient for survival, to be sent to war and then cast off like damaged goods, to become homeless, to starve, or to die from lack of medical care.  Conservatives obsess over the “free market,” which is not actually mentioned (only implied) in the Constitution, while completely ignoring the “promote the general Welfare” part.  That is because they are doing the bidding of their corporate masters.  Congress does not represent us, the ordinary working people whose taxes pay their salaries and provide them with generous benefits including the best health care available.  They represent the billionaire donors who have paid for their election, made easier by the Citizens United ruling. 

Our Founders came to the new world for Liberty.  They fought a war for independence from Britain motivated in part by “taxation without representation,” as well as their opposition to the monopoly of the East India Company, the “crony capitalism” of its day.  The current policies supported by the GOP and promoted by the Koch Foundation would turn Big Business loose to devour America and take away all the protections that our citizens have enjoyed.  This has been made possible by unlimited campaign financing and laws enacted to take away our representation and hand it over to the corporations, all in the name of so-called “constitutional liberty.”  The Constitution was written to define and limit government in order to guarantee the rights and liberties of the American people, not the multinational corporations.   

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Letting God Out of the Box – Reflections on Frank Schaeffer’s “Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God.”

I wanted to write a formal “review” of this book, but initially couldn’t think of anything to say other than, “Fabulous book!  Everybody should read it.”  On second thought, while I absolutely love the book, I predict that most atheists and Christians will probably hate it, and I’m not here to try to convince anybody.  The book is not a theological treatise and presents neither an argument nor an apology.  Rather, it is a personal, candid and heartfelt discussion of the author’s journey of faith, seeking to “give love, create beauty and find peace” in the face of limiting and dehumanizing dogmas.  The intimate writing style, as if we were sitting and having a conversation with the author, invites honest reflection on our own journey, and in response to that invitation, the words came pouring out!  So, I hope you will indulge me, before I return to reviewing the book.  While I am no longer an atheist and God is not per se a “belief” for me, I can very much relate to what Mr. Schaeffer has written.

I became an atheist around age 11 or 12 as a result of having attended evangelical private schools which completely turned me off to Christ.  From my perspective today, being totally in Love, it’s difficult to imagine how anyone could manage to make Jesus unappealing, but they did.  In addition, I was a big fan of science from a very early age, thanks in large part to the t.v. show “Star Trek,” which I began watching with my father when I was just a toddler.  I had already concluded that the religious world-view was at odds with a factual explanation of how the universe works.  Now, I could have lived with that, if religion as it was presented had been attractive for any other reason, which it was not. 

My childhood understanding of “Christianity” could essentially be summarized as: “Everything that is fun is bad,” and God was a mean old man on His throne up in the sky, ready to send us to hell for the slightest infraction, even though He had already allowed His own son to be tortured to death on our behalf to somehow appease His righteous wrath over the predictable sins of creatures whom He had endowed with free will.  It seemed to me that, being omniscient, He should have known what would happen. Moreover, He would send starving people in Africa to hell merely for not believing in Jesus, Whom they had never heard of, and it was our parents’ fault for not giving more money to the church’s missionary projects, and by implication, our fault for not nagging them sufficiently to do so.  I had other theological doubts, but the last straw was when they told us that rock music was from the devil, which I knew in my heart of hearts could not possibly be true.  So, I threw out the Babe with the bathwater, but I felt like Something was missing.  I began to study Zen and yoga.

My atheism continued until my first year of college in Florida, when I ate magic mushrooms which grew at cow farms near my school in the springtime.  That experience of infinite Love, Being, Consciousness and Bliss demonstrated Something beyond a shadow of a doubt.  As an atheist I was inclined to believe that It was a phenomenon created by my own brain, but it must have been a part of the brain that was previously inaccessible to me.  It was Beauty and Perfection completely beyond anything that I could ever dream or imagine despite my best efforts.  People commonly called this “seeing God,” but I was reluctant to call It “God” because It bore no resemblance to the angry old man in the sky.  One of my companions, when asked if he had seen God, replied, “No, but I saw where He lives!”  Thereafter, I was motivated to study yoga/ meditation more seriously and in greater depth, and my practice really began to bear fruit.

While pursuing my degree in Philosophy, I studied theology and comparative religions and hung out with people of different faiths, including Buddhists, Sufis and Hindus.  I began to realize that my childhood fundamentalist education had been quite limiting, and maybe God really wasn’t so bad after all.  My Hare Krishna friends presented God as friendly, fun, beautiful and cool.  Like Christianity, the Hindu religion also imposed a fairly strict moral code which, if violated, could send you to a bad reincarnation for many offenses including illicit sex (anything outside of marriage, and contraception within marriage!), drinking alcohol, or eating meat.  Nevertheless, their positive input inspired me to again consider the possibility of a Personal God.

Years later in southern California I rediscovered Jesus thanks to Jon, (ironically!) a rock musician, one of the coolest people I’d ever met.  I was surprised to learn he was quietly a mystical Christian, and he also practiced meditation.  Through Jon I met some loudly Christian metal musicians and began attending Calvary Chapel, mostly because a lot of my friends went there.  The music was great and it seemed pretty hip, although I soon learned that in reality their doctrine was rather fundie.   Among other things, apparently gay people were going to hell and while rock music was not, after all, satanic, yoga was and I needed to immediately stop doing it lest demons take over my body.

Shortly after my conversion, I ran into an old childhood friend Pete who, it turns out, had been a Christian all along but I never suspected it, because he smoked pot and listened to Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden.  We were discussing my newfound faith and he asked, “So – do you believe the Bible is the literal Word of God?”  “Yes!” I said, as per my indoctrination.  Pete smiled, raised one eyebrow, and asked, “And you’ve actually read it?”  “Yes.”  I had, indeed, been forced to read it quite thoroughly and to memorize parts of it, as a child.  “Ok,” he said, “then what do you do when scripture says something that you just know in your heart, cannot possibly be right?  Do you blindly believe it, or do you use the mind that God gave you?”  “Is this a trick question?!” I wondered, because as far as I knew, we really didn't have a choice.

Encouraged again to trust my heart over propaganda, I kept doing kriya yoga and meditation, where with increasing consistency I encountered that Love, Bliss, Beauty and awesome unity that the humble fungi had revealed to me many years before.  Having given it much prayer and after visiting a variety of churches, eventually I found myself quite at home in the Episcopal Church due to its Liturgy and sacraments, “all the pageantry, none of the guilt,” a strong tradition of spiritual practices, ecumenism and support of vocations, and so comfortable with paradox, ambiguity and diversity even to have a couple of atheist priests among its clergy.  I enjoyed a beautiful, wonderful, ecstatic relationship with God for many years thereafter.

I tried being an atheist again in 2010 when I was mad at God.  He had allowed my mother, a saintly woman with pure childlike faith who never doubted, “Whatsoever you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive,” to die a horribly painful, slow, agonizing death involving loss of limbs, sanity and dignity, which dragged out for years despite her own prayers and those of myself, my sisters in the convent, and all our faithful friends and family.   When He didn’t heal Mom and her condition worsened, we prayed for a quick, merciful death, and that didn’t happen, either.  So I decided, clearly this God thing was all a lie, a fantasy. 

I told myself that we were, after all, just clothed monkeys with guns, who threw verbal feces at each other; monkeys who made art and music for no purpose whatsoever, and bombs to blow each other to smithereens, breeding mindlessly and without restraint, to the point that we were depleting our finite resources, destroying our habitat and drowning in our own waste.  We were really just walking, breathing bags of skin containing chemicals, like biological batteries which can recharge to a limited extent by taking in nutrients until entropy finally catches up, the bag starts to leak, the chemical reactions cease and we’re gone.  Unlike batteries, these bags of chemicals were seemingly conscious and capable of reproduction, but to what end – to bring more bags of conscious chemicals into a universe with no God, no Love, no Beauty, no meaning, only eternal darkness and despair?

I tried, but it didn’t work.  It was just too awkward, like when you’re mad at somebody and trying to ignore them, but you keep running into them at the grocery store.  It was no longer a matter of “belief” for me, because I didn’t so much “believe” in God, as I experienced God.  No matter what else might be happening in the external world, when I did my yoga, I experienced that incredible Love, Being, Consciousness, Bliss that had become more Real to me than anything.  Now, when I was mad at Him about Mom, I just avoided doing my spiritual practice for a while, but that couldn’t last.  It was like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  Anyway, God would sneak in when I looked at the moon and stars, or listened to Om roaring in my ear as I surfed in the tube of a wave, or felt the kiss of the sun on my cheek.  I don’t know why He let Mom suffer so, but in our Episcopal mythology of the Incarnation, He suffers with us.

In my darker moods, especially now that I am perimenopausal, I do sometimes flirt with nihilism, but it’s become more difficult.  The yoga I started in 1976 made big promises, and in 2011 it finally delivered.   A few minutes after I began doing Heart of Yoga, a seemingly minor refinement of the breathing technique that I had just learned from Mark Whitwell, my entire reality changed.  The Love, unity and clarity that I had first glimpsed with the help of the fungi, and subsequently experienced with increasing consistency during my daily meditations over the years, suddenly burst forth and took over my everyday consciousness.  This is what yoga is supposed to do, but I was nonetheless surprised when it happened.  Since then I have experienced the Presence of God essentially all the time, closer than my own heartbeat, and Love pouring through me.

Maybe it is just “all in my head,” a new trick my brain learned from an improbable symbiosis between fungi, cows and humans, reinforced by years of practice.  It makes no difference.  Whether God is “real,” or whether we are just pitiful monkeys who, in between throwing feces at each other, make up stories to console ourselves in the face of a dark, empty and meaningless universe, either way, what else is left, but to be that Love in the world?!  I teach people yoga to allow them to experience for themselves the gospel that God is Love, and I join my voice with others in the hope of making the world a better, more humane place before the darkness swallows us all up.  And this brings us back to Frank Schaeffer’s delightful book.   

This book resonated with me on many levels, although I am no longer an atheist and I find the word “believe” problematic.  It is probably a “niche” book, but perhaps a niche whose population is growing as more and more people begin to question their childhood faith and search for deeper meaning.  If you love Jesus but hate religion; if you believe in a God Who is bigger than the Bible; if you are confused about the difference between science and religion and/or you’ve been told you must choose between them, this book is for you! 

Be honest, my Christian friends:  Do you ever feel embarrassed for the God of the Old Testament?  What do you do with the “unpleasant” bits of scripture, like (just to mention a few), the several occasions where God tells his people to kill their neighbors, including pregnant women and little babies, but keep the virgin girls as booty?  Or the incident when God sent bears to maul 42 children for making fun of the prophet Elisha’s bald head?  Likewise, perhaps you find dubious the doctrine of hell, whereby God would condemn mortal beings to eternal torment even for merely having incorrect beliefs.  On a recent episode of “The Simpsons,” Bart and Lisa use an iRunes app to open a portal into a school in hell, where they see a young man writing something over and over on the blackboard; Bart asks, “Hey, pal, what are you in here for?”  “The heresy of Docetism, the belief that Jesus' body was just an illusion.” 

Frank poses the question, “Can you imagine me consigning Lucy [his granddaughter] to oblivion because she had wrong ideas about me?  Can you imagine me burning her forever because she didn’t believe in me, forgot my name, called me the wrong name, thought I had six arms… or brought me fruit when I asked for a lamb?... I am not a good man and yet can you imagine anything that would cut [his grandchildren] off from my love?” 

Faced with such issues, we have a choice.  We can do mental contortions in attempt to invent clever explanations and apologies for God, as Frank’s evangelist mother did in the previous book (Sex, Mom and God), but the results are unlikely to be satisfactory.  Alternatively, we can let go of dogma and trust God to be God.  Let God out of the box!  As we are told in the Chronicles of Narnia, “He's wild, you know. Not like a tame lion."

Some of my other progressive Christian friends try to modify the religion to be more in line with scientific and historical “reality,” which involves eliminating doctrines about miracles, the virgin birth, the Trinity, even throwing out the entire book of John (my favorite gospel!), and/or re-defining the “historical Jesus” as a mere man, which IMO is kind of like neutering the lion.   Mr. Schaeffer takes a different approach.  He is not very concerned about doctrines per se.  Rather, he comes from the Orthodox apophatic tradition, which says that God is beyond doctrine and cannot be defined by the intellect, but only experienced.

The title of the book, “Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God” is, as my husband and many other people have pointed out, contradictory per the definition of “atheist.”  From the apophatic standpoint, “believes” could perhaps better be replaced by “experiences,” but I am sure the author was very aware of the contradiction and purposely chose the ironic and thought-provoking title.  Frank is an “atheist” in the sense that he believes in the scientific explanation of the material universe which, I think it is safe to say, most educated people do.  As I have explained previously in my blog, there is no contradiction once we understand that science and religion are two separate spheres or dimensions of human existence which serve completely different functions.  This brings us to the central premise of the book, which is that we humans are multidimensional creatures who experience reality on different levels. 

One of my very educated and intelligent friends told me, “Religion is silly!  I choose science.”  But, the question is, “Choose it for what?”  The purpose of science is to objectively explain the nature and workings of the physical universe, which it does quite well, as far as it goes.  Now, my friend would say, “Science fully describes reality, because the physical universe is all there is!”  The problem with this assertion, of course, is that any such statements about Ultimate Reality are necessarily metaphysical in nature and therefore can neither be confirmed nor denied by physical science.  It would be a circular argument akin to the fundie dogma, “The Bible is the only and complete word of God.  How do we know?  Because the Bible says so!”   

In any case, the purely physical approach is inadequate to express the entirety of our human experience.  For example, according to science, “love” is simply evolution using your hormones to trick you into breeding, passing on your DNA and caring for your offspring so that they, too, can pass on their DNA.  The magical feeling you share with your spouse that makes you believe he or she is the most beautiful, wonderful person on earth can be objectively explained by chemicals in your brain; however, it can only be enjoyed subjectively.  Love, like Beauty, belongs to another dimension of human existence:  the subjective realm of art, music, poetry, mythology and religion, the purpose of which is not explanation, but inspiration.  There are different kinds of “truth.”  It’s not either-or.  To choose science “instead of” religion is like choosing dinner instead of dessert when you could have both; you will certainly survive although you may become bored.  Choosing religion instead of science may seem delicious, but it’s not a balanced diet in terms of your physical health.

When challenged by his atheist friends, “Frank, God’s only in your head!”, he answers, “Yeah, whatever.  What isn’t?”  This is very true because, as Frank points out, ultimately the “physical world” as such is a perceptual construct of the human mind and senses, whereas we know from physics that what we perceive as solid objects actually consist of mostly empty space.  He says towards the end of the book, “My hope is that a trillionth of a second before the Big Bang the energy animating the mystery of matter being created out of nothing was love.”  I believe that, and it’s the same Love that holds the universe together, which I experience in the center of my being.

So, we are multidimensional creatures and in at least one of those dimensions, we can experience God.  Religion is merely the sociocultural context which frames that personal experience.   Being freed from dogma, what happens to our faith?   It is a huge relief to realize that God does not need to be defined, defended or explained.  We can enjoy religious mythology when we stop trying to pretend it is something that it isn’t.  If there is a God, He cannot be confined to the man-made box that is religion.     

Frank makes the case that following Jesus is not about believing certain doctrines, but rather, how does our experience of the sacred affect our life?   It should move us to express divine Love through our actions.  He discusses at some length the humanism of Jesus, and even suggests that the Enlightenment was a Christian heresy, the results of which can be seen in “godless” countries like Denmark today where most of the population is atheist, and yet their social policies are more consistent with Jesus’ teachings than our own “Christian” nation.   They take care of their widows and orphans, provide universal healthcare and education, and enforce laws preventing the powerful from preying on the weak.  On a personal level, letting God out of the box has made our faith stronger, our joy deeper, enabling us to give love and create beauty, and in so doing, to find peace.