Answering Aunt Bertha
. . . Regarding Her God And Faith

 J. A. Steiner


Smashwords Edition

License Notes: This ebook is licensed for you personal enjoyment. It may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Copyright 2010 - All Rights Reserved


Table of Contents

Introduction
Chapter 1 - Tell Mother I Won't Be There
Chapter 2 - Bertha’s Bible - As I See It 
Chapter 3 - The Evolution of God 
Chapter 4 - Bless This Food and Watch Over Us 
Chapter 5 - Faith and Self-Deception 
Chapter 6 - God’s Chosen Few - Telling Us What To Do
Chapter 7 - The Pleasure Is All Mine 
Chapter 8 - Darwin’s Last Laugh 
Chapter 9 - Revelation 
About the Author


Introduction

During my formative years, well more than half a century ago, I attended a fundamentalist church, often three times a week. I accepted what my parents and our preacher said about God and sin and heaven and hell. I read my Bible and prayed daily. 
Faith, however, did not come to me easily. I was skeptical even while trying to be “a good Christian boy.” I spent many Sundays in church wondering if it was really necessary to take religion so seriously. And no matter how many times I heard our preacher proclaim … “God is in our midst,” the only presence I ever felt was my mother poking me in the ribs to stay awake. My doubts multiplied as I advanced into my mid-teens. That was when I started seriously questioning all those Sunday school “truths” that had been forced upon me. My youthful indoctrination eventually failed completely. I was an unbeliever by the time I was in my mid-twenties. 
Even so, I have maintained a life-long interest in religion. I have continued to search throughout my adult life for evidence that my long-ago rejection of God and faith was a mistake. I have considered a wide-range of arguments for why I should embrace the God that countless believers assert is real and involved in their lives. I have read, researched, observed, discussed, and thought deeply about why and what people believe about Him, but nothing has worked for me. He has never shown His face, whispered in my ear, or tapped me on the shoulder. I have never sensed one of His angels hovering nearby or His shadowy image on my refrigerator door. 
What I did discover, while searching for this God, is that there are plausible, alternative explanations for all the many things that people attribute to Him. I also determined that religious thought and behavior, like most thought and behavior, can be explained by conventional psychology, rather than the notion that humans are being aided by some invisible power. 
I was led to believe, during my youthful church-going years, that faith was essential for two reasons: 1) you could be “a truly good person” here on earth only by believing in God, being “born again,” and living according to His rules; and 2) there really was a “paradise” where believers could exist forever after death. My life-long search for credible answers has unearthed no proof that either of those widely- accepted claims is true. 
As I aged and learned more about religious thought and human behavior, I came to believe that faith is driven largely by two primal instincts - survival and pleasure seeking. Believing that there is a loving, watchful God and that we can spend eternity with Him is a very pleasurable, survivalist thought. Among the truly devout, it is often the greatest of all pleasures. 
This little book contains my perspective on the thinking and behavior of those people who, in their quest for “spiritual pleasure,” pursue their faith with too much passion. I focus on Christianity out of familiarity, but my observations can be applied to all religions. The theological differences that distinguish one faith or denomination from others are, as I see it, unimportant. All of the major religions are variations of the same idea. They are sincere, but misleading attempts to explain the unexplainable. They also have something else in common: all of the world's major religions are based on the beliefs of ancient men. Those early men who wrote the books that now provide the how-to-live guidelines for modern man believed that flat earth occupied the center of the universe. That fact alone should cause all 21st Century believers to stop and reconsider what they hold to be true. 
It is not my intent that this book be an indictment of all people of faith. I have no serious quarrel with “mainstream” believers - those who are thoughtful enough to recognize the crucial difference between faith and truth. Those who fail to make that distinction, the “true believers,” are the focus of this book. They “know the truth” - so they say. They and they alone have all the answers, and if you do not agree with them, you are wrong. End of discussion. The most extreme of these righteous ones fly hijacked airplanes into buildings and murder abortion doctors. Always, of course, because God told them to do so. They insist that their way is the only way, and that the old books that form the foundation of their beliefs must not be questioned. Christian, Jew, Muslim - it makes no difference. 
My wife’s Aunt Bertha is one of those unquestioning believers. Now in her mid-90s and a generation older than me, we come from similar backgrounds. We were both raised in rural/blue collar households by strict parents. We both spent our early church-going years in the mid-western plains - Bertha in west Kansas, me in northeastern Colorado. We both eventually migrated west, winding up as adults in Oregon. That is where the similarities end. Religious faith has been a staple of Bertha’s life since she was a young girl. She has never questioned God’s existence. She believes, quite fervently, that she is in daily contact with Him. She is convinced that their “conversations” have given her the guidance she needs to live properly here on earth, all the time waiting for that grand day when her soul soars off to heaven. 
If you believe that you are special in the eyes of The Creator, that He has opened your mind to the mysteries of the universe, it is understandable that you might feel compelled to share that “wisdom” with those who have “not yet found the Lord.” Over the years, Aunt Bertha has relied extensively on family letters to convey her enthusiasm for God and to remind the rest of us that we all need to repent of our sinful ways. Her little sermons and dire warnings about the importance of “being prepared to die” would often come to us with some connection between our mortality and the latest problem bedeviling the world. 
There was the Christmas letter of 2003, in which she said “the enemy is trying to destroy God’s people” and, therefore, "we all need to pray much for our President.” I believe, she said, that President Bush “wants God to lead, guide, and direct him.” That was followed by her standard warning: “We don’t know what a day will bring forth, but Jesus came to earth to live among us and to pay the price for our salvation. He said we must be born again in order to have our sins forgiven and have heaven our home. God grant we all be ready.” 
The following year, after President Bush’s reelection, she could not help but express her gratitude: “It will soon be Thanksgiving time again. I’m sure we all can find a lot to be thankful for. I for one am grateful our President got reelected and I pray this war in Irak (sic) will soon be over and things be so our soldiers can return.” Then, after giving us her usual "get right with God" reminder, she immediately segued into the weather in Oregon - without enlightening us as to God’s position on incessant rain. 
A letter in the spring of 2007 had this to say: "Jesus suffered more than we will ever know, and He willingly paid the price for us that we can have our sins forgiven.... We must come to Him and confess our sins and invite Him in to clense (sic) and forgive us. This world is not our home.... When life here is over we have a beautiful home in heaven waiting for us.” And so it went in subsequent letters. 
The few unbelievers in our family have politely tolerated her repeated warnings. We have followed that old American tradition of not saying anything disrespectful of religion, especially to an elder member of the family. She would have been deeply hurt had we done so. Our silence was also an acknowledgment that she meant no harm, plus we knew that our comments would have no impact on her thinking. Like most true believers, it seems never to have occurred to her that she could be wrong. Had she ever had such moments of reflection, she might have been hesitant in dishing out her “get-right-with-God” warnings.
I started saving her letters because I found them both interesting and amusing. Her little lectures reinforced my long-held perception of Christian piety. Her letters also motivated me to start jotting down some of my own thoughts on religion. I had considered trying to do something like this for many years, but could never settle on the right format until one day, while reading her latest letter, the proverbial light-bulb clicked on. That is how “Answering Aunt Bertha” came into being. 
A year or so later, while still struggling to get this writing project off the ground, my older brother and his wife came for a visit to Washington D.C. They had come not so much to see my wife and me, but to attend a conference of evangelicals in support of Israel. One evening after dinner, I asked about the pro-Israel movement they were supporting, noting that their new-found love for the Jewish people was a dramatic reversal from the “Jews are Christ-killers” that he and I had heard while growing up. Though he and I had rarely discussed our quite different beliefs over the years, I assumed that my question would get us into a good old-fashioned religious argument. I was right. Toward the end of that somewhat heated exchange, my sister-in-law blurted out that faith in God had made them “more wholesome” than my wife and me. Those were her exact words. My wife’s quick response - “hold on there just a minute” - caused her to make a hasty retraction. I knew, nonetheless, that she honestly believed what she had said. Her little remark that evening about the moral superiority of believers gave me further incentive to forge ahead with this book. 
I was quite mindful when I started writing that other religious skeptics - most of them far wiser and more articulate than me - have addressed many of the same issues and raised similar questions. Some excellent, thought-provoking books have appeared recently on the best-seller lists. I knew, however, that  none of those books would be read by Aunt Bertha or others in our family who share her inerrant, Biblical outlook. Their unyielding attitude compels them to ignore all who cast doubt. They would never “waste their time” reading such books. 
Even so, it occurred to me that they might be a bit curious about something written by me, especially if they knew it contained some direct references to them and their beliefs and behavior. I have included some family stories and anecdotes (like the one above), not because I want to find fault or embarrass, but rather as a way of illustrating or reinforcing what I am saying. I thought this book might also enlighten some family members as to why, as a young man, I rejected the faith of our ancestors. Though some have been eager over the years to “win me back to Christ,” few if any have ever been inquisitive about what I and other skeptics believe - or why we turned against religion. While they have long tried to avoid my occasional verbal jousting with them, I thought that perhaps they might be willing to read what I have to say about all of this. If nothing else, I figured that my grandchildren would one day find this manuscript buried away in a dusty box in the attic. They would then know as adults what I thought about all of this God-stuff. 
As the foregoing suggests, this book is more than just another skeptical take on religion. It is part personal and family memoir. Some in the family will feel that I have been disrespectful of them and their beliefs. You cannot write a book like this without stepping on toes and sounding critical. I might remind them that their many years of sermonizing, praying for my soul, and derogatory comments about “atheists” and "heretics" have been disrespectful of me and my beliefs. An "eye for an eye," to quote Aunt Bertha’s Bible. 
They believe it is my fault for not finding God, that I would not “open my mind” to the idea of His existence, that I deliberately shunned religion. I say it is their fault. If what they believe is really “the truth,” and they were honestly concerned about “my wayward soul,” it should not have been that difficult convincing me they were right. I say that because “real truth” needs no defense. Like not choosing to be born or the rotation of earth, it is either evident or knowable with just a bit of curious and critical reading and reflection. Bertha’s God and faith fail this obvious truth test. If what people of faith believe could be proven, religious arguments would have ceased long, long ago - and it would no longer be called "faith."
The views expressed in this book are not intended to be a scholarly critique of religion. I do not claim to be an expert on the Bible - or anthropology, geology, history, psychology, or the other academic disciplines that I employ to buttress my arguments. You do not have to be "an authority" on any of these to judiciously assess religion and draw sensible conclusions. Nor are my thoughts on all of this unique. Others who study religion and human behavior have expressed viewpoints similar to some, if not many, that I have chosen to highlight. What I hope distinguishes this book from like-minded expositions is the way in which I blend my view of faith and human behavior with my personal story of rejecting religious conformity. This book simply discusses, in part, why and what I believe, and the path I took to arrive at those beliefs - and why I reject Aunt Bertha’s worldview. 
If I am right, and today’s widely worshipped God is the greatest myth of all time, then the challenge facing me is to explain why I find that to be so. That is a daunting task, given His immense popularity, but that is what I set out to do when I started writing. Readers can decide for themselves if I succeeded and whose interpretation of the evidence makes the most sense - Aunt Bertha’s or mine. 
I am quite aware that religious faith has been helpful to many people throughout the ages, enabling them to endure and survive. The belief that there is a kind and caring God - even if not true - has unquestionably helped untold numbers withstand the ordeals of life and redirected many floundering souls. Faith has sustained them. Such beliefs are beneficial if they encourage people to stop behaving badly and start being responsible adults. To the extent that religious faith contributes to such transformations and the betterment of society, we all profit. 
I also recognize the immense role that religious bodies have played (and continue to play) in helping our planet’s less-fortunate - be it in feeding, clothing, ministering to the heart-broken and the sick or dying, or assisting in a variety of other ways. And despite all the killing and mayhem carried out in the name of God over the centuries, religious belief and practices have at the same time contributed to the civilizing of humans. It has been a very long and slow process, with many set-backs and countless black chapters, but religion has arguably been a positive factor in slowly nudging us toward a more “love your neighbor” way of co-existing. I must also underscore my awareness that, despite my upcoming, less-than-flattering Chapter 6 observations about the world’s religious “controllers,” clergymen (and women) have been the motivators for much of the good that has been done, if not so much in olden times at least in the modern era. 
For all this good, however, one can rightly argue that morality, empathy, and all the other positive values that most of us today recognize and aspire to live by came to us not from a benevolent God, but rather were slowly discovered and adopted by humans over thousands of years. One can also reason that all the good done by people of faith would (or could) have happened without religion; it would have happened differently, perhaps, but it would have happened - because the human capacity for goodness exists with or without faith. Human society evolved as it did because faith-driven beliefs had managed to become the dominant influence and power in man’s march through time. Religion simply usurped the civilizing and socializing process that would have occurred anyway. To claim, therefore, that we must have religion, that life must go on as in the past, is - in my opinion - a feeble argument. 
I refer throughout this book to Aunt Bertha and those of like faith as “the devout.” Some believers (as well as grammarians) may question my use of that term. I realize that there are many believers who may not be quite as enthusiastic about their faith as Aunt Bertha, but who still consider themselves to be “devout,” as in having “deep religious feelings or commitment.” I simply wanted a commonly-understood, non-pejorative term, and “the devout” seemed appropriate. 
Some readers might also object to my frequent, matter-of-fact references to their firmly-held beliefs as “myths” and “superstitions.” That is simply my opinion, based on a lifetime of weighing the evidence. Those who take offense at my use of such words should stop and reflect on their own language of belief - as when they assert without evidence that "they know” their God is real. 
Finally, I should not want anything that I say or imply about Aunt Bertha to be misconstrued. I mean her no ill-will. She is a nice lady, cheerful, pleasant to be around. We have all enjoyed her company over the years. I suspect, however, that she would have been all of those things even had she not chosen long ago to pursue her religion with such fervor. She is an inherently good person and, I am sure, would be with or without religious faith guiding her life. 


Chapter 1: Tell Mother I Won't Be There

It was common in my boyhood days for a traveling revival preacher to come to our northern Colorado town each summer, hoping to stir up the local congregation and attract new converts to the Lord. The revival meetings would typically run from one Sunday to the next, with services each evening.
They were usually at our church, but some years - if our preacher felt that sin and moral decay were especially bad - arrangements would be made for a large tent meeting on the outskirts of town. It was hoped that those meetings, advertised in flyers circulated about, would attract people from other religions, especially Catholics - who we were repeatedly told had strayed from the original teachings of Jesus and were certain to burn in hell. 
Wherever the meetings were held, they followed a predictable format. The sole purpose of the visiting preacher was to convince all but the most saintly that they had fallen short in the eyes of the Lord, and that by God they had better make things right that very night lest the old Chevy crash on the way home and we found ourselves facing eternal judgment. The sweltering summer heat, the air stirred only by the gentle movement of fans in the hands of the lady folk, seemed to hint of things to come if we did not change our ways. 
Being just a boy, I paid little attention to all those frightful warnings. I would sit there night after night trying to not fidget too much on the hard wooden benches or folding metal chairs, my mind distracted by kid thoughts. Then one year - 1947 or ‘48, as I recall - the preacher got to me. I was 10 or 11 by then, just enough older that the idea of being constantly jabbed in the behind by the devil’s pitchfork started to concern me. 
Each highly-emotional worship service would end with a requisite altar call. People who felt moved to “get right with God” would go to the front of the church and commence to pray at the altar. Our altar calls were much more spirited than those shown on the Rev. Billy Graham’s many televised crusades. They were always accompanied by the saddest, most soulful music ever written - guaranteed to pull sinners right out of their seats. That night, when they started playing and singing that old classic hymn, “Tell Mother I’ll Be There,” I was off to the front of the church. 
There were always church elders or other righteous advocates for the Lord down there ready to assist you and the other "sinners" in your search for salvation. I was not sure what I was supposed to do other than pray loudly along with all the others, but loud praying there was, along with much wailing and shouting “hallelujah” and soulful crying. And hands patting you on the back. I never understood the need for all the backslapping, but I suppose it was to make you think that God Almighty was laying His hands on you. This would go on for 20 or 30 minutes - long enough for you to purge your soul of all the sin and "open your heart to God." At least that was what they told me was happening. When all the noise and crying finally died down you were supposed to be a new and improved person – “born again,” as they say today. In those days it was said you had been “saved.” Whether God had actually “entered my heart” was unprovable, but I chose at the time to believe what I was told. 
So it was on that long ago night that I first found God. I had of course been regularly attending church all my short life, but that night had special meaning - so they said. I was told that henceforth I would “walk a straight and narrow path” and be "a soldier for God." Except that did not happen. Oh, I tried, I really did. For a few weeks, maybe even months, I had a new attitude and tried to be more saintly, which at that age meant nothing much except being more obedient toward my parents and nicer to my siblings and friends. You were also expected to swear off swearing, give up all bad thoughts, and show renewed vigor regarding one’s daily prayers and Bible reading. 
The truth is, it didn’t take long before all that wore off. I soon reverted to being a typical boy rather than being “a good follower of Christ.” I became a “backslider,” the church’s term for those who had surrendered their hearts to God, but than reverted to sinning. Sinning at that age was of course not what you might call high crimes and misdemeanors. A snitched marble or candy bar perhaps, pulling my sister’s hair, or repeating aloud the latest swear word I had heard. Nonetheless, owing to the persuasive powers of our fired-up preachers, I felt compelled to keep repenting. Over the next several years, I had to be “saved” repeatedly, going through the same emotional and psychological catharsis all over again. It didn’t help at the time that I was starting to have lustful thoughts of girls and other earthly pleasures. Not that I had any real experience with lust, but I was told the thoughts themselves were a sin. So it was back to the altar for me. 
While all of this “sin and be saved” back-and-forth was going on, I was also starting to think more about what I was hearing in church. I started to wonder if there really was a God and a heaven and hell. I began to question why we “just have to have faith.” I was also noticing things about my parents and other adults in the church. I sensed that for all their talk about being good, upstanding Christians, they rarely lived up to the standards that they espoused. My father, for example, had a terrible temper. When provoked, he would quickly react in anger and let forth with an uncontrollable stream of profanity. I knew every swear word in the English language by the time I started grade school. 
I also started paying closer attention to the parents of my friends who did not go to our church. They were Presbyterians, Baptists, and, yes, even those idol-worshipping Catholics. Even worse, some of them didn’t seem to be anything. They did not attend church at all. Yet they seemed to me to be perfectly fine people - and good parents. I did not sense, while in their homes, any presence of Old Satan. Their kitchens smelled just like my mother’s - fried potatoes and corn and hamburger. No hint of burning sulfur, which you might expect if you took seriously our preacher’s pious proclamations about those who did not share “our faith." 
Little things I would hear in church also made me stop and think. I recall one morning in Sunday school the teacher instructing us for a solid hour how we should “love all the children - black and yellow, red and white.” I remember thinking that sounded okay to me, but it didn’t square with what I knew my parents and other adults in the church felt about anyone who was not their kind of Anglo-Saxon Protestant. My father regularly referred to minorities as “nigger,” “chink,” “gook,” or “spic.” And thanks to him, I spent my youth thinking that “Jews” were either “penny-pinching gold merchants” or “junkyard dealers.” His manner of speaking about others was of course quite typical of adult males in those days, as much a reflection of the times as real bigotry and intolerance. Still, my upbringing was not what you would call enlightened. All those countless hours squirming on a church pew listening to horror stories about Old Lucifer would have been better spent in a public library. My mind would have been more fruitfully occupied by absorbing some good literature and factual information rather than dubious Bible stories and constant reminders that hell was full of sinners sizzling like bacon. 
You can see from my descriptions that our preachers had some very graphic ways of describing eternity with Satan. I used to wonder how they knew so much about The Evil One and where he dwelled. Precisely where hell was located was unclear, but we were led to believe it was somewhere deep in the bowels of earth. I once heard a preacher proclaim that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions were caused by Satan’s anger, that he would shake things up and release molten lava and ash from hell whenever he knew that God was getting the upper hand in their never-ending struggle. 
To keep us out of that frightful place and safely on our way to heaven, our church imposed some very strict behavioral and dress codes. We were told in no uncertain terms what we could and could not do. Smoking and drinking “the devil’s brew” were of course major taboos. So was taking the Lord’s name in vain and having those hard-to-ignore lustful thoughts. We were prohibited from going to the movies or dances, and told to shun social gatherings that might result in sinful mingling or cause us to have physical contact between the sexes, no matter how innocent. Strangely, going to the public roller-skating rink was okay. Apparently God and our church elders were unaware that kids often bumped together or held hands while skating. There was so much concern about teenage carnal knowledge that when we went on church youth outings there were always adult chaperones watching us like hawks. We were not allowed to play even such innocent games as hide-and-seek or kick-the-can. No fooling around of any kind - period. 
Apart from all those restrictions, it was also thought that God had some special concerns about female attire. He disliked makeup and jewelry and preferred long hair. Needless to say, women were required to dress very modestly, meaning that - unlike today - most of the female anatomy was to be completely concealed. The female dress code was not as radical as in parts of today’s Muslim world, but the idea was similar. 
As I moved into my upper teenage years, the church’s strict rules became a growing problem for me. All those prohibited activities made me curious, so I started to secretly rebel. I would sneak to the movies and school dances with my non-church friends and, like most teenagers, eventually sampled cigarettes and beer and backseat necking. But then, thanks to my upbringing, I felt guilty. So I decided to be honest about my wayward pursuits and confess to my parents. Not about the necking, but the movies and dances. To my surprise, my father was rather understanding. Having sown plenty of “wild oats” as a young man, he no doubt assumed that, like him, I would one day “return to the fold,” to quote a common church expression from those days. He said I was old enough to decide such things for myself, and that was the end of our conversation - except for his expressing the hope that I would not take up smoking or drinking, as he had done as a teenager. 
As it turned out, my retreat from religion was more than just youthful rebellion. My nagging questions about God and the Bible would not go away. I was especially curious about the Bible’s many fabled water stories. Were earth’s highest mountains once really covered completely by water? Did Jesus truly walk on water? Did Jonah really survive after being swallowed by a whale? Could Jesus honestly turn water into wine? If so, why wine, if consuming alcohol was a sin? 
My mother’s response to those and my many other questions was always, “because the Bible tells us so.” When I would ask how she could be so sure that the Bible was “the truth,” she would resort to that ages-old reply that Christian mothers seem to think is the definitive answer to all difficult questions: “You just have to have faith.” Hearing that lame response over and over again throughout my youth, without any evidence of intellectual curiosity or thought on the part of my parents, was my first clue that there was something amiss with what I had been taught since I was a small child. 
I began to suspect that Satan was just a fictitious bogeyman created to frighten us into submission, and that God was likewise a mythical figure used by church leaders to extend their control over us. It had not escaped my attention that our preacher always wanted us to think and act just like him. And his beliefs always coincided precisely with what he claimed God wanted. I could not help but wonder if he was speaking for God - or himself. 
I thought a lot about heaven, wondering if there really was a place your soul went after death, or even if there was such a thing inside us as a soul. How would a soul spend its time there? How would we recognize old friends or family if we were all nothing but invisible spirit-like beings? Would we walk around or float? Could souls talk and see and hear? I had lots of questions, but no answers - at least none that I found to be convincing. I began to think that heaven was just a nice idea conjured-up long ago to encourage people to keep on going, to give them hope that there was a better existence in some great beyond. I started to wonder if the Bible was truly the word of God, or just the words of those early authors who thought they were speaking on behalf of a deity they had created in their minds? 
Despite my growing doubts, I continued to attend church on Sunday mornings until I graduated from high school and enlisted in the Marines. By my senior year I had stopped going to both Wednesday night prayer meetings and Sunday evening services. Though Sunday morning worship was usually fairly restrained, our preacher could still get all fired up if he felt “the presence of sin and backsliding.” In that case, there might be an altar call. One Sunday when that happened, I was sure everyone was looking at me. I knew it was just a matter of minutes before I would be hearing that old song: “Tell Mother I’ll be there, in answer to her prayer, oh tell my darling Mother I’ll be there....” 
I was right. Moreover, in the middle of that song she quietly appeared at my side and whispered in my ear. “Didn’t I think,” she asked, “it was time for me to get back to The Lord?” 
I don’t recall now precisely what I said, but I was no longer bothered by either the song or her concern for “my soul.” I politely rejected her appeal, and then I felt a great calm come over me as she walked back to where she had been seated. I smiled inwardly, knowing that the church’s hold on me was finally broken. The old tearful song - along with a pleading mother - had failed. I was no longer a captive of the emotional and psychological appeals of the religion that had dominated my life from the earliest years. 
Even so, my complete rejection of God did not occur until some years later when I was in my mid-twenties and attending college. At that time, I made what I refer to as my “last prayer.” It went something like this: 

“Dear God, if you are who they say you are and have the power they say you have, then you already know what I feel and think about you. You know that despite the best efforts of my parents and others, I have come to question your existence. They tell me that I simply have to have faith that you are who they say you are and that I should not question you or the Bible. But, God, I cannot do that. I cannot have faith that something is true when the evidence suggests otherwise. I can no longer believe that you put us on earth just to worship and obey you. If you are so powerful that you could create our universe out of nothing, then why would you find it so necessary that we worship you? It just doesn’t figure. And anyway, God, you gave us brains for thinking and questioning. If you didn’t want us to do that, why give us that ability? If I am wrong about all of this, I ask you to forgive me and send a clear signal, some sort of sign that will let me know you are real and that I am wrong. That’s about it. Amen.”

That was nearly 50 years ago. I am still waiting for His response - still looking for some indication that He heard that sincere prayer. 


Chapter 2:  Bertha's Bible - As I See It

During those youthful years when I was trying to be a good Christian, I was told that all the guidance and knowledge one needs in life could be found in the Bible. Some in the church went so far as to say that no other books ever needed to be read. For awhile, I believed them. So I read Aunt Bertha’s Bible ... and read and read. 
Actually, I mostly read the same parts over and over again - Genesis and Revelation. I thought if I could first work my way through the beginning and end, I would then branch out and try to understand everything in between. Genesis, I was told, was important because it explained how we all came to be, while Revelation foretold what would happen to us if we wandered off the righteous path. To be quite honest, at that age none of it made much of an impression on me. It was difficult keeping my young mind focused on all those archaic words, let alone what God-inspired themes they were supposed to convey. By the time I went off to join the Marines, my Bible was stashed away in a box in the attic along with my other possessions.
A decade or so later, while still waiting for God to answer my last prayer, my curiosity about the alleged importance of the Bible led me to once again take up the reading. I did so then with renewed interest. It did not take long, however, before the same questions that had troubled me as a youth began to resurface. 
Armed with a better knowledge of history and science, it seemed obvious to me that the author of Genesis had simply concocted a tale of creation, perhaps drawn from the myths and legends of other early cultures. I knew by then that most early civilizations had their own creation stories, some of them remarkably similar to the Genesis account. Were these all variations of the one true account of how it all began, or just early civilizations with their own version of the same myth? I concluded that the author of Genesis knew little if anything factual about earth’s true place in our solar system or the universe. I wondered why God would endorse such a misleading account of how the universe and human life came into being. 
The person who wrote the Book of Revelation seemed to me equally uninformed. I had no sense that he was any better at foretelling the future than me or anyone else. His predictions seemed so outlandish that, viewed with a modern-day perspective, they were downright laughable. I wondered how anyone could read that strange book and believe that the author had a gift for seeing into the future. I suspected that, were he alive today, he would be confined to a mental institution or mumbling to himself on a park bench. 
I found in the many chapters in between the same baffling mix of possible fact and much fiction. But that is not just my opinion. Many Bible scholars agree. While the detailed accounting and minutiae of the early Jewish people are quite impressive, and true perhaps to some extent, deciphering what is and is not historically accurate continues to bewilder researchers. The fiction seems to far outweigh whatever true history there might be in all those dated words. In which case, one should ask: why take it all so seriously? 
The more I continued to read over the years, the more doubtful I also became that the Bible was a book of unique wisdom for the ages, a book that should be revered and turned to for guidance on how to live. I found no compelling evidence that any of its many authors knew much if anything about life on earth beyond their immediate horizon. No doubt they believed that they were offering great and prophetic wisdom, but their advice on how to live seemed no more insightful or useful than what one might obtain easily today on one’s own with a modest amount of reading, observation, and reflection. Their predictions about the future seemed to me no more reliable than the prognostications of today’s Sunday morning TV talk-show pundits. 
Nonetheless, the thoughts and words of those ancient writers have survived and flourished into this century, so they deserve our attention. As I see it, the Bible has remained influential over the centuries largely for one simple reason: billions of people have been convinced by others, who in turn were convinced by even earlier generations, that it is a special book with special meaning for the future of humankind. So special, the thinking goes, that it should not be subject to critical review. Just accept that everything in it is true, as my mother told me long ago. 
If you approach the Bible in that manner, you will most likely continue believing that it is special. You will search its many pages for words and phrases that you see as supporting whatever you already believe, or want to believe. If you maintain that its many chapters are to be revered and go unchallenged, then you will struggle exhaustively to make all those dated words fit whatever belief you hold to be dear, no matter how unconvincing they are to others.
If, on the other hand, you come at it from the opposite direction, questioning everything it says while armed with readily-available, modern-day knowledge, seeking to verify its truthfulness and relevance, you will (or may) come to a very different conclusion. That is what I tried to do when I set out to determine if those early writers were really wise and informed. I wanted to be convinced that all of those words actually came from God, as Aunt Bertha believes. Would all that scripture really lift me up, as it should if the writers were truly inspired by The One who made the universe? In other words, what does the Bible reveal when examined with an open, questioning mind. 
I do not know which of the many versions of the Bible Aunt Bertha has relied on over the years; the one that I cite is the English-language “Authorized (King James) Version,” dated 1958. I do not claim to have a unique perspective on any of this. Others, including some with far greater knowledge of the Bible, have recognized many, if not more, of the flaws that I have chosen to highlight. This is simply my personal interpretation of what some of those so-called divinely-inspired words and passages say to me. 
Though Genesis starts with, “In the beginning,” we are led to believe that God Himself has been around forever. There was no beginning to His existence, and there will be no end. No one made Him. I have a problem with that right from the start. If one entity (God) has been around forever, or was self-created, then another entity (the universe) could also have been around forever or be self-created. You cannot include or exclude one without doing the same for the other. Put another way, the “watchmaker” analogy, that a watch cannot make itself, does not hold up. It simply side-steps the obvious question: Where did the watchmaker come from? Who made him? Trying to rationally answer that ages-old mystery brings you right back to where you started. If a universe cannot make itself, neither can a God. If there is no beginning or end to God, there can likewise be no beginning or end to our universe. The only real truth here is that there is no sensible or honest answer to this greatest of all questions. Those who claim otherwise by concocting answers are deceivers. 
I firmly believe in cause and effect, that you cannot have the latter without the former. But dismissing the mystery of our existence by asserting that there was no beginning or end to God - or even that there is a God - is an assertion without basis. Human logic suggests that something must have caused the “Big Bang” that made our universe, but today’s widely-worshipped God is not necessarily the answer. The true origin of our universe and human existence may be something entirely different, possibly something that will never be knowable to humans. 
But let us not get bogged down so soon. The Bible tells us that one day about 6,500 years ago, God decided to create living creatures and put them on a “firmament” made especially for them. There is no explanation for what motivated Him at the time to take on such a massive project. We do not know if He was bored or lonely or seeking amusement or just wanted to polish up on his universe-creating skills. Or what He was doing all those gazillions of years before he started putting our universe together. Actually, we do not know anything about His past, if for example He had ever built other universes, or  if He had ever constructed humans or other creatures before. Given our many shortcomings and the mess we have made here on earth, one can be excused for concluding that He might still have been in training. 
We are led to believe that there was nothing before He took on this great project. There was just an unfathomable emptiness out there. Space, as we know it, did not exist. From that great void, God is said to have designed and built a “heaven and earth.” Where He was residing and what He did to pass the time before he busied Himself with that major undertaking is unknown. Where He got all the materials to construct such a huge universe in a previously empty, timeless, and limitless nothingness is also a great mystery. 
The Bible creation story always leaves me wondering: why build what is in essence an infinite universe just to accommodate and give priority to one little orbiting planet inhabited by billions of little selfish creatures? Why go to such an effort? What was God’s intent? Create our virtually invisible little earth in a vast universe of countless galaxies and populate it with living beings whose sole purpose is to worship and adore Him so that they can then go on to exist forever in some magnificent paradise? This does not make any sense to me. 
Whatever God’s rationale, we are told that this project took a week to complete. Just one week! On the first day, we are told that He brought forth and then “divided” the light between day and night. Given light’s emergence as a priority on day one, perhaps He needed it in order to see what He was doing out there in all that darkness. On the second day, he “divided the waters” (between the still formless earth and heaven). 
Once I knew more about the universe, this “dividing” and all the other inaccurate explanations baffled me. If the words in Genesis came from God, if He knows how the universe really works, if He knows more than today’s scientists, if He wanted the Bible to stand the test of time, why did He explain “creation” in such an incorrect manner? He could have told Moses (said to be the author of Genesis) that earth is round, that what we see as lightness and darkness is caused by the rotation of earth, and that the sun (just one of countless stars) - not earth - is the center of our little solar system. He could have told us that rain comes not from some heaven in outer space (the Bible’s upper “firmament”), but from clouds only a relatively-short distance from earth’s surface. 
If Moses knew enough to write the first books of the Bible, with God’s help, surely he and those who lived at the time could have grasped those relatively uncomplicated scientific facts. Genesis 1:16 implies that our “two great lights” (the moon and sun) are different from the stars. Any first-grader today knows that our sun is just one of the countless stars out there, yet the writer of Genesis was unfamiliar with that elementary fact. There is no getting around it - the first chapter of Genesis is full of misinformation about our universe. This is understandable if the words came from one with no factual knowledge of such things, but not so if they came from an all-knowing God. 
The Bible goes on to tell us that once God had constructed heaven and earth, He then brought forth on that earth all manner of seeds, grasses, trees, crawly things, fish, animals, and finally - naked man, whom we are told was made in the image of The Creator himself. I won’t even try to respond to that ego-driven notion, the idea that we resemble Him. Nor will I attempt to explain the Genesis claim that Adam, that first man, was tasked by God to give names to all “beasts of the field” and “every fowl of the air.” Fortunately for Adam, who may not have had any swimming lessons that soon in his new life, identifying all the creatures of the world, not to mention all the sea-life, was a task actually left to later humans. 
Soon after creating Adam, God apparently sensed that He might have made a mistake, giving first man a bit too much testosterone perhaps to be left on his own. He seemed to have quickly recognized His mistake and the need for a more sensitive-minded “helpmate.” So He took one of Adam’s ribs and constructed the first woman. We do not know why she had to be made from first-man’s rib, given the apparent abundance of all those raw materials out there somewhere in the cosmos. As it turned out, this first woman turned out to be less than perfect. 
Eve, as she was known, immediately caused trouble by disobeying God and listening to a devious snake. How snakes could talk way back then is unclear, but that sneaky serpent is said to have tempted Eve to eat an apple from “the tree of knowledge” which - get this - then caused the downfall of all humans. Just like that, the first woman on earth is tempted by a snake to bite into an apple and the rest of us thereafter are doomed. Believers claim that there is some important lesson there, while some have interpreted it literally to mean that women are the cause of all human misfortune and thus should be vilified and mistreated as retribution. This “blame Eve” passage sets the tone for much of the Bible, where women are frequently portrayed as either inferior to or the property of men. They are repeatedly instructed to stay in the shadows and be subservient to their husbands. Is God a misogynist, or can we take this as further evidence that the words in the Bible simply reflect the thinking of the old men who authored that famous book? 
To me, the Biblical account of creation and the first humans is just a made-up story that no thoughtful person should take seriously. It compels me to ask, why - if God could create such a finely-tuned universe - could He not create at least two perfect humans? Why could He not give us an accurate account of how life began? If this is meant to be one ancient writer’s simplistic explanation for human frailty and failure, fine. But why treat it as a God-given truth? The only real certainty about the Genesis creation story, as far as I can tell, is that it was written by a man - a man with no real understanding or knowledge of our universe. 
Moving along, nonetheless, Adam and Eve went on to have two sons, Cain and Abel. Just a generation after “the beginning,” however, their family values took a turn for the dark side. Cain, you see, killed his brother. Not because he was mad at Abel, but because God was angry with Cain. Got that? It seems that God was displeased with Cain’s “offering unto the Lord.” Apparently he failed to give The Big Landlord enough grain or barley or oats or whatever they grew in those early days. Why God needed agricultural “offerings” from those very first humans, and what He would do with the food and animals brought to Him, is still another unknown. Didn’t those first folks have enough to worry about, just trying to figure out what it was they were supposed to be doing on the new earth? Instead, they’ve got God harassing them from the get-go about their insufficient offerings. 
The Cain and Abel tale is said to provide another important lesson for mankind. Whatever the reasoning, if it can be called that, after the killing God banished Cain unto the lands east of Eden. Out there, just a generation after He had created the first and presumably only woman, Cain found another one wandering in the desert. There is no explanation where this mysterious woman came from or how she came to be out there amidst the sand dunes. 
Cain married that wife-of-unknown-origin and they then went forth and multiplied, while Adam and Eve also went on to have a third son, Seth, who likewise married a woman from whence cometh we know not. I should mention here that Adam was 130 when Eve conceived Seth, and that he went on to live a total of 930 years! Perhaps the legendary fountain of youth was located somewhere near the Garden of Eden - or Adam had discovered a good supply of some sort of natural Viagra. 
After the creation and those early stories, there was much begetting. There were soon people everywhere in the Biblical lands. But God, it turns out, was not pleased with what He saw. He was increasingly disillusioned with His handiwork. The wickedness of man was great. People were misbehaving and not paying Him due homage. That all-powerful God was not pleased that all those less-than-perfect earthlings were not worshipping and adoring Him. Man’s sinful ways eventually angered God to such an extent that He decided to do something quite dramatic. Rather than throwing in the towel and coming up with a new and improved human species, however, He decided to flood the entire earth and destroy everyone and everything - except for the “just” and “perfect” 600-year-old Noah and his wife and sons and their wives. Noah and family survived because God instructed him to build an ark large enough to hold one male and female of every living creature on earth - and enough food for all of them for 150 days (or was it 40 days and 40 nights, as said elsewhere in the Bible?). The ark was said to be approximately 500 feet long and 85 feet wide. That is large, but was it enough to contain two of all living species on earth? And how could just four men and four women, led by an elderly patriarch with no ship-building experience on his resume, manage to find all the materials and then construct a sea-worthy vessel presumably larger than any others at the time? 
I have a big problem with the flood story. When I say “big” I am alluding, among other things, to the fact that a couple of brontosauruses (now known as “apatosaurus”) and brachiosauruses and a few other big creatures would by themselves have taken up much of the space on the top deck of that big ark. It seems unlikely that those huge dinosaurs, with their immense necks, would have been very happy down in the bowels of the ship. The combined weight of those four huge beasts by themselves, according to the experts, would have been more than 100 tons. That would have made the ark rather unsteady in the waters. 
Bear in mind that the Bible would have us believe that the dinosaurs were created along with all the other animals just 6,500 years ago - and there were many, many different species of those huge reptilian beasts. Along with all the  countless other lesser animals who did not live in Noah’s land, they would have had to travel tens of thousands of miles from all points of flat earth in order to  get aboard the ark. Many (kangaroos and koala bears from Australia, bison from North America, etc) would have had to swim great distances - and then repeat their arduous journey after the waters receded. How Noah knew about those distant continents and what animals lived there, how he notified all those animals, and how long he waited for them to get there is unexplained. 
The Bible claims that all the chosen twosomes arrived on schedule and obediently boarded that big vessel. I try to picture daddy and mommy T-Rex and the raptors and saber-toothed tigers resting passively in their stalls next to all those other delectable animals - not to mention the ship’s captain and crew. Carnivores and their prey coexisting passively down in the bowels of that big boat: wolves and sheep, chickens and hawks, rats and snakes, flies and spiders. And speaking of tiny critters, one must question how Noah managed to find and house the most populous of all - the virus and bacteria and fungi and all the other microscopic life-forms. We have to take it on faith that he knew about them and that his collection methods were quite impressive. Apart from all those many varieties of invisible little things, there are believed to be more than 350,000 different kinds of beetles, 150,000 species of moths, and 5,000 or so different kinds of ladybugs - to cite just three examples of insects that Noah would have had to first locate, identify, and then collect. He was quite the zoologist. 
It seems fair to also question what all those creatures ate while aboard, given their numbers and diverse diets. Especially the meat-eaters. The vegetarian food by itself, much of it - like the animals - having to come from abroad (how was it transported?), would have taken up as much space as the animals. Noah and sons must have spent all of their time shoveling poop. Lots of poop, over the side of the ship, shovel after shovel after endless shovel, 24 hours a day, into the more than 5-mile deep body of water that would have been necessary to flood the tallest mountains on earth. 
One can go on and on with observations like these, but it takes only a few seconds of rational thought to reach a sensible conclusion: the flood story is not true. It did not, and could not, happen, but that is not just my opinion. Apart from geological experts and historians, even many Bible scholars agree that it is just a mythical tale, perhaps based on long-ago local geological events. Evidence unearthed in recent decades suggests that a land bridge near what is now known as the Bosporus Strait collapsed thousands of years ago, permitting water from the Mediterranean Sea to flow into the then much smaller water body and depression now covered by the Black Sea, permanently flooding the Neolithic villages that then lined the shore. Long before that, according to some geologists, the area that now encompasses the Mediterranean Sea was several land-locked fresh-water basins. It is believed that these were permanently flooded by salt water as the oceans rose at the end of the last ice age. Legends about such real-life events may have slowly spread to early civilizations and inspired the Bible flood story. The devastation tale just got a bit out of hand after being told and retold over time, eventually working its way into the myths of many early cultures and becoming one of the Bible’s numerous fables. Historic records and literature from other early civilizations (Egypt and China, for example), during the time when the flood would have occurred, obviously make no mention of such a cataclysmic event. Nor is there any credible evidence in the geological history of our planet. 
If one of the most-celebrated Bible stories is untrue, what does that tell us about all those other well-known stories that we all had pounded into our heads in Sunday school? Why should we believe that a giant fish swallowed  Jonah? Daniel in the lion’s den? David and Goliath? What about all the so-called miracles? If the best-known stories are false, should we not also question all the other dubious tales that one finds as they work their way through the Bible? 
We should indeed, but let us continue anyway. Following the so-called great flood, when the rains finally stopped and the waters receded (where did all that excess water go?), Noah and family and all those living creatures that survived by being on the big ship went forth and obeyed God, “breeding abundantly ... and multiplying upon the earth.” The earth's microbe, insect, animal, and human populations were regenerated, as were all the trees and grasses and other flora that would have been destroyed by the flood. It is not clear where today’s fresh water fish came from, since they would have been destroyed by the flooded salt-water oceans. As with the offspring of first-man and wife (and Noah and family), it is also not known with whom all the young of the surviving animal twosomes eventually mated, if the flood destroyed all creatures except those aboard the ark. It is equally puzzling how the “clean” beasts and fowl who came off the ark managed to mate at all, since one of each was reportedly sacrificed upon an altar built by Noah - so that God could enjoy the “sweet savor” of their burning flesh (Genesis 8:20). 
As time went on and populations spread, we are told by the writer of Genesis that “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.” But this, so it seems, also did not please God. He came down to earth (one of His many Old Testament visits) to take an up-close look at the infamous Tower of Babel. We do not know why He had to do so in person, since he reportedly can see and hear and issue decrees from up there in heaven on everything that goes on down here. He apparently did not like what He saw. Upon observing the tower, He is said to have “scattered” the people “abroad” and “confounded their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” The Tower of Babel story is the Bible’s attempt to explain the existence of far-away people and the many different languages spoken by earthlings. It is another fable. We know that the world’s many languages did not all erupt at one time, that they evolved over time, most of them hybrids of one another and for the most part traceable back to earlier forms of spoken human communication. The Tower of Babel story is another example of an uninformed author coming up with still another mythical explanation for something he did understand. 
After the passing of much time, we are told that the early people of the Bible (by then known as Israelites) became twelve tribes. But times were tough due to drought conditions, so they all fled to Egypt where they were enslaved. What is unclear here is why The One whom Bertha’s Bible says cherishes each and every one of us would endorse slavery. It crops up repeatedly throughout the Bible, with no evidence of disapproval. There are even specific instructions on how to treat slaves. One could beat them and so long as they did not die, the owner would not be punished (see Exodus 21 in case you need guidance on how to treat your servants). Yet it was important to God that amidst all the beatings, young male slaves be circumcised (Genesis 17:12). Apart from wondering why this loving God would give the gold seal of approval to slavery and beatings, one must also question why He would create man with a penile foreskin that He then demanded be removed in a religious ritual. 
It was in Egypt where Moses was born. Most people are familiar with his story, how Pharaoh felt threatened by the growing number of Israelite slaves there, by then estimated at more than half a million. So he ordered all infant male Israelites put to death. Baby Moses was spared by being hidden in weeds near a river. He went on to become a great leader who, with God’s help, caused ten plagues upon Egypt. Such retribution seems quite inexplicable to me. It may have been a good way to get back at Pharaoh, but what about all the starving Egyptians? What did they do to deserve such treatment from a supposedly compassionate God? All that famine and death and destruction, yet He promised after the great flood to “not again curse the ground” or “smite anymore every thing living, as I have done” (Genesis 8:21). 
Moses eventually decided that it was time to take his people and head “home.” Supposedly with God’s help, the Red Sea parted and he and his followers headed eastward. I should point out here, before making our exodus from Egypt, that there is scant evidence in the ancient literature of that country of all those Hebrew exiles having ever been there. Many Bible scholars believe that the exodus from Egypt never happened. But never mind. Let us continue along with Moses and his followers on their apparently fictitious journey which, according to Aunt Bertha’s Bible, took many decades. Many miraculous things supposedly happened along the way. It was while on that desert trek that God is said to have given Moses the Ten Commandments. 
The Commandments deserve our attention, since many of today’s devout believers insist that they are the most important laws of all time, indeed that they form the very foundation of Western civilization. The truth is, they are not that great at all, as Thomas Paine aptly pointed out more than 200 years ago in “The Age of Reason.” The Commandments, he wrote, “carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could provide himself without having recourse to supernatural intervention.” 
While one might question Paine’s insight into the moral principles of legislators, it is hard to quarrel with his overall conclusion or with his astute observation about the Second Commandment. The idea that “God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children,” he said, “is contrary to every principle of moral justice.” Contrary indeed, considering that many devout Christians today remind us constantly that their God is especially concerned about the welfare of children - especially the unborn. Given His alleged special concern for all the little ones, why did He command that they be punished for the bad deeds of their fathers, rather than honored along with all the fathers and mothers?
It requires little reflection to construct “laws” that would be more valuable and relevant to our lives today than those said to have come from The Creator. Nor are The Commandments all that unique. There were many other “great laws” written long ago by other early humans, some of them - Hammurabi’s code for example - more noteworthy and instructive than The Bible’s famous ten. Hammurabi’s code, quite incidentally, is believed to have had an origin not all that different than The Commandments. It was said to have been handed down to him by Shamash, the sun god. Lots of gods, it seems, were busy in those days instructing humans on how they should live. 
People who insist on posting The Commandments in every courthouse lobby in America seem to have given those famous laws little serious thought. Had they done so, they might have come to recognize that they are uninspiring simplicity: 
• Contrary to what the Fourth Commandment says, work must be done all days of the week. Meals (the “work” of women) must be prepared, animals fed, cows milked, hospitals staffed, police and firemen on duty, and so forth. Many people who are out there spreading “the word of God” (their form of work) have their most productive days on the Sabbath. The idea that no work can or should be done on the seventh day of each week is impractical silliness. 
• Are we to honor fathers and mothers under all circumstances? If we don’t do so, will our time on earth truly be shortened, as the Fifth Commandment suggests? What if the father abandons the mother and children? What if he emotionally, physically, and/or sexually abuses the wife or children, as many have done throughout the ages? If fathers and mothers do not honor the children, or each other, why do they deserve to be honored? 
• Despite the Sixth Commandment’s firm stricture against killing, there might be circumstances where it is necessary to protect yourself or family. One must also wonder, as indicated earlier, why God would violate His own command on this. On the same day He is said to have given the famous ten laws to Moses and thus to have forbidden the killing of others, He himself ordered the slaughter of 3,000 people for worshipping a golden calf (Exodus 32). A similar God-sanctioned killing of idol-worshippers can be found in I Kings 18. In I Chronicles 21, He causes a famine to destroy 70,000 innocent people. Numbers 31 offers an even more stunning and heartless reversal of the decree against killing. After God spoke to him, Moses sent his soldiers into battle against the Midianites, killing all their adult males, boys, and non-virgin females. The surviving virgin Midianite girls were given to the soldiers “for their own use.” Whew! God and Moses - what a compassionate twosome! Violence and killing occur repeatedly throughout the Old Testament - much of it with God’s endorsement or encouragement. And let us not forget that great flood, where He “killed” virtually all species on our planet. 
• While most people would agree that spousal fidelity serves to stabilize marriages and thus benefit society in general, there can be circumstances where sexual intimacy with another might be justified. I am not defending doing so, simply suggesting that there are (or might be) occasions where it would be warranted. The Seventh Commandment’s no-exception on adultery thus seems unduly punitive. This commandment most likely was written in stone because too many men, like today, were simply thinking with what is often referred to as “their other brain.” And we all know what kind of problems that can lead to. 
• “Thou shalt not steal” is a good general rule, but try telling it to the man who has a family to feed and no way to do so. Especially to the one living in the unheated, tar-paper shack down the hill from the fat, wealthy fellow who got his money by exploiting the poor. 
• Not lying is also good advice, except we all know that the world as we know it would cease to exist if that commandment were strictly enforced. We would have no jailers to watch the prisoners. 
• The Tenth Commandment informs us that God saw “coveting” your neighbor’s maid or ox as a greater evil than rape, pillage, or slavery. Having pleasurable thoughts about the wash-girl next door seems rather tame compared to today’s insatiable greed or the many horrific things that humans can and have done to one another that received no mention in The Commandments. 
Those famous “laws” should be recognized for what they are. They reveal the simple thinking of some ancient man driven by resolute determination to please his imaginary God - and, most likely, wanting his followers to fall in line. Like the Bible itself, The Commandments offer a bit of useful guidance, nothing more. They are not by any means the greatest laws ever written. Not even close. They reflect the shallow thinking of an ancient tent-dweller - and should be recognized accordingly. 
What I have said thus far should serve to adequately illustrate why I find it impossible to take the Bible seriously - and I have barely moved past Genesis. I could continue working my way slowly through the many other chapters, pointing out more flaws, falsehoods, myths, contradictions, absurdities, and other dubious tales. However, to keep this little undertaking of mine from becoming as lengthy and ponderous as the Bible itself, I will take a big leap forward, briefly noting just a few highlights of the rest of the Old Testament. 
After wandering around in the desert for 80 or so years, the Israelites did finally make it back to their home land - but without Moses. He reportedly died out there amidst the desert sands. Over the many centuries that followed, there was much more begetting, many good and bad kings and priests, endless warfare and more God-sanctioned killing, lots of fretting about the temple in Jerusalem, more time in exile (this time in Babylon), and a long continuation of God’s greatest concern - the people still not obeying and worshipping Him. Many of these oft-tedious stories get told and retold in different ways by the various authors of the Old Testament. There was also much writing of poems, proverbs, and other self-help admonitions (some of these being instructional and of value, but no more so than what one can easily obtain today from numerous other sources). Finally, the Old Testament offers an array of Bertha-like warnings and prophecies about the dire consequences of not being on God’s good side. 
Before moving on, I do feel compelled to pause briefly and single out one other Old Testament book. Leviticus, with its painstaking details on when and how to conduct animal sacrifice, has long amused me. Try as I may, I have never been able to see any connection between my life and the importance of scattering the blood of an unblemished ram on the north side of an altar. Or was it the blood of two defeathered turtledoves on the east side of the altar? It’s easy to forget as you work your way through page after page of such illuminating practices. Perhaps I just don’t understand why God would so enjoy the “sweet savor” of the many varied tokens of burning flesh that the Levite Priests ordered be placed upon the altar. This was done to atone for everything from run-of-the-mill sin to a woman’s “monthly.” I urge you to offer a sensible explanation for any of it. 
For all the pleasure He got from those burnt offerings, God was still woefully disappointed with how things turned out. All those people still ignoring Him. Like Rodney Dangerfield, the late comedian, God “just got no respect.” It seems that people then, like today, found sex and gluttony more pleasurable than worship and fasting. So, like flooding flat earth, God came up with another plan. 
We are told that some 2,000 years ago, He again visited earth - this time in a form that enabled Him to impregnate an alleged virgin wife. We do not know why this married woman was still a virgin, or if it crossed God’s mind that He was violating one of His own Commandments. Perhaps adultery is okay if the “male” figure involved is God Himself and the unfaithful woman is to give birth to the New Savior of mankind. One cannot help wondering what Joseph, the husband of the virgin mother-to-be, thought about all of this, and what he was doing when this occurred? I should emphasize here that the idea of alleged intimate relationships between humans and gods pre-dated the Bible, so this was not a unique concept. 
According to the New Testament accounts of that God-human sexual contact, a baby was conceived and He grew up to become a man known as Jesus. In adulthood, Jesus went around telling people He was The Son of God. Whether God informed Him as to His real parentage, if He came up with that idea on His own, or just went along with what others told Him, we know not. What we do know is that some of the Old Testament prophets foretold the coming of a Messiah. To promote the idea that He was The One, and that He was endowed with God-like talents, Aunt Bertha’s Bible tells us that Jesus performed many miracles. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of those miracles today, and for the past 2,000 years Jesus has not reappeared on earth to turn water into a good Bordeaux or stroll across a lake. 
As events unfolded, the Romans who ruled the land in those days came to see Him as a troublemaker. So did many of the Jewish religious leaders, who did not believe that He was the true Messiah. Fed up with His rebellious ways and the unrest that He was fomenting, the authorities ended His life by nailing Him to a wooden cross between two common thieves. But do not feel sorry for Him, as that was all part of “the plan” for saving us earthlings. 
You see, according to the New Testament gospels, Jesus (who Christian teachings tell us is really God himself - you figure that one out) came back from the dead, telling all who would listen that He had died for their sins. But His resurrected body stayed around only briefly. He soon departed for heaven where He (and God merged together somehow, so we’re told) could continue to watch out for us until that future time when He/God decide to come back and save all of us - still again! Well, not all of us; apparently only those who believe all those Bible stories.
In time, after Jesus went off to heaven, the apostle Paul and others went forth and spread “the good news” that if the masses would believe what Jesus taught and follow His advice, they would - after their death - live happily forever in that heaven-place that God had created way back at the beginning. The idea that you could live on after death was not new, but the Jesus movement - which eventually evolved into Christianity - gave it an updated appeal. Over the many centuries that followed, that new religion came to blanket much of our planet, which - 1,500 or so years after the time of Christ - was found to be no longer flat. According to those who claimed to know, if you didn’t follow Jesus and live by His rules, your “soul” would spend eternity with that fire-spewing Satan fellow, who it seems was once an angel that turned against God. The idea of that hellish-eternity was a powerful incentive for getting on the Jesus bandwagon. 
The Jesus story is important, since it is the core of Aunt Bertha’s beliefs. So I want to pause here for a moment and consider some of the details. If Jesus really was the Son of God, or God Himself, the New Testament chapters that tell His story should provide irrefutable proof. There should be no doubt. One would expect the words attributed to Him and His behavior to offer absolute confirmation of His perfection and greatness. At the very least, one should find no contradictions, confusion, or guidance coming from Him that is harmful or destructive or misleading. But we do: 
• Jesus says repeatedly that if we believe in Him, that if we have faith, anything is possible. He states - unambiguously - in Matthew 17:20, that with faith we can move a “mountain” from one location to another. In Matthew 21:21 (also Mark 11:23), He goes even further, saying those of faith can pick up a mountain and “cast it unto the sea.” “All things are possible to him that believeth” - Mark 9:23. “With God nothing shall be impossible” - Luke 1:37. “If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it” - John 14:14. “What ever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye shall receive them, and ye shall have them” - Mark 11:24. All of these variations of a promise that Jesus reportedly made are untrue. I know of no one, today or throughout history, who has ever moved a mountain (let alone tossed it into the sea) simply by having faith. Nor can one have whatever he wants just by believing and praying. All things are not - repeat not - possible, no matter how much faith one has or how often you pray. One cannot, as Jesus claims, violate the laws of physics. 
• Jesus states that believers need never worry about clothing, food, drink, indeed even their health, as He will provide and care for them (Matt 6:25-33). Also not true. There are believers all over the world, now and throughout the many centuries, who have lived their entire lives and died in abject poverty. They were ill-clad, ill-fed, and often died horrible deaths. Untold numbers of believers throughout the centuries have beseeched God to spare them from plagues, pestilence, and a multitude of other devastating, premature deaths. He did not care for them despite His bold promise to do so. 
• Jesus tells us that if we believe in Him we can drink deadly poisons and not be harmed. Moreover, once that has happened the poisoned one will then be able to heal the sick (Mark 16:18). Definitely not true - on both counts. 
• In Matthew 18:7-9, He tells us that our feet or hands can cause us to sin, and that if that be so, “cut them off, and cast them from thee.” Ditto for our eyes, which should be “plucked, and cast from thee” least one have to spend eternity in hell. This is said by believers to be some sort of parable, but to me it is just nonsense. Jesus is wrong. Sin (or whatever you care to call bad behavior) is motivated by the pleasure-seeking parts of our brain, not our extremities, our heart, our eyes, or other organs or limbs. 
• In John 6:53-58, Jesus tells his followers that they can have eternal life by “eating my flesh” and “drinking my blood.” Hey, He said it - not me. We then learn elsewhere that eating His flesh is not enough. In John 3:3, we are told there is no entry into heaven “except a man be born again.” Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of any existence after death, we are led to believe that to get to that mythical place you must eat His flesh, drink His blood, and also be born again. 
• Luke 18:22 and the other gospels have Jesus offering still different advice on how to achieve eternal life. Here, He states that one must “sell all that one hast, and distribute to the poor....” In other words, those who want to take up residence in heaven must rid themselves of all their worldly possessions. What would happen to our modern-day, global economy if all people took that passage seriously? Imagine everyone, all at once, trying to sell-off or give away all of their wealth and possessions in order to insure safe passage to heaven. Complete chaos would spread around the world; our global markets would collapse in on themselves with all sellers, no buyers. It does not take a high IQ to see that what Jesus said is impractical nonsense. An economist He was not. I also hasten to add here that I know of few Christians (especially those with considerable wealth) who have ever taken this bit of self-impoverishment advice seriously. Why not? It came from The-One-Who-Knows-All-Things. 
• Matthew 19:29 provides still another example of what one must do to have eternal life. This is one of my favorites. Jesus tells his twelve disciples that they have done the right thing by “forsaking” their homes and lands, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, indeed, even “wives and children” to follow Him in order to be rewarded with “everlasting life.” What is Jesus saying here? That if one has to choose between caring for wife and children and following Him, the latter is the correct path? Apparently Jesus was unfamiliar at the time with the “family values” that are widely touted today by His more devout followers. Would it not be fair to say that this is selfishness of the highest order? Forget the well-being of your earthly family - care only about oneself and do whatever it takes to make sure that you get to heaven! Never mind that your wife and children might be begging in the streets for food and living without shelter. Just make sure that you enjoy all that paradise offers! 
• In Mark 14, Jesus describes for His disciples all the calamities and human conflict that must occur before they see “the Son of God coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” He also said that this great event would occur “before this generation has passed.” The One who we are told would know of such things stated with absolute certainty that the end of time foretold in many places in the Bible would occur before the passing of another generation (roughly 20-25 years). Indeed, Jesus asserted more than once that “the end” was drawing near: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17). He was wrong. Life did not come to an end in 25 years. Heaven and earth did not “pass away,” as He foretold. More than 2,000 years later, we are still here. Many of His 21st Century followers are of course still running around exclaiming that the sky is “soon” to open in a blinding flash of divine thunder and lightening. 
• Jesus (or those who claimed to know what He said) also seemed at times to be unsure who He was. If He knew He was God and/or the son of God, or God in human form - whatever - with all the power that such an exalted position suggests, would He not know that and go about reassuring all who would listen? In Matthew 19:17 (also Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19), He seems uncertain, saying: “Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.” If Jesus and God are one and the same, why this puzzling explanation? Elsewhere (John 10:30 for example), He states: “I and My Father are one.” 
• In that regard, what are we to make of the last words supposedly uttered by Jesus as He was nailed to the cross (Mark 15:34)? “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” If His death was necessary to save all of humankind, and Jesus knew that to be so, why cry out at all? The writer of that gospel (or those who revised it in the centuries that followed) apparently failed to see the contradiction. Moreover, if Jesus knew He was the Son of God, or God Himself, why would He ask Himself why He had forsaken Himself? Confused? Rightly so. 
• Finally, if the Bible is to be believed, we discover that Jesus was also seemingly unaware that earth was round. In Matthew 4:8, Satan reportedly took Him atop “an exceedingly high mountain” to show Him “all the kingdoms of the world.” Apart from wondering why Jesus would be wandering around with Satan, it should be quite apparent that one cannot begin to see all of the continents of round earth from atop the highest mountain, let alone the highest point in the desert lands where Jesus lived. How are we to take the Bible seriously if it implies that God/Jesus also thought earth was flat? 
These are just a few examples, and there are many, many others, but they should suffice to explain why I find the New Testament to be no more convincing than its older counterpart. The evidence that Jesus was whom the authors of the Gospels make Him out to be is, for me, quite unconvincing. If He was truly the son of God (or God Himself), why would He make all of those false statements and contradictory promises? Why would He claim that the laws of nature can be broken? Why would He deceive so many people over the centuries by telling them that they would be fed, clothed, and sheltered by simply believing in Him? Why would The One who is said to cherish families encourage fathers to forsake their wives and children in order to grab a seat on a heavenly park-bench? Sorry, but I don’t buy it. 
What I have said thus far does not mean that I discount the Bible entirely. Like some other ancient texts, it contains some useful advice. Jesus, or whoever wrote the gospels, as well as some of the other authors, had some good thoughts on how we might improve our earthly behavior. However, I reiterate once again that similar guidance (some of it much better, most of it more relevant to our lives) is readily available to all of us these days from a multitude of non-religious sources. Unlike the illiterate masses of Biblical time, many 21st Century humans are reasonably well-educated and informed, thus most can (or could if they would put forth the effort) figure out on their own without too much effort how to live good, productive lives without relying on what an old world book says. 
Given the paucity of evidence that Jesus was who the Bible makes him out to be, I am left to conclude that he was just an ordinary man, though perhaps a gifted orator. Enough was written about Him in the decades following His death that it seems likely He was real, though not all religious scholars agree. Some have suggested that He was simply a made-up, composite person drawn from other religious leaders of the time. In any event, the many stories about Him, some of them quite repetitious, suggest that He was an oddly charismatic fellow with some unusual ideas - ideas which went against the grain of then Jewish religious thought. The idea that a Messiah would come and “save” the Jewish people was firmly established by then and Jesus apparently was well versed in the Old Testament. With His eloquence and new ways of thinking, those who heard Him speak might have concluded that He was “The One,” which might then have encouraged Him and his closest followers to start believing the same. 
His words and thoughts resonated especially with the downtrodden, those whose earthly existence was most difficult and unrewarding. He encouraged people to believe that their miserable lives did not have to end with physical death. It is not surprising that over the centuries more and more people, especially those with little to look forward to, would be attracted to that promise, despite its unprovability. The idea that one could exist forever in “a better place” after death had (and continues to have) widespread appeal. 
Regardless of His popularity down through the centuries, we have no way of verifying what Jesus actually said or did, if He truly thought He was the son of God, or if those who wrote about Him many decades later simply promoted that idea to help the fledgling religious movement that ultimately bore His name. According to His New Testament biographers, He talked in a way that few people understood, which enabled those who subsequently promoted Christianity to write about and interpret His words as they saw fit, - if they really were His words (more on that in a minute). The early Christian leaders may well have believed what they were telling the masses, but at the same time it also would have been in their interest to embellish the truth, making Jesus into something He was not. 
In an era where ignorance and superstition were far more common than today, it would have been easy to claim that Jesus had performed miracles. In a time of widespread illiteracy, it would have required little effort to deceive the masses in order to promote a cause that in some way might benefit those doing the promoting. Consider how easy it is to fool and mislead people today - people who have been formally educated, who can read and write, who to some extent have been taught to think and reason, and who have access to timely information on every subject imaginable. Look at how quickly lies and falsehoods zip across today’s Internet blogosphere. It is a fountain of misinformation - both deliberate and unintentional. People don’t bother to check the facts; they simply latch onto whatever supports their existing beliefs - and then pass on those false and misleading claims to others. This happens today, so the idea that the masses could be easily duped way back then is a given. 
There were no printed handouts of the Sermon on the Mount or other speeches or statements by Jesus (the printing press was still about 1,500 years in the future). There were no CNN reporters, video/audio recorders in hand, or 30-second sound-bites on the evening news.; no scribes with iPhones or laptop computers following Him around, tapping out His every word. The four gospel accounts of His life are believed to have been written many decades after His death. Two of his “biographers” are thought to have not even known Him, so they were not around to hear Him speak. Some Bible scholars also believe that the first gospel was not written by Matthew, though it was attributed to him. The four gospels liberally borrow from one another to such an extent that it is difficult if not impossible to know who stole from whom. Scholars have also pointed out that many of the words, phrases, and ideas attributed to Jesus were lifted from the Old Testament and other sources. 
One must also wonder why, if Jesus was the son of God sent to earth to offer new hope to all of humanity, He did not take up reed and papyrus and give us His thoughts directly? If He really was the son of God, and knew He was, why not do His own writing rather than relying on others to do so? Would it not have been more helpful and more believable for us today knowing that the words we read were actually His, rather than those of the authors or borrowed from the Old Testament? 
Even if He had done so, there would be no way of confirming what He said. The original writings that make up the 66 books of the Bible no longer exist. I should say Bibles, since there are countless versions in many, many languages (which further complicates knowing what He supposedly said). The original manuscripts (or the fragmented writings that made up those manuscripts) vanished into antiquity long ago. Considering the countless error-prone transcriptions undertaken long ago by semi-illiterate scribes, the multiple translations, rewrites, and editing over the centuries, and the extent to which languages themselves have evolved over time, we have no way of knowing how much of today’s Bible(s) conforms to what was written long ago, or to what extent others centuries later added to or took away from the original. 
Despite all of this, Aunt Bertha adamantly believes that her old family Bible contains the inerrant words of God. 
I can say one thing about the Bible with certainty. Nowhere is believability more in doubt than in the apocalyptic Book of Revelation. I keep returning to that last book of the Bible for good reason. Of all the “Good Book’s” far-fetched parts, Revelation (along with some of the Old Testament prophets) stands out. As indicated earlier, I cannot read that last book without concluding - after I have stopped laughing - that the author was either insane or, at the very least, someone that no 21st Century thinking human should take seriously. 
Did Saint John The Divine (nice title for oneself), or whomever wrote that frightening account of the “end times,” really know what he was saying? Could he really look into the future? I see no evidence in his imaginative ravings that he had any insight at all into what our life today would be like, or how the world or human existence would come to an end - if it does. 
Rather than “talking trumpets” and “six-winged beasts,” he might have specifically foretold the horrific Black Plague that would devastate Europe in the 14th Century, or the great flu pandemic of 1918. He could have informed us that those and the many other plagues that have wiped out countless millions of believers over the centuries were caused by the mutated progeny of some of those invisible microorganisms that Noah took aboard his ark. He might have warned us about the nuclear, chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction that men would eventually create in order to threaten or destroy other men. How about telling us that we would one day have self-propelled carriages that move about by burning a black, gooey substance pumped from the ground, that those vehicles would clog our highways and pollute our atmosphere? He could have informed us that we would one day be cursed by parking meters, a constant parade of TV commercials promoting the latest cure-all drugs, email spam, and obnoxious humans loudly chattering-away in public places on their iPhones. Crystal-ball visions of any of these would have been infinitely more enlightening and believable than “seven-headed dragons” or “Death” slashing about with his mighty sword atop a pale horse. 
He warns of the doomsday fate of humankind, yet offers no awareness that man’s inventiveness would lead to a modern, industrialized, high-tech, inter-connected, worldwide economy. Why no predictions about the coming internal combustion engine, electricity, the telephone, airplanes, computers, or the Internet, all of which contribute to that global economy? It seems he did not know that humans would one day be able to talk with and instantaneously see other humans on the opposite side of our no-longer flat earth. What did he say that could possibly make one think that he knew anything at all about modern-day science, mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, medicine, or any of the other major academic disciplines that we are all at least somewhat familiar with today? 
Why did he not foresee the invention of the telescope, which enabled Galileo to begin examining our immense universe and confirm that earth was not at its center? He failed to note that one day man would travel into space and even walk on the surface of that “lesser light that rules the night,” as the writer of Genesis describes the moon. That was a memorable moment in human history, surely worthy of at least a passing mention by one who claimed to “see” into the future. 
One can prepare an endless list of historic events and human developments and inventions that the author of Revelation could have mentioned which might have lent some credibility to his wacko predictions. The fact that he could offer nothing more than bizarre, demonic-like creatures drawn from his deranged imagination should make it quite clear to any thoughtful person that he was either full of hot air or seeing scary creatures crawling on the walls. Give Saint John and others who wrote such stuff high marks for delusional thinking, but base one’s life on it? Not me. I prefer the sanity of my own mind over the absurd apparitions of someone who, for all we know, was chewing the leaves of some hallucinatory desert plant or inhaling too much smoke from a nearby lead smelter. 
Devout believers reading this chapter (if there are any) will no doubt respond that I have misread their much-revered book, that the passages I have cited were not meant to be taken literally, that they were just parables or metaphors whose intent was to teach and instruct. The problem with that line of defense is that it then compels one to ask, which fallible human gets to decide what in the Bible is true and not true? That famous book is either the unvarnished word of God, as most devout believers claim, or it is not. If it is, then everything in it should be true and uplifting. There should be no ambiguity, contradictions, or misinformation. As I have quite easily shown, there is plenty of each. Nowhere in the Bible, that I am aware, does that book itself offer guidance as to which passages are literally true and which are not. You cannot say that some words and passages came from God, while all the rest were written by humans and meant just to be instructional and taken as a guide to good living. Who decides? 
Some among the devout will also no doubt be offended by my less-than-reverential dissection of this book that they hold so dearly. We need to be honest here. I did so not to poke fun or ridicule, but to encourage honest reflection. Read objectively - with all the knowledge we possess today - the Bible stories invite humor and disbelief. Like any ancient book, it needs to be read in its proper historic context, while always keeping in mind a few crucial questions: What does it say that we can confirm? What do we know to be true, and not true? Did the authors really know what they were saying, or were they simply spinning tales? Read in that manner, the questions and doubts - like the loaves and fishes - can only multiply. 
As I see it, it is not me or other skeptics who discredit the Bible. It discredits itself. But not, of course, for Aunt Bertha. Were she to read what I have just written, she would still go right on believing. No matter what doubts I and other skeptics raise, no matter how reasoned, profound, or historically and scientifically accurate our arguments, we cannot shake her faith. That’s because she tunes it all out. She does not want to hear anything that might call into question that much-dreamed of day when her soul knocks on the pearly gates. One way or the other, let us assume that she gets to heaven and The Great Father of the Universe, she believes with utmost certainty, will smile down on her and say, “well done, my child.” We can only hope that He still has plenty of time, as scientists tell us it would take her soul - traveling at the speed of light - many millions of years to reach the other side of the universe - if that is where her paradise is located. 
Let us assume for a moment that her soul really does somehow get there. She believes that she (it) will reside forever in that magical place of harp music, paths of gold, constant rainbows without rain, and - so we learn from another old religion - young suicide bombers romping about with an endless supply of alluring virgins. Apart from wondering where all those willing virgins came from, how they got into heaven, and how souls might have sexual intercourse, I am absolutely certain that Aunt Bertha would disapprove. And that raises a couple of interesting questions. What if your vision of heaven turns out to be wrong? What if your soul gets there and doesn’t like it? 
No one of course has any rational or honest answers for such questions, since no one can even begin to prove that such a place exists. Absent such evidence, it would be more useful to turn our attention to some questions that we might be able to answer. If the Bible and other ancient books on religion are nothing but the thoughts of all those old men, where did they first get the idea of an all-powerful God, about whom Bertha’s Bible speaks with presumptuous authority? Where did the claim that we have immortal souls come from? What is the history of the widely accepted belief that there is some sort of lovely existence after death? Where did all those myths originate? 
During my early adult years, as my curiosity about such matters intensified, I turned to sources that I had discovered were far more reliable than the Bible. I began to study the real history of this planet, how it and human life have evolved and changed over millions of years. Reference works on science, geological history, anthropology, and ancient civilizations confirmed - for me, at least - that the Bible and other religious “histories” were largely made-up stories.


Chapter 3: The Evolution of God
 
My father enjoyed drinking and dancing and smoking Lucky Strikes in what he referred to as his “foolin' around days.” In moments of candor, he would sometimes boast that in his youth he “cut a wide swath,” as he put it, in the rural dance halls of northeastern Colorado. Much like me, and to the vexation of my grandparents, he had rejected his religious upbringing. After a few years of young-adult revelry, however, he married and settled into the responsibilities of parenthood. He also started attending church again. But it was not until 1946, after he had returned from the war, that he truly “got back to God.” He was “saved” at one of those summer revival meetings of my youth, and remained a believer for the rest of his life. 
Even so, he occasionally had his doubts, as for example when he confided in me that old rock formations made him question the Genesis account of creation. Though his formal education ended at the 9th grade, he often mentioned how much he wished that he could have been an archaeologist or geologist. Had he done so, his faith would surely have been seriously tested. Though I don’t recall him ever specifically mentioning the Grand Canyon, it must have shaken his Biblical perspective the first time he saw it. I have seen that spectacular sight twice, and on both occasions I stood there wondering how any Biblical purest could rationally explain what they were observing. The scientific explanation that it took a few million years of erosion by the Colorado River made infinitely more sense to me than the claim that it took just a minute or so of some Supreme Being’s time in a universe construction project that required only 6 days - start to finish. 
My first viewing of that magnificent abyss occurred during a summer vacation from college. It was during my time on campus when I first came to realize how much readily-available information there was that challenged what the Bible says, and that was decades before the Internet and Google put all that information at our fingertips. I discovered that it did not require much research into the history of our planet and human development to confirm that what Aunt Bertha believes is not at all compatible with what we now know to be true, or that can be reasonably inferred from reliable science. 
I offer, in the pages that follow, some scientific and historic facts and interpretations that I believe cast further doubt on the Bible’s veracity. 
Those who study such things - even back in my time on campus - knew that the universe was not created just 6,500 years ago. They knew it was very, very old - billions of years. Many of today’s scientists now believe that it is 10-12 billion years, some even suggesting that it may be closer to 15 billion. Many believers try to get around this scientific reality by asserting that Biblical time was somehow different than time as we know it today. In the absence of any proof, such claims are without foundation. What the Bible says or implies regarding the age of our planet is simply false. Relying on radiocarbon dating technology and other scientific means, it is now possible to know the approximate age of the earth’s many and varied rock formations and the fossilized remains of the ancient creatures who once roamed about in the ancient swamps and forests. Research into mitochondrial DNA tells today’s scientists that the prehistoric human-like creatures that preceded us were here on earth long, long before the Biblical Adam and Eve. The only sensible conclusion I can draw from this - to repeat what I said in the previous chapter - is that the authors of the Bible were flat-out ignorant about the age of our universe and earth and how life here began. Yet we are told that their words were “inspired” by God. 
The geological evidence, according to most experts on the subject, tells us that earth itself was formed 4-5 billion years ago, and that the outer surface has been slowly but constantly changing ever since due to natural internal and external forces. Land masses have moved, drifted apart, and changed shape dramatically. Bodies of water, be they rivers, lakes, or oceans, have in turn undergone continuing alterations, some of these being of enormous magnitude. Thick layers of ice have intermittently covered vast regions of earth. Areas that once were forests may now be deserts; primeval lakes or swamps are now mountain meadows. Such changes - not the Noah flood story - explain why fish fossils and the limestone residue of marine plants and animals can be found in sedimentary rocks high atop mountain ridges. 
I have searched for Biblical evidence that the authors of that book knew about all of those geological changes. They are not explained knowingly anywhere. There is no credible acknowledgment of any of the many landscape-altering eras that earth has endured. These were major developments in our planet’s long, geologic history, surely deserving of some mention by God when He commissioned the writing of the Bible. While many believers will point to obscure scriptural passages, which they claim allude to such changes, their determined searches are quite comical. They are vainly trying to match their dated book and beliefs with modern scientific truths. 
While today’s scientists know much about the universe we inhabit, few would claim - like the Biblical “creationists” with their declarations of certitude - that they have all the answers. What sets the scientific community apart from those who base their findings on the Bible and other ancient religious thought is that they are continuing to question, to re-think old assumptions and beliefs, to constantly push the frontiers of knowledge. Like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and countless other lesser-known scientific-minded types throughout the centuries, they are continuing in their quest to better understand our universe and planet, how they and we came to be. Their determination to learn and discover gives little to no credence to what the Old Testament prophets or early Greek philosophers might have thought about such matters. Today’s true scientists are not content to sit back and say, “we have all the answers here in this wonderful old book, so there is no need to look further.” Or, as the creationists do, “let’s manipulate the facts to fit our faith.” 
Thanks to the painstaking efforts of these truth-seeking scientists, it is now widely accepted that microscopic, single-celled life first appeared in the waters of earth several billion years ago. It is believed that they were the dominant life-form until more complicated organisms gradually evolved. No one is certain why those first life-forms appeared when they did, where they came from, or if their precursors were there all along just waiting to start developing. It is believed that in time those single-celled organisms, along with primitive plant-life, gradually produced the oxygen that eventually changed earth’s atmosphere enough to enable more advanced life to survive, evolve, and flourish. 
While many of those early life-forms remained in the waters, some managed to gradually work their way onto land. Some of the survivors of those first tentative land explorers eventually developed rudimentary appendages that, over many millions of years, further evolved into limbs that in turn enabled their distant progeny to walk and run. Some of those primitive protrusions developed into wings and an entire new line of species that could move through the air. Over a still much-longer period of time, some of those early land-explorers evolved into primitive two-legged beings that in time became homo sapiens. 
At least that is what the Darwinists think - those who support the evolutionary theory of how we got where we are today. Aunt Bertha will of course have none of that, and she is certainly not alone. Many of earth’s human inhabitants refuse to believe that they are in any way related to the lesser primates, despite DNA and other scientific evidence that connects us. They conveniently overlook the very, very long time in earth’s history that it took for those gradual, microscopic changes to occur. 
As I see it, the crucial point in this long-standing dispute over our origination is this: Even if one believes that the evolutionary theory still has many unexplained gaps, which it does, there has been undeniable change in both the surface of earth and in all the assorted life-forms that have ever inhabited this planet. Many of those life-forms have come and gone, while change and evolution in others continues today. Though most of these alterations occur so slowly that they cannot be observed or measured in a human lifetime, some mutations - as with bacteria, virus, and other microscopic life - can be discerned and studied. 
One can also find evidence of physical change in humans in just recent centuries. If you wander through the ancient castles of Europe, the low stone doorways and small suits of armor suggest that the once heroic knights were quite diminutive compared to the typical 21st Century male. Seats in the original La Scala Opera House in Milan, built as recently as the 18th Century, were said to have been only 13 inches wide. Most seating for humans these days is nearly twice that width. More recently, in my high school basketball days, few players stood much above 6 foot; anyone that “short” today is lucky to make the team as a point-guard. 
Some scientists and historians discount such evidence, arguing that the changes are not necessarily what they seem, or that they are due to diet and other environmental factors. Perhaps, but a further retreat in time confirms that pre-humans and early humans were considerably smaller than modern man. The fossilized remains of early beings indicate that most, if not all, were less than 5 feet tall; some stood barely 4 feet. Like horses, whose ancestors were once the size of small dogs, we humans and our predecessors have changed physically over time. All living creatures can be and have been altered physically (and mentally) by their surroundings, what they consume, mutations in their DNA makeup, and other factors in their life. In time, those infinitesimal changes get passed on to their heirs and evolution inches along. 
Human intelligence offers a further example of how we have evolved. While not everyone agrees, and no one knows with certainty, most experts on this subject are certain that the brain-power of today’s human population is measurably ahead of the goat-herders of olde. The human brain today is considerably larger and far more complicated than those of our long-ago ancestors. The brains of pre-humans consisted largely of the primal limbic system, whose essential purpose was survival; modern man’s brain, with its complex cerebral cortex and other more-recently evolved parts, gives us the ability to talk, engage in abstract thinking, plan, reason, have self-control, and engage in all of the other behavioral characteristics that distinguish us from the lesser creatures. Some who study such matters believe that human intelligence increases with each generation. I don’t know if that is true, but it seems plausible as I watch my grandchildren doing and knowing things at age 6 that did not come to me until I was twice that age. Whether that is due to evolution or just the availability of more information and changes in how we now teach and educate is the subject of ongoing debate. 
Our genetic determination to survive lies at the heart of our ability to change and adapt. While all creatures do this in various ways, humans excel at it. Unlike all the lesser animals, we have learned to tinker with the natural aging process in order to prolong our lives, as with the development of modern medicines and sanitary practices. Consider eyeglasses, as an example. Long ago, when staying alive was a daily struggle, good vision was essential. If you were unable to see clearly what was out there lurking in the underbrush, threatening to destroy or devour you, there was a higher probability of an untimely death. If this happened before you reached the reproductive age, your less-than-perfect eye genes would not survive into another generation. People with good eyesight lived longer and reproduced. This was natural selection at work. Once humans moved beyond the kill-or-be-killed way of life, perfect eyesight was no longer necessary for survival. With the advent of eyeglasses, more and more humans with bad vision were able to survive and reproduce. Poor vision could be passed on to later generations. A new eye-care livelihood was born and flourishes to this day. If all of us with bad eyes today were dropped off out on the African savannah without our glasses or guns or a good escape plan, the lions and cheetahs would have a feast. Our myopic young would not live to reproduce. 
Even those who doubt or question the evolutionary theory must surely agree that there were once prehistoric human-like beings living here on earth. Not humans - but pre-human-like creatures. To deny their existence is, once again, to deny the fossil evidence. This, it seems to me, is a most important fact, because the Bible would have us believe that such creatures were never here - that man as we know him today sprang all at once from God’s handiwork on the sixth day of His big creation. The Bible boldly (and quite falsely) asserts that the very first humans were immediately out there eating apples, tilling the soil, sowing and reaping grain from the fields, and herding sheep. And conversing with snakes. 
Contrary to that untrue depiction, we know that humans did not suddenly first appear in a picturesque garden. Some of the prehistoric human-like creatures eventually evolved into early humans. We know that pre-humans and humans both survived as hunters and gatherers, and that agricultural cultivation - which led to the first fixed population settlements - occurred much, much later, as did the domestication of animals for human use. Yet the Bible claims that Adam’s son, Abel, was “a keeper of sheep” (Genesis 4:2). Domesticated animals just one generation after God created man? We know that is a fabrication. 
The evidence is irrefutable. Humans did not get a divine jump-start, as the Bible contends. There is now a broad consensus among scientists, based on DNA and other evidence, that early hominoids came initially from Africa and gradually migrated to the far reaches of our planet. Precisely when this occurred is uncertain, but according to current thinking there were multiple dispersions from that continent. It is believed that some pre-humans may have left there as far back as a million years ago, and that early humans then started migrating from there 40-60,000 years ago. Some recently unearthed evidence suggests that the human migration may have occurred even earlier, perhaps more than 100,000 years ago. 
Human conversation did not commence with one God, one man, one woman, and that infamous serpent. The very earliest prehistoric beings could not talk. We know that it took a very, very long time before their distant off-spring would be able to communicate verbally with one another, much longer again before primitive proto-languages and pictorial symbols would evolve into a wide variety of written languages that themselves would undergo continuous change. Like many long-ago hominoids and animals, many of those languages have come and gone, or have been dramatically altered over time. 
All of this offers compelling evidence that humans are not static creatures whose minds and bodies have been unaltered since the Garden of Eden. Man’s ability to gradually change physically and mentally with the passing of time surely deserved at least a footnote in God’s written account of how we came to be and where we are headed. Unless, of course, the writers were unaware of such changes. 
Little is known about the day-to-day life of the earliest human-like beings, so we are left to speculate. Their existence must surely have been very harsh and challenging, their daily focus being simply to stay alive. If you live in a tree or cave and fear who might be waiting to kill and eat you if you venture forth, if you are constantly preoccupied with where your next meal is coming from, you probably do not spend a lot of time contemplating your naval or the meaning of the stars. 
Even so, those early beings did eventually start giving some thought to the universe’s many mysteries. Early artifacts, cave and rock drawings, stone placements, and other evidence indicate that at least some of the ancient ones were wondering about such things. Apart from the ongoing threat of harm and death from predatory animals and their club-wielding brethren, the early beings also had to contend with the devastating forces of nature, some of which may have been more intense in those long-ago times. Like us, they faced and feared all the natural-occurring, life-threatening physical calamities that occur routinely on earth. But unlike us, they did not understand the cause of thunder and lightening, hurricanes, cyclones, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and all those many other frightening forces of nature. They knew only that they could be very destructive - and that they came from “out there.” 
I do not claim that what I am about to say in the pages that follow is precisely how unseen deities came to be a part of early man’s consciousness. While scholars have many theories on this, no one today really knows with certainty. So we are once again left to speculate. Nonetheless, when we combine what little we do know about our forebears with current knowledge of brain functionality, some logical and reasonable conjectures can be made as to how the idea of early gods came into being and then over time evolved into the notion that there is one all-encompassing God. 
It is well-known that long, long before that singular God came to dominate man’s thinking, early beings believed there were many spirit-forces (pre-gods, if you like) affecting their lives. Those spirit-forces were believed to exist everywhere in nature. This long ago spirits-and-nature connection is what scholars refer to as animism - the idea that all things, both animate and inanimate, have a soul or spirit. It is believed that this was a widely held fetish among primitive beings, and its origin is obvious. 
Those first human-like creatures could not explain what they observed as they went about there survivalist day. Once their simple brains evolved to the point where they would become curious about what caused things to happen, to move, or to change, they concocted explanations drawn from their observations. They could cause things to move, so they concluded that there was some sort of unseen presence doing the same with all those normally stationary objects. They came to believe that there were invisible spirit-forces lurking everywhere, affecting not just animals and humans, but plants and trees and all else. The existence of spirits explained why grass or leaves could move in a breeze, why water would flow downhill, or what might cause an otherwise stationary rock or tree branch to suddenly fall. The gravity explanation was still thousands of years away. Those early creatures came to believe that all things were influenced by or - like wind and water and fire - were perhaps spirits themselves. This was how they accounted for what their child-like brains could not fathom. It was their way of trying to explain cause and effect. This same mind-set can be observed to some extent in animals. Dogs and cats routinely react to moving objects as though they sense that they are alive. 
Those invisible spirit-forces eventually evolved into the idea of primitive gods (and goddesses) influencing life on earth. Early thinking about this apparently led those primitive humans to conclude that those spirit-forces, if they could be seen, would look much like themselves. Because we know that the idea of multiple nature-based deities was widespread in many early cultures, some of today’s believers point to this as evidence that God’s presence has always been around, even if not recognizable as such in those long-ago times. A more plausible explanation would be that all primitive beings, no matter where on earth they roamed, would have been bewildered by the mysterious forces of nature. Though ruin and devastation may have varied from one location to another, few places on earth were immune. It is understandable that those simple-minded early beings would come to observe and try to explain all those mysterious forces of nature in the same or similar fashion, thus the widespread prevalence of animism that in time evolved into the idea of multiple deities. 
We know from the ruins and remains of early settlements and the later history and relics of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, and other more advanced early population centers that polytheism was a common belief. There were gods or goddesses for everything: sun gods, moon gods, sky gods, land gods, water gods, weather gods, food gods, fertility gods, animal gods, war gods, village gods, tribal gods, and on and on the list goes. Those early humans created spirit-gods to explain virtually everything in their lives. Some were thought to be and portrayed as mixtures of humans and animals. Many of the ancient ones believed that the sun - the most awe-inspiring entity they could observe - was the supreme force or major God, the source of all things; others believed that earth was a goddess. Some early Greeks thought that the universe itself was a god. 
To those early beings, the presence and power of spirit-gods seemed obvious from the destruction they could unleash. Imagine, for a moment, being a primitive being tossed about by a devastating hurricane or observing hot lava rapidly spilling down the hill in your direction, vaporizing everything in its path. You don’t understand what caused that destructive force, or why it suddenly came bursting forth from underground. Many of your fellow tribesmen were killed. If you observed and survived one of those deadly calamities, you might be convinced that something very terrifying was out there trying to get you. Volcanoes were undoubtedly the inspiration for the idea of an insufferably-hot “hell” deep inside earth. 
Not all spirit-forces were perceived by the ancient ones to be destructive or harmful. Some were recognized as being beneficial. If it finally dawns on you that it takes rain or sun for seeds to sprout and grow, you would come to believe that the spirit-force involved in that process was good, an out-there presence that you liked and needed to help you survive. 
How do you respond to such devastating and/or helpful forces? How do you get them to stop terrorizing you or to provide beneficial assistance? Apart from manifesting fear, another widely adopted method was to show reverence. This was often done by making an offering or sacrifice. Just as you might recognize the possible benefit of giving your sizzling rabbit to the marauding beast licking his chops on the other side of your campfire, you might want to offer those powerful nature entities something. Better a bushel of grain than you. Better your enemy’s head than your own. Better your neighboring caveman’s daughter than you. 
Many early cultures thus came to engage in the practice of making both animal and human offerings and sacrifice in the mistaken belief that doing so would please those mythical spirit-beings and make them less threatening or more apt to bestow rewards. If the appeals or sacrifices to the gods were perceived as producing a positive outcome (a statistical possibility - see next chapter on prayer), the early beings would see that as further confirmation that their spirit-gods were real and taking notice of their offerings. If, on the other hand, the offering had no visible impact, but you still believed in those spirit-forces, the conclusion might be that what you presented to the gods had been insufficient. Better toss an extra virgin or two onto the fire next time. Those poor prehistoric minds did not understand that the weather comes and goes and both good and horrific things happen in nature with zero relationship to whether a lamb was slaughtered on an altar facing the morning sun or if you danced and chanted around your campfire. 
Once the idea of powerful spirit-gods was firmly established, some early tribal chiefs no doubt began to recognize the benefit of more closely identifying with those out-there entities, of becoming their earthly ally, so to speak. If you believe that those gods can interact with you, but that they can whup your ass any time they want, one good long-term strategy would be to elevate the relationship. Instead of just being submissive, making offerings and sacrifices, why not join forces with them? Get on the same team; become their ally. Better still, become one of them yourself, as some tribal leaders eventually did. Once you perceived yourself as being an earthly representative and/or spokesperson for a god or gods, the temptation was surely there to further elevate your own status. 
The precise mindset that led early humans to think that they could make the leap into the world of their imaginary gods is unknown, but it clearly happened. We know from the historic records that some tribal leaders thought themselves to be living gods, or that they would become gods upon their death (especially common among the Egyptian pharaohs). 
There was an obvious benefit to this way of thinking. If you could convince others that you were a god or soon to become one, you would be perceived as having more power and influence than other non-god tribal leaders. Those god-human rulers in time learned to pass on their special status to their children. This early form of nepotism no doubt evolved into the much-later idea of kings and queens having divine rights coming to them from the gods, which were then bequeathed to their heirs. Even today, thousands of years later, we still have examples of earthly rulers perceived by some to be of divine origin or having “royal blood.” In 20th Century Japan, for example, it was believed by many in that country that Emperor Hirohito was descended from the Shinto sun goddess, Amaterasu. Many examples of perceived divine royalty have survived into modern times. 
Modern humans find it hard to comprehend how those early beings could come to see their lives as being so interwoven with all those fictitious deities. We wonder why those early folks could not see that their gods were simply creatures of their imagination. To make those gods seem more real, early cultures often made statues and other images that depicted how they imagined they would look if they could be seen. For the most part, their gods looked just like them, although some were, as mentioned earlier, portrayed as being part human-part animal, or all animal in some cultures. 
Here, I return to my question from the previous chapter: Was man made in the image of God, or was it the other way around? The evidence from ancient times suggests that the Genesis creation story has it backwards. Early humans conjured up the idea of gods to explain what they did not understand - and they went on to believe that those gods resembled them physically. 
The idea that gods could mate with humans and produce offspring is, to us, also completely absurd. But it was widely accepted in some early cultures. Superstitious beliefs compelled many early people to see in unusual birthmarks or other outward physical signs or omens evidence that a new-born was of divine origin, that the mother must have been intimate with a god. The idea of god-human sexual unions may also have been given credence by the above-described delusional notion that some tribal leaders were themselves thought to be gods. Thus, anyone copulating with them - to their way of thinking - was being intimate with a god. 
Despite all the benefits of being friendly with or being a god yourself, it is understandable that in time those early humans would come to see that multiple gods were not such a great idea. Which one or ones were most deserving of man’s respect and sacrifice? Were all to be worshipped or feared, or just some? Which ones? If a tribal leader perceived that he was connected to the gods, or a god himself, his life was simplified by eliminating the competition. In terms of ruling and/or following the leader, it is easier to answer to or understand just one powerful entity than many. Having just one god may also have encouraged unity (or better cooperation) among early tribes. 
We have today one president or prime minister or CEO or dictator or Pope. Rule by committee (or worse still - the unruly masses), has not always proven satisfactory throughout human history. More democratic and preferable perhaps, at least for all those without power, but it is also less efficient. Ultimately, most societies benefit from having a final arbiter, either one or a few wise old men (or women) who can reconcile and rule on all the opposing opinions. It is no different with gods. One all-powerful, all-knowing God is better and more efficient than many competing gods. 
From all of this, we can understand where the idea of multiple gods would in time prove unduly complicated and unnecessary. The early beings still believed in “an unseen force out there,” but paying homage to just one super-power made their lives easier. Humans tend to prefer simple answers. Though belief in multiple gods lingers on today in some old religions, especially in Asia and Africa, monotheism eventually became the most influential religious thought around the world. That change in early man’s thinking about the deities did not occur quickly or easily. The Bible itself talks about man’s struggle between “The God” and Baal and other gods who were still thought to exist in those times. While the idea of there being just one omnipotent God is generally attributed to the early Hebrew people, recently-discovered evidence suggests that monotheism had already taken root in various other locales both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The idea of a singular God can also be traced back to the ancient Egyptians and some of the early Greek philosophers. 
If today’s popular God is real, if He was around way back in the time of those early make-believe gods, He apparently chose to not make His presence felt or known, at least not in a guise modern-day believers would recognize. Why not, one must wonder? Why didn’t He part the clouds and show Himself to the more-advanced early Greeks and Romans or Egyptians or Chinese? Why didn’t He make His presence known at the same time to all of the early inhabitants of earth? That could have been accomplished quite easily if He has all the powers attributed to Him. Was He pretending to be one of those many mythical gods, and if so, why? Which one? Why does the Biblical account of creation have Him out there immediately interacting with those two first humans, contrary to the true record of human evolution and progress? 
Though the one all-powerful God concept eventually came to dominate man’s thinking, to this day there is much disagreement among believers over what that so-called One Great God wants or expects of His earthly minions. The major religions today continue to argue and fight not just between themselves, but among themselves. The survivor of all those once supposedly great and powerful gods seems incapable of bestowing truth and clarity upon His disparate subjects. Perhaps that is because - just as the ancient gods failed in that respect - He is nothing but an illusion. 
No discussion of early man and his evolving gods would be complete, I believe, without also considering dreams - those brain-generated night time stories that we all experience. The dreams of primitive folks very likely had a major role in reinforcing the idea that there were “out there” spirits or gods. Dreams may also have given birth to or reinforced the idea among those early beings that there was an existence beyond death. 
I claim no expertise in the interpretation of dreams, nor do I subscribe to most of the explanations coming from the countless dream “analysts” whose livelihood is largely to make money by conning the gullible. Nonetheless, it seems to me that we can draw some practical conclusions about all of this by reflecting on our own dreams and then applying what we know to those early beings. 
Our brains require some stimulation during our sleeping hours. While researchers still do not fully understand the neural process that causes us to experience those slumbering night time dramas, we do know that the resting brain, on its own, is providing the necessary electrical and chemical impulses to maintain that stimulation. This is especially so during the REM (Rapid Eye Movement) phase of sleep when we experience most of our dreams. Brain waves and signals can now be detected and measured by sophisticated machines, so we know that the brain’s many pathways are most active during those hours when we dream the most. Our brains generate dreams by tapping into our gazillions of stored bits of memory and creating made-up stories that, as they get played out in the recesses of our mind, seem quite real to us. The locale for our dream-stories and the people that appear may or may not be recognizable as the dream progresses. Regardless of what is portrayed, the dreams that appear to us as we snooze away seem to be actually taking place. No matter how strange and inexplicable they may seem upon waking, our sleeping brains make us think that what transpires is really happening. 
If I dream about my deceased parents or other dead folks that I have known, and that dream portrays them as still actively moving and talking, I recognize upon waking that it was just an imaginary story. The dead simply show-up from time to time in my random night time stories, but as though they were very much alive. If I have a nightmare where I am being chased or threatened by unknown “bad guys,” it often seems frighteningly real. These can at times be so scary that they awake us from our sleep before the story is finished. 
Animals dream, so it is reasonable to assume that long-ago humans (and their more primitive predecessors) had dreams much as we do - with one important difference. Like the misunderstood forces of nature, the dreams of the primitive ones were no doubt far more bewildering and frightening than they are to us. Just as the dreams, fears, and imagination of children are far more vivid and scary than of adults, early beings would have given their dreams a naive, child-like interpretation. 
Because they could not understand how or why deceased or unknown beings appeared to them while asleep, primitive minds might have seen this as evidence that the dream visitors were still alive somewhere, living in a parallel spirit world. Some of their dreams, especially those in which they were in an unknown locale with unfamiliar people, may have led them to believe that they were being given a glimpse into that mysterious spirit world. Or, if they sensed that they were in a recognizable location somewhere in the territory where they wandered, that the dream visitors had been sent there to interact or warn them of something. They may have perceived them to be messengers from the spirit-gods, or as spirit-gods themselves. 
In either event, those dreams probably confirmed in their minds that there were indeed two worlds - the day-to-day, observable one they were familiar with, the other mystifying one out there somewhere inhabited by both the many natural spirit forces and the dead. The ability of the dream visitors to move between the two worlds, appearing to be interacting with them at night, would surely have been seen as evidence that those visitors had extraordinary powers, and should be respected (if not feared). The belief that you could see and interact with deceased family members may also have contributed to the idea of ancestor worship - a common practice in many early cultures (and one which continues to exist in some parts of the world today). 
The dreams of those primitive ones quite likely also reinforced the aforesaid belief that there were spirit-like beings everywhere in nature. Given the role of animals in their survivalist existence, both as a threat to their lives and as a source of food, it is understandable that animals would appear frequently in their dreams. This would be seen as evidence that they also lived-on in the spirit world and explain why some early people created and worshipped animal-based totems or drew pictures of them in caves. They were an integral part of early-man’s life and, so it seems, were believed to also exist in the spirit world. 
It seems quite reasonable that all of this may have led to or confirmed in their minds the belief that physical death was not the end, that there was some sort of after-death existence. This would explain why in some early cultures the dead were buried with food, clothing, spears, and other everyday implements that might help sustain them in the imaginary great beyond. 
The belief in a spirit-like, after-death world, but one where our earthly bodies may no longer be needed, no doubt came about from the reality of observation. Even early beings could see that our physical bodies quickly decay and disintegrate upon death. Some early cultures (such as Egypt) tried to preserve the bodies of the deceased, perhaps because they believed from their dreams that the body was still needed in the hereafter. This indisputable observation (physical decay) may have also led some early humans to another belief - that since the deceased in dreams still had bodies, new ones were provided in the after-life. Alternatively, this may have been what led to the belief that one may not need a body in the hereafter, that “life” there could be as a recognized-by-all spirit-being. And thus was born the idea that we all have an invisible “soul” that lives on after we die. A “soul” that exists forever became their way of blanking-out the observable but unpleasant inevitability of death - just as billions of modern-day humans continue to do. Their bewildering dreams likely reinforced this belief. 
Dreams may also have contributed to the earlier discussed belief that there could be sexual intimacy between humans and gods. Most of us have had dreams in which we were engaged in some form of sexual intimacy with a stranger. I rarely tell my wife of these, but the fact remains that all (well, I presume most) humans - men and women - have such dreams. I have had some dream encounters with unknown females who were quite goddess-like in appearance. Sadly, these have been rare and fleeting, but they suggest that early men may have perceived similar encounters as an actual sexual union with a goddess (or a god). This seems far-fetched to us, but not so if the ancient ones believed that their dream visitors were real and from the spirit world. Such dreams could have helped nourish the idea of human-God sexual unions as mentioned previously and as depicted in early art and literature (and the Biblical account of how Jesus came to be). 
What I have suggested in this chapter simply offers a brief and quite sketchy account of how the idea of that one powerful God and an after-death existence may have evolved over time. I do not claim that my description is precisely how it happened. No one really knows, and other factors in primitive life very likely also contributed to those imaginary beliefs. Ingestion of hallucination-producing plants, as suggested previously, may have caused early humans to “see” entities (as in Biblical epiphanies). No doubt there were other explanations as well. 
Regardless of how those early beliefs first came into being and evolved over many thousands of years, our limited knowledge of those ancient times provides sufficient evidence to reach a sensible conclusion: there was a gradual evolution or transformation from the animist spirit-beliefs of the early primitive beings to a world teeming with a wide variety of deities that in turn gave way to the idea of just one all-powerful God. There is an obvious, incontestable line of progression there. Humans, in their quest for uncomplicated  answers, gradually merged all those ancient gods into One Big Guy, then made Him responsible for everything. The historic record clearly suggests that belief in spirits and gods evolved in tandem with the physical and mental development of Homo Sapiens over the past 10-20,000 years. 
Much like those early humans, many modern-day people continue to see that man-conceived God as interacting with them and influencing their earthly affairs, responding to their needs and wishes, hearing and answering their prayers. But does He really? Why did He not respond to my long-ago prayer, the one where I asked - quite sincerely - for some sign that would confirm His existence? That prayer, I believe, was not answered for an obvious reason: today’s popular God is no more real than Zeus or Thor or Ra. He exists only in the minds of those who want to believe that He exists. That, for me, is the most sensible interpretation of all the evidence. 


Chapter 4: Bless This Food And Watch Over Us

Osama Bin Laden no doubt prayed on the eve of his audacious 2001 attack on America. President Bush surely did likewise before the retaliatory U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. All of those incursions were successful; they also caused massive ruination and the death of thousands of innocent people. 
What might we conclude from that bewildering outcome? That God favors neither side in this particular conflict? That He does not respond to prayer or intervene in the affairs of man? Is there both a Muslin God and Christian God? Or might this suggest that there is no God? None of these explanations should be terribly reassuring to those who believe there is but one concerned and compassionate Higher Power who hears and responds to heavenly pleas. 
I cannot say with certainty when I first began to question the efficacy of prayer and other supposed communications with God. One of my first recollections of skepticism was when we had to bow heads and say grace before eating. Breakfast, lunch, supper - it was always the same: “Dear Lord, bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies, and guide and protect us as we go about the day. In the name of Jesus, Amen.” 
Those two sentences were repeated so many times during my youth that they are forever burned into my memory. I once calculated that I had heard that same expression of gratitude and appeal for divine oversight at least 15,000 times by the time I graduated from high school and left home. My grandparents repeated similar pre-meal mantras, the words never deviating from one day to the next. I recall wondering as a teenager if God did not get tired of hearing those same repetitious words. Multiply that by billions of believers, all voicing similar supplications for bountiful tables and safe journeys. It would be enough for The Great Communicator to muffle His sound system. 
Though grace has played no part in my adult life, I have always been respectful of others. Whenever my parents or other devout believers were dining at my home, I would give them the opportunity to say grace. Some, knowing how I felt, declined; most did not. I have done this over the years, both curious as to the response and with much reservation, knowing that my courtesy and acknowledgment of their beliefs would not be reciprocated when I sat down for dinner in their homes. Grace would be said there regardless of my disbelief. The devout want it both ways - grace at their house, grace at mine. They seem to feel that their God - so powerful He can create a universe in 6 days - will be upset if they skip just one pre-dinner thank you. 
As an adult, I have been able to provide for my family without any visible help from a deity. We have managed to eat quite well and prosper without a recognizable assist from the great beyond. Grace-sayers seem not to have noticed (or choose to ignore) the reality that people who refrain from this religious ritual (and it is nothing but a ritual) seem to fare just as well as those who devotedly bow their heads to offer thanks each time they eat. There is no evidence of which I am aware that unbelievers are less well nourished or less prosperous or ... well, less blessed, if you like. They seem no more or less protected as they go about their daily lives as those who pray before each meal or before going to bed at night. Despite this obvious fact, believers continue to pray obediently, whether before munching into the morning toast and Cheerios or as a prelude to turning in for the night. 
Just once, as an experiment, I wish that all who regularly pray would not do so for one year, then have them prove convincingly that not doing so had a negative impact on their lives or world events. Good and bad things would still happen, and there would be no way of proving that the absence of prayer was a factor in any of it. Prayer “works” only in the minds of those who want to believe it works. 
Thanking God, or asking for His help or blessing, is so ingrained in our culture that few people give it much thought. For many, it is almost as automatic as breathing. It is a given, a commonly accepted belief that prayer is meaningful, that it really impacts on their lives. After being on this earth for nearly 74 years, I am still looking for even a smidgen of proof that it does, and I am certainly not alone in that regard. Numerous scientific tests have come to the same conclusion. Yet prayer goes on and on and on. It may make you feel good to get down on your knees in a display of submission to your deity, but that is not the same as prayer actually impacting on or altering your life. 
I am amused each year when the Pope and other major church leaders make their annual appeals to God for peace and prosperity. Does it never occur to them that they wished for His helping hand with the same or very similar words in years past? Does it not cross their minds that the same prayer in previous years changed nothing, that world peace and harmony have once again eluded us, that there will still be wars and famine and natural disasters, that many people - some of them quite devout - will die prematurely or be killed for no explicable reason, that the prayers of the believers did nothing apparent to alter anything? The same can be said for another annual ritual that occurs in Washington D.C., where America’s religious and political leaders gather for a National Day of Prayer. They also seem oblivious to (or choose to ignore) the stark reality that all those words uttered in previous years had no visible or proven impact on anything. They seem incapable of looking back and acknowledging that reality. 
When the Pope moves about in public, as during his visit to the United States in 2008, he often rides inside a glass, bulletproof vessel dubbed “the Pope-mobile.” Think about that for a moment. He is the most recognized religious leader in the world, the one who beseeches God daily for protection for everyone, whose very faith claims that He is God’s paramount earthly representative. Yet he fears being shot by an assassin! Perhaps he doesn’t, but his handlers certainly do. For good reason, of course, since such attacks are not unprecedented. But what does that say about the power of prayer for divine protection? What does that say about the Pope’s daily prayers? You have to excuse me if I don’t get it. God would not protect His supposedly main guy on earth - with or without daily prayer? 
Some, perhaps many, of the 3,000 or so people who perished in the 9/11 terrorist attacks presumably asked God to look after them before leaving their homes that morning. How many people of faith asked for God’s blessing the morning before the tsunami struck and killed hundreds of thousands in southeast Asia in 2004? What about all those believers who dutifully prayed before they were killed or left homeless and destitute when Hurricane Katrina swept ashore in 2005? There was undoubtedly more praying than usual as residents listened to the radio and TV and worried about that coming storm. By all reasonable measures, those were a few bad years for prayer. Actually, you can take a look at just about any year or span of time and see the same outcome. Terrible things happen to many humans who believe passionately that He is looking after them - as He claimed He would in the Gospel accounts of His words. 
Believers and unbelievers alike all die in natural disasters and other catastrophic events. Little children are not spared. I would like to know why their God - who is said by today’s vocal “pro-lifers” to be greatly concerned about the welfare of every 1-hour-old zygote - would fail to intervene to save innocent little children (and the still unborn) from horrific natural or man-made disasters? Believers concoct a multitude of unconvincing explanations for this puzzling outcome.
What about all of our young servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan (plus the more numerous locals) who have asked for divine protection, only to be blown to pieces? Did “we” win World War II because of God’s intervention resulting from our many prayers, or because the allied armies were better motivated and equipped to overpower the axis forces? Did “our” boys and their families offer up better prayers than the German soldiers - most of whom were also believers and just following orders? Why, if God intervened to let us win, did He let it happen in the first place? Why was it necessary to kill so many young soldiers, many of whom had utmost faith in Him? If He truly treasures each one of us, as the devout claim to know, why did he allow so many people of the Jewish faith to be brutally executed in the death camps? 
One can come at such questions from the opposite direction - why do some soldiers who never pray for divine protection not get killed when they venture into combat? Why was the atheist family not killed in a car crash on their way to see a secular movie, while the family headed for church on a Sunday morning met an untimely death? Why was the doubting farmer’s house in Oklahoma spared when a tornado flattened the nearby Church of The Holy Protector, killing all the worshippers inside? 
It is not just unbelievers who have perished in these calamitous events. Given the earlier-stated fact that most Americans believe in a deity, it would seem obvious that the majority of people meeting untimely deaths in these unfortunate events are believers who on the very day of their demise may have asked God to look out for them. You can compile an endless list of those who have perished, despite their earnest and heartfelt belief that if one prays to God He will look after and protect them. 
The evidence, it seems to me and others who can stand back from all of this and try to be objective, is overwhelming. Prayer alters nothing. It offers no guarantee whatsoever that you will not meet an early and perhaps horrific death. Safe driving might spare your life, but not prayer by itself. Being in a desk-job in the Pentagon - rather than out on patrol in Afghanistan - might likewise prevent an untimely demise. Being elsewhere when a deadly bolt of lightening strikes your house might also keep you among the living. But not prayer by itself. 
Many who survive natural disasters or other calamities will - with incredible egotism - claim that they were spared only due to God’s intervention. That begs the question: If He was looking out for you, why did He let the devastation occur in the first place? Why did He save some and not other fellow believers standing nearby? To proclaim that God let you live while others did not is, to my way of thinking, bordering on self-serving arrogance. God thought you deserved to live more than others! He had some ultimate purpose for you, but not for that incredibly nice, helpful neighbor who each night asked God to watch over and protect his family? Such apparently thoughtless manifestations of self-importance strike me as being far removed from the humility that many true believers profess to be part of their religious persona. 
What believers see as divine intervention, we rationalists see as nothing but chance - what can be observed every second, day in and day out. Things happen. Good things, as well as lots of bad things. The sun shines some days; trees get blown down on others. It’s as simple as that. What the devout see as mysterious, coincidental events, which they then interpret as evidence that there is or was some purpose behind what happened, occur all the time for no reason. There is no provable meaning or connection to some grand divine plan in any of these randomly occurring daily events. They just happen. Consider, as one brief example, what can occur on just about any street in America on any given day. Take that dead raccoon lying there. He was run over because he tried to cross the street at the wrong place at the wrong time, not because he and the baby raccoons failed to get on their knees that morning and ask The Big Raccoon in the Sky for good rummaging and safe hunting. Conversely, that squirrel running about in your backyard is still chattering because he did not go jumping across the street after buried nuts at the precise moment that a FedEx truck came roaring past. Animals, humans - it’s all the same. Random chance, or bad luck, if you prefer. It happens over and over, every nanosecond, everywhere, all around the globe. 
Believers are of course free to disagree, to go on clinging to their specious claim that God is looking after them, that He listens to them, that He intercedes all the time in their lives, that He protects them. Some will counter what I have just said by asserting that natural disasters occur without God’s involvement, that humans have free will - that is, He gave us the right and ability to make our own decisions in life, that what happens in nature lies outside His control. They explain all of this with incredible egotism, as though they really know why and how “their God” does what He does. If their explanation is correct, why pray for divine protection? If God does not cause or control earthquakes or typhoons, if He has no influence over natural calamities or all the other terrible things that can occur in our lives, why seek protection? Why thank Him if you somehow survive a natural calamity? Why did Jesus say that He would look after and protect those who put their faith in Him, when the evidence quite clearly suggests that He does not? 
Everyday, all around the world, billions of earnest believers are praying for a variety of blessings from on high. Some may happen, many others will not. People are often praying for the opposite outcome, or for a result that will please them but not others, as in the earlier-cited example of Osama Bin Laden and President Bush. Or consider two football teams, both praying for a little assist from the Big Head Coach. What should we make of the outcome? Were the defeated that day not praying hard enough? Did God detect a lack of sincerity or too much haste in their praying that morning? Did He deflect the flipped coin or a wayward pass in favor of one team or the other? More sensibly, does He really give a hoot  who wins when macho earthlings are running about, banging heads together, tossing balls into the air? Are we to believe that He is sitting up there on His throne of gold watching ESPN? Surely, if He does exist, who wins at sporting events should be quite low on His list of priorities. 
What should we make of all the unanswered prayers for the sick or dying? Believers who recover from what was thought to be a terminal illness are often convinced that they survived because of their faith and prayers. They conveniently ignore the fact that while ill they were also being given modern-day medicine and treatments. What led to the recovery - prayer or medicine? Or something else? 
If prayer really works, as so many believers claim, then why bother going to the doctor or hospital? Why do they need health insurance? Remember that Jesus-attributed Biblical passage cited in Chapter 2, how anything is possible if you have faith? Ask and ye shall receive! If those statements by Jesus are true, then it follows that no believer should fret over anything, and certainly not his or her health or welfare. Just ask, and ye shall arise from your hospital-bed and finish first in the Boston marathon! 
I can illustrate what I see as the futility of prayer by telling you about my older brother, the one mentioned in my introductory remarks. He died from a rare form of cancer a few years ago. Aside from a brief period when he “lost his way” as a younger man, he was a committed believer all his life. He and his family issued many prayers during his 2-year struggle to out-run the grim reaper. Apparently, however, he did not have complete faith that “with God all things are possible.” He put his body through lengthy and debilitating chemotherapy - after first enduring 9 hours of surgery. Though I was naturally saddened by his slow demise, I was also admittedly somewhat amused when I heard the idea - bandied about by some in his immediate family - that failure to rid his body of cancer was due to his “insufficient faith.” That is to say, it was suggested that if this man of life-long man faith had had more faith (as though there was some sort of yardstick for measuring such things), God would have healed him. It was bad enough that the poor guy was suffering a slow, painful death, why lay a guilt trip on him as well? Why make him think that his faith in God’s healing power was inadequate? That, to my way of thinking, was shameless. 
The circumstances surrounding his death afford an opportunity to cite still another false Biblical claim. James 5:15 states: “And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven.” My brother prayed and died despite that Biblical assurance that those of faith will be healed. Did he die because of insufficient faith, or because prayer does not affect anything here on earth? 
In those rare cases when a believer does manage to beat the odds and defeat a usually fatal illness, the claim will often be made that God intervened, that all the praying worked, that it was a “miracle.” Here again, overlooked in these “God saved me so I must be special” claims is the inconvenient truth that countless other sincere believers failed to beat the same deadly illness. It is reasonable to conclude that the few who did so lived on for reasons that had nothing to do with prayer or faith. They might have been healthier before the illness hit, perhaps with a stronger immune system, in which case the treatments and medicines might have been more effective. They might have had a genetic advantage, giving them enough of a boost to beat the illness or forestall death by a few months or years. 
One often hears the argument that believers have a better survivability record than unbelievers. Many people of faith see this as proof that their so-called relationship with God is meaningful, that it has benefited them personally. A far more compelling explanation for that statistical truth is that some (but not all, by any means) devout believers live healthier lives. They may shun smoking, drinking alcohol excessively, and other lifestyle behaviors that can adversely impact on one’s health, thus giving them a slight advantage in terms of overall physical well-being and longevity. They may wind up forestalling death somewhat longer than those who were less careful about what they ingested into their bodies. Those who managed to survive longer may also have had a more positive outlook. It is well known that religious faith is a form of positive thinking (hope), and thus may or can provide an assist to the seriously ill. 
Religious faith, however, is just one of many forms of positive thought, and it really doesn’t matter whether the beliefs of the devout are true or not. If people think their God and faith will assist them, that thought alone may provide the assist they need to facilitate recovery or stall death slightly. That is nothing but the well-known placebo effect. Convince yourself that pills or prayers or magnets on your arthritic ankle are going to do something good for your body, and they might. This has been demonstrated in countless blind studies. 
There are numerous reasons that, if more were known about the specific patient and the course of his or her illness, would explain why the few survive while the many do not. But to claim that prayer, by itself, caused the cure is deceptive, if not patently dishonest. A clear example of “bearing false witness.” 
The problem with prayer, as I see it, is that it is never truly tested. I once suggested to a devout friend, one who could not resist the urge to periodically try to “win me back to the Lord,” that if he really wanted to do so, there were numerous sure-fire ways to convince me that his God was real and that prayer worked, in which case I would be inclined to enlist in God’s army. 
A person of faith could demonstrate God’s intervention in earthly matters by praying for divine protection of him and others while driving blindfolded down a busy freeway. If he got more than a few hundred yards without being killed or killing others, I would be inclined to start thinking that perhaps there is a watchful, divine hand guiding our daily lives. I would of course first want to insure that he was not peeking beneath the blindfold. 
One could jump out of a plane without a parachute while asking God to provide a safe and gentle landing. Skeptics like me would stand below on the ground waiting to be dazzled by such a miraculous event. What about praying for safety then venturing like the Biblical David into a den of hungry lions at the zoo? Or pray for God’s intervention while standing astride a railroad track, waiting for the next train to come rumbling past. How about a bit of prayer before ingesting something known to cause instant death? There are countless opportunities for believers to prove that their God is real and that prayer honestly works. They need only ask Him to perform a miracle or to temporarily suspend the laws of nature. I have never in all my years met a believer willing to accept such a “prove His existence” challenge - even though, must I remind readers once again - Jesus claimed that “all things are possible.” 
The devout will quickly dismiss what I am saying here by asserting that is not how God works. He wants us to have faith, to trust Him, so they say. Yet, according to the Bible, Jesus performed miracles precisely for that reason - to prove that He really was the Son of God. The Bible is full of so-called miracles. Why is He not willing to do the same today - to convince skeptics like me? 
Why can’t the devout prove beyond all doubt that the laws of nature can be violated, that the impossible can be made possible, that real miracles can happen, that there really is a force or Supreme Power out there somewhere who listens and who can intervene in and influence the affairs of man? There are many good, positive ways for God to do this - ways in which even the devout would approve. 
For example, it is widely recognized among the non-religious that there is no better way to demonstrate both the power of prayer and God’s supernatural dominion than by correcting irreversible body defects. Make the truly blind, those who medical experts have said can never regain their sight, see again - without any medical intervention. Give the hopelessly deaf a miraculous ability to hear. How about a divine infusion of growth hormones for all those “small people?” Heal those who are not healable, as He is said to have done with lepers. Even more impressive, cause severed human limbs to be re-grown. Yet, He never does, leading one to ask what is it that God has against such people? Why will He never, ever, correct missing or permanently defective body parts? One can reasonably assume that among such people there are many devout believers who believe in “the power of prayer.” Why, as a group, would God single-out those without arms or legs or functioning eyes or ears? 
Genesis says that God created the animals, a few of whom can re-grow severed body parts, yet humans (said to have “dominion” over all animals) cannot. Why design salamanders and other lesser creatures with the ability to regenerate body parts, but not humans? Jesus is said to have healed the “withered hand” of a man (Mark 3:1-5). Does God no longer care about missing arms or legs or other deformities? Televangelist faith-healers, claiming to have God-given powers, make lots of money by asserting that they can heal all manner of bodily defects, but have you ever seen one of them cause a new arm or leg to sprout out right there on TV? Why not? With God, “all things are possible!” What a wonderful and miraculous event that would be! A little divine show-and-tell, if you like. A guaranteed audience bonanza for whatever TV channel happened to be airing the event. 
While re-growing missing limbs has a probability rating of zero, most things that believers want and pray for have some likelihood of being fulfilled with or without prayer ever being part of the equation. Whether or how something happens in the future has a randomly based probability. Many such occurrences have at least a 50 percent chance of happening, meaning that there is as much likelihood of something taking place as not taking place - with or without prayer. In many instances, the probability of something happening may be even much higher. 
If you pray for a safe airplane flight, the likelihood is extremely high (99-point something percent) that you will arrive safely. Did God arrange for your safe journey, or was it because humans have designed planes to take-off, stay aloft, and land safely? If it comforts you to think so, you can believe that during each day God is closely watching and keeping all those many thousands of airplanes in the air - while simultaneously watching over a few gazillion other things at the same precise nanosecond in time. A far more sensible explanation for safe airline journeys would be that modern-man’s well-designed aircraft are built to avoid crashing; they are maintained and maneuvered through the skies by well-trained, experienced personnel. 
A couple of years ago, when no one died after a plane made an emergency landing in New York’s Hudson River, we heard many survivors and others proclaim that this was “a miracle,” that God had looked after them, or that He had assisted the pilot. If God intervened to help after the plane was down, why didn’t He just prevent the emergency from happening in the first place? Had the plane quickly gone under with many casualties, a distinct possibility, a very different faith-based explanation would have been required. A rational way of explaining that good outcome is that circumstances in that particular incident allowed a very savvy pilot to bring the plane down into the water safely. The plane stayed afloat long enough for passengers to get out, not because God was keeping it up, but because some mechanical devices designed to keep water out in just such an emergency worked. The highly skilled humans who designed and flew the plane are the ones who deserved full credit, not some mythical God invented by primitive beings. 
My brother’s rare form of cancer lies at the other extreme of the probability scale. Statistically, less than five out of a thousand with that form of cancer survive more than two years. There is zero evidence that prayer would alter that dire statistic. The most that could be said, as indicated earlier, is that prayer might have given him added hope, which may or may not have enabled him to extend his life by a few days or weeks or months. 
Any prayer-skeptic could go on and on, pointing out the flawed reasoning that is used to link “dear God” with the routine affairs of man. So the foregoing pages should suffice to underscore my conclusion that there is no plausible evidence whatsoever that “prayer changes things,” as a wall plaque in my childhood home boldly (and falsely) stated. 
I would like to shift direction slightly as I bring this chapter to a close, considering briefly one other aspect of prayer that, as an unbeliever, I find personally annoying: praying in public. What right do the devout have to impose their unprovable beliefs on others at non-religious, public events? Or at family gatherings attended by unbelievers? Why must those who are not religious have to sit quietly and listen to prayers at public high school graduation ceremonies or football games or other public activities? One can hardly argue that prayer prevents injuries to the players or that it will curtail unsportsmanlike conduct by the athletes or people in the stands. This common practice, especially in the Bible-belt of this country, is just another example of the devout wanting to force their no-evidence beliefs on to others. 
What makes this practice especially annoying - and baffling - is that Jesus himself reportedly voiced His opposition to such public displays. He clearly admonished His followers about this, saying those who pray in public, especially when helping the needy, are “hypocrites” seeking to show off. When praying, He said, “enter into thou closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee ... your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask Him” (Matt 6:6-8, and elsewhere). 
There is nothing ambiguous about that passage, yet the devout consistently ignore it. This is another example of their disregarding the Bible when it does not defend or advance their self-serving agenda or beliefs. If it doesn’t, like polygamy or slavery, it is simply ignored.
Prayer, as should be obvious from what I have said in this chapter, should - to any truly objective thinker - be seen for what it is: a monumental waste of human time and energy in terms of altering events on earth. Think what might have been accomplished over all the many past centuries had all those gazillions of hours on bent knees been instead devoted to doing something truly productive, practical, and worthwhile. Just think if all that time had gone instead into improving the health and welfare of the impoverished masses - or truly educating them instead of indoctrinating them with myths. The thought is mind-boggling. 
So, too, is the realization that despite an abundance of evidence to refute the ideas of ancient men, billions of modern-day humans still cling tenaciously to the words of those old guys. They keep right on praying to that singular God who did not come into human consciousness until long after that parade of other man-made gods. They continue to affix little statues of Jesus or Mary or patron saints to the dashboards of their cars, hang crucifixes from their rear-view mirrors or necks, or rub rosaries and worry beads, believing that doing so will guide and protect them or provide some other benefit. They bang their heads against ancient stone walls or engage in frenzied bodily motions in the absurd belief that doing so has some spiritual meaning. They wear odd and unfashionable hats and other articles of clothing because some old man eons ago decreed the necessity of doing so. They dip their bodies into water in a silly ceremony that is supposed to guarantee that they will have life eternal. Such religious rites defy rational explanation in modern times. 
Saying this of course offends those who engage in such displays and rituals, but I challenge any of them to offer credible evidence that their superstitious practices affect their lives one iota - other than perhaps making them feel good and perpetuating the fiction that they are being watched over. In the absence of any evidence that they are more “blessed” than those who do not hang amulets around their necks or decorate their cars with “Jesus Is The Answer” bumper-stickers, one can rightly argue that they are wallowing in self-deception. 


Chapter 5: Faith And Self-Deception

Aunt Bertha and many other believers will quickly dismiss what I have said in the previous chapters. As they see it, my interpretation of the evidence against the Bible and prayer - two cornerstones of Christianity - is simply incorrect. No matter how much we religious skeptics pile on to challenge their much-cherished beliefs, they still “know in their heart” that their God is real, that He responds to their needs and answers their prayers. They will counter my arguments by claiming that I do not understand religious faith, that there is something special about a relationship with God. You have to experience it personally, they say. Their connection with God gives them “a different reality” from mine. 
I am reminded here of a phone conversation I had many years ago with a spokesperson at the Family Research Council, a Christian “family-values” organization with headquarters in Washington D.C. I had called them to complain about a misleading advertisement they had placed in the Washington Post. My call wound up being transferred to a youngish-sounding woman who was determined to rebut my charge that the ad was deceptive. Our conversation eventually drifted into a discussion of the meaning of the word “reality.” She abruptly ended our chat by stating, rather huffily, “well, what I believe is my reality.” 
Creating your own reality may provide reassurance, boost your self-esteem, perhaps help you sleep better at night. That does not alter the fact that it is (or may be) based on untruths. Faith may provide the structure, stability, discipline, hope, and other spine-stiffening qualities that you need to cope with life’s many challenges, yet have nothing to do with truth or reality. As that old saying goes, hoping that something is true does not make it so. 
A faith-driven worldview whose foundation is an unprovable premise drawn from archaic thought requires self-deception. To insist today with unquestioning conviction that the Bible is “the word of God” is deceptive. To assert that prayer definitely affects events on earth is deceptive. Maintaining that there is a splendiferous, after-death existence is deceptive. Believing that you are a better person than your neighbor just because “Jesus loves you” is deceptive. Not one of these common articles of Christian faith has ever been proven to be true. To insist otherwise, is to (once again) “bear false witness.” This is true of all religions. They create and perpetuate false “realities” that encourage their followers to get mired-down in self-deception. 
I do not believe for one second that God made His presence known to me when I was a child, or to any other children. Our parents or other adults are the ones who first exposed us to "the idea" of His existence. They taught us about Him and heaven and hell and all the other stories that form the foundation of one’s faith. The preachers and Sunday school teachers filled-in the blanks. Those same adults likewise learned from earlier generations, and on it goes back and back into the past centuries. I am aware of no proof that we were born with religious belief implanted in our brains - or immediately enlightened by some divine epiphany. Religion is taught and learned and passed on. The outcome of this long lineage of Bible stories and perpetuated myths and falsehoods is that today’s many faith-based beliefs exist not because they are true, but because it has pleased people throughout the many centuries to think that they are true. And so those beliefs have continued down through the ages. 
I was first deceived as a youngster when told about that wondrous heaven place. I was also led to believe that there is a spiritual side to our earthly presence that is distinct from the observable, physical world around us. Though there is no proof that either of those two myths is true, I was nonetheless indoctrinated with that appealing idea. I was taught that the spiritual plane of existence could - if one lived properly during one's brief time on earth - lead to an eternity in paradise. Given such an alluring promise, it was not surprising that - like many other young, impressionable minds - I was seduced into the ranks of believers, at least until those doubts mentioned earlier began to surface. Young people, up to a certain age, will generally trust and accept what adults tell them, so indoctrination often succeeds. Thus, religious leaders vigorously strive to mold the minds of all their neophytes. 
Few Christians convert to non-Christian religions. There has been no big rush in this predominantly Christian nation to switch to the Jewish, Muslim, or other faiths, or to embrace the teachings of Buddha or Confucius. This may be changing somewhat, but we have traditionally tended to adhere to what we were taught as youngsters. This tells me that religious beliefs and values are learned, rather than inspired from on high. If any of these were “the true religion,” God would surely have had no difficulty convincing all of us of that truth. Both my wife and I, when first exposed to Asian cultures in our early years of traveling abroad, were struck by how alien the religious teachings of our youth were to people in that part of the world. At least to those who had not been “saved” by all the missionaries, who have been trying for centuries to convert the world’s many “pagans." These vast differences in culture and religious practices further confirm the learned nature of spiritual belief. We absorb and adhere to what we are taught. 
We do so it seems because the human survival instinct compels us to establish and then stick to whatever modus operandi we or others have created to help us make it in life. Once implanted and nurtured, our thinking and behavioral patterns rarely change. Some people, of course, struggle or completely fail to develop or adhere to any sort of rational or responsible form of behavior. These are the ones most vulnerable to religious indoctrination as adults, as will be discussed later in this chapter. The wisdom and knowledge acquired as we age can, occasionally, lead us to reconsider long-cherished convictions. Dramatic events can be instrumental in revising our outlook. The 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center caused some New Yorkers to become more spiritual, while others went in the other direction, becoming bitterly cynical as they wondered why their “good God” would allow such a horrific disaster. 
For most people of faith, their “good God” remains real no matter what happens here on earth to raise doubt in the minds of others. Regardless of what we skeptics say to challenge their beliefs, they will continue to insist that their sense of spirituality and “oneness with God” is on a “higher level,” distinct and separate from their everyday life, transcending what can be readily observed or experienced in the natural world around them. I have no doubt that such beliefs are sincere, but there is ample evidence to rebut or question their validity. 
If there truly is a God out there influencing earthly events and transforming lives, we should be able to see irrefutable proof of this. Moreover, it should be clear to all of us - repeat all of us - that His intervention is the only possible explanation for what transpires here on earth. The evidentiary process should be the same as suggested in Chapter 2 - that the Bible should provide ironclad proof that Jesus was indeed the miracle-working Son of God. And it needs to be proof that we can all agree on. Then it becomes “the truth.” 
Absent that, believers will still claim that they can sense God’s guiding hand - even in routine, everyday events. They can see or feel His involvement in random but curious and coincidental-seeming mishaps. These, they assert, are so unusual and unlikely (most, in fact, are not) that they must be due to His presence. They say they can perceive His handiwork; we unbelievers do not because of our lack of faith. God reveals Himself only to those who put their trust in Him. Faith, they claim, is more powerful than reason and logic. As pointed out in the previous chapter, they accept - because something they prayed for happened - that God answers prayer. They ignore the high probability that what they wanted would (or could) have happened without prayer. They also conveniently forget about all of their many unanswered prayers. 
The intent of this book is not to disprove such claims, but to suggest that there are rational, alternative explanations for what believers see as God’s spiritual presence in their lives. In which case, their faith-based “reality” is not (or might not be) true. No one has ever proven that God exists; or that He does not exist. One can, however, present argumentation that the evidence in support of His so-called universal presence is either highly suspect or absent altogether. At the very least, we religious critics are entitled to challenge the many assertions that He is real. 
Having already done so in the preceding chapters, I will now take a somewhat different approach to this questioning process. How might we explain the thinking and behavior of believers if God does not exist. If there really is no divine involvement in earthly matters, as the evidence tells me, how might we then explain their firmly-held belief to the contrary? If the lives of the devout are not being guided by some out-there mystical power, what does that tell us about them? What might we conclude is really going on in their heads if their God is imaginary? Can we explain the self-serving conviction that their faith makes them “better” and more virtuous than their non-religious neighbors? Are there plausible explanations for the self-deception that must surely be there in such circumstances? If there are sound answers to such questions, one can then reasonably argue that their behavior is not (or may not be) derived from an actual God presence, but rather the belief in His presence. 
Absent God’s existence, I offer in the pages that follow what I see as some of the possible psychological factors that may influence religious thought and behavior, especially among the world’s more devout. Before doing so, I need to further differentiate between “mainstream” or moderate believers and the absolutists, like Aunt Bertha. As noted in my introduction, moderate believers are not relentlessly trying to force the rest of us down to their church’s altar. Even so, when you pry into what they believe, as I have tried to do over the years, you often find that they are just as sincere and devout as their more energized and vocal brethren. The moderates are just more restrained in how they live their faith. 
As I see it, all believers compartmentalize their faith-driven beliefs. They have conditioned their brains to separate faith from the intellectual reasoning that they otherwise employ in their day-to-day activities. Religious belief becomes figuratively stashed away somewhere in their brain, protected from further scrutiny. What distinguishes the moderates from the more devout, at least in my mind, is that the former may have given more rigorous thought to what and why they believe before throwing away the key to their brain’s religious strong-box. Unyielding religious certitude by the devout suggests to me that there was less evidence-based thought expended before that subconscious compartmentalizing process took place. 
With my deep roots in religious fundamentalism, I have had ample opportunity over the decades to observe the devout within both my and my wife’s families. I have also paid close attention to non-family believers that I have known over the decades, looking for evidence that their faith has turned them into truly exemplary humans. I have searched, quite diligently but fairly, for confirmation that it has made them somehow better than us skeptics. I have done so not seeking to discredit them or, by comparison, to acclaim my own unreligious rectitude, but rather as part of my life-long effort to determine if my youthful rejection of religion had caused me to miss out on something crucial in life. 
I have personally come to know - during those many years of observing - only a handful of believers whose earthly conduct I judged to be extraordinary.  Some, perhaps all, of those unique people may have been exceptional even without religion in their lives. We have no way of being sure. I have also known at least as many unbelievers whose comportment was equally if not more remarkable. This tells me that, at the very least, people of faith do not have a monopoly on “goodness.” This suggests that their God has not blessed them with exceptional virtue any more than He has blessed the unreligious. 
I am aware of no evidence that believers contribute more to the betterment of human society than doubters. Despite all their belief to the contrary, the devout are no more moral, ethical, responsible, honest, trustworthy, charitable, law-abiding, patriotic, neighborly, decent, civic-minded, or family-oriented than your typical unbeliever. There is no compelling evidence, of which I am aware, that they work harder than atheists, maintain better yards, more regularly donate blood, or bake more cakes to raise money for schools. There is no certainty that people of faith will be less abusive toward family members, less inclined to cheat on their income taxes, or less apt to leave their shopping cart in the middle of a parking lot. 
Indeed, in some of the good behavior categories, the unfaithful might score measurably higher than their religious neighbors. Consider charitable donations. Much of the money collected in houses of worship is not for food, clothing, or other material goods to aid the needy. It is used to pay for all of the huge non-charitable outlays that most religious organizations are routinely saddled with. Most of that money in the offering plates goes to keep those religious bodies financially intact, so that they can continue with their outreach, subsidize missionaries, or fund other activities whose primary purpose is to “save souls” rather than help the destitute. If believers are honestly tithing, donating ten percent of their income (as many claim in their yearly tax submissions to the IRS), few of those households would then have additional money for other legitimate charitable endeavors. All (or nearly all) of their “charity” is going to the church, most of it for non-charitable undertakings. This would certainly be the case for the less-well-off. (Though my father could not afford to pay my way to college, through much of his life he routinely gave ten percent of his earnings to the church. He thought it more important to invest in a mythical after-life than my earthly education). While all charitable organizations have administrative costs, these likely account for a smaller piece of the donations pie compared to your typical church or religious entity. This being the case, it would seem that unbelievers are contributing more to a wider-range of true charities - and doing so without any strings attached. They are not trying to tell others how to live, even subtly, while ladling out free soup or making sandwiches at homeless shelters. They also harbor no illusion of being rewarded in the hereafter for their good deeds. On this one, score a point for the secular humanists. 
Many people of faith will nonetheless go right on embracing the self-serving belief that God is their pilot and that they are flying first-class. They will rarely say so directly (as did my sister-in-law, as noted in the introduction), but their sense of superiority can be detected in a variety of ways. For those of us observing from the outside, this can at times be quite humorous. I could enthrall you with endless stories about religious family members - and others - whose attitude and conduct would hardly qualify as worthy of emulation, and whose hypocrisy was recognized by all but themselves. The behavior I have observed most assuredly would not have pleased the good God that they claim guides their every move. It is rather telling that while I and others can see this, they apparently cannot. 
One could dismiss their less-than-laudable ways by simply accepting - as my younger, minister brother does - that trite old saying that “none of us is perfect.” I couldn’t agree more. But some of us less-than-perfect humans do not go around trying to tell the rest of humanity that we are so inspirational that they should pattern their lives on us. If you believe that Jesus has turned you into an exemplary “fisher of men,” if you are intent on getting others to be like you, then your act had better be spot-on flawless. At the very least, you should be able to recognize and fix your own shortcomings. 
I am reminded here of a family member who, in a rare chat about religion a decade or so ago, told me that even if there was no God, she would conduct her life no differently. She saw herself as a Christian role model, especially for women her age or younger, whom she perceived to be struggling. She truly believed that she had a positive influence on them, and she might have - in her own way. However, I was tempted to point out - but did not - how many times over the years I had seen her mistreat younger members of the family, abuse handicapped parking privileges, and otherwise behave in a manner that I was quite certain would not have qualified for a gold star in Vacation Bible School. Not to mention the fraudulent activities that I had observed or heard about from others. But, none of us is perfect! 
The fact that the devout are not any better than the rest of us would suggest to any objective observer that their lives have not been altered significantly, if at all, by a caring God. Their powers of self-observation have certainly not been enhanced. If God has truly transformed their lives and given them useful insight into how they should conduct themselves, why don’t the rest of us see it? Why can’t those outside their faith-driven circles observe the God-endowed qualities that they assert are part of their born-again persona? Truly superior conduct would cause the rest of us to take notice and applaud. The only clapping we hear is coming from their hands. 
The problem here, as I see it, is that those who pursue their faith with too much intensity often seem incapable of honest introspection. Their distorted self-image is magnified, in large part I suspect, because they are surrounded by others who are likewise convinced that they command the moral high ground. Both individually and collectively, they are disinclined to be objective or critical in their self-assessments. When you are constantly around people who think and act just like you, self-analysis is seen as being unnecessary. If your collective faith leads to a mind-set of “we’re more wholesome than others” or “God has given us all the right answers,” the opinions of those outside your group are of no interest to you. This leads to a circular form of reinforcement, where all the like-minded believers are patting one another on the back. 
This sort of togetherness is quite normal. Most of us prefer to associate with those whose interests and views are the same or similar to ours. We like ourselves, so we befriend people who see the world through the same rose-colored glasses. People from all walks of life engage in this form of group behavior. Highly-educated professionals tend to associate with those of similar background; blue-collar workers share after-work beers with callous-handed colleagues; young mothers have tea with other young mothers; athletes hang out together. Every human association - from the Elks Club to gangs in the hoods - exists for the same reason. Psychologists and others who specialize in human behavior can readily explain this modern-day “tribalism.” 
This tendency to associate with those most like us is another behavior driven largely by our survival instinct. We like ourselves (otherwise we would change), so we befriend people with whom we are compatible. These kindred spirits reassure us that we are okay; they share our values and outlook. The more they are like us, the more we are apt to trust them. Tribalism came about long ago in part because joining forces with others provided more security. We feel more secure when we are surrounded by those who think and act like us. Insecure people are more apt to dislike or distrust those who are “different.” 
This primal-driven bonding exists in all societies. It is all around us, at all levels, any time humans band together for common goals. Political parties and public interest or advocacy groups are tribal-like organizations. Fraternities, sororities, the Chamber of Commerce, country clubs, VFW chapters ... the list is endless. The military is another good example of a large tribal organization - one with roots in our “defending the cave-door” past. While the overall armed forces make up one tribe whose purpose is to provide security for the much larger nation tribe, the five smaller sub-tribes - Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard - each have their own distinct roles and distinguishing ethos. While young men and women, some from disparate backgrounds, join the various branches of the military for a variety of personal reasons, their transformational training molds them into an integrated fighting force where each individual learns to function as an essential part of a greater whole. They are bonded together physically and mentally to protect and defend themselves, their fellow warriors, and the nation. 
Unlike the military, whose primary task is to insure actual physical survival, organized religion is a form of modern-day tribalism that exists largely to further the so-called spiritual self-interests and goals of the group or its individual members. People of faith, especially the devout, tend to think and act within the confines of their creed. They spend many hours each week with those of like mind, engaged in one form or another of faith-related activities. Moreover, this togetherness goes beyond just spiritual matters. Since religious faith often influences how people think and act regarding secular activities, religious tribalism is frequently mirrored in the political and social views and values of the believers. It is no coincidence that many devout believers in this country support conservative political goals and, whether they recognize it or not, favor forceful, resolute, authoritarian answers and solutions to life’s many ordeals. 
If you think my opinion on all of this is a bit harsh, I suggest you spend a few hours listening - with an open mind - to just about any conservative Christian radio talk show. And there are plenty of them in this country, especially when you drive around the red “heartland” states. Some years ago, after first retiring, I completely renovated our house. To help pass the time while hammering and spackling and painting, I had a radio on in the background. Most afternoons, tired of trying to find music that appealed to me, I would tune into religious talk shows, many of which often spent more time on political and social issues than religion. I have long found such stations to be both entertaining and humorous. I became so transfixed by their hypocritical “we-can-do-nothing-wrong” blather that I started taking notes (I also wrote letters to the stations, but received no response). Some of what I jotted down appears in this book. One persistent theme was that oft-repeated claim that “you can’t be a truly good person unless you have accepted Jesus, been born again, etc.” Another observation was that the program hosts would rarely if ever have guests who did not agree with them. They would stake out a firm, ideological position on every subject and converse with their audience as though that was it. No need to allow anyone on the program who might disagree or challenge what they were saying. Callers were carefully pre-screened to insure that they could not question the right-wing Christian platitudes that the host and station wanted aired. So much for all their chatter about free speech, the greatness of our Constitution, the virtues of America, and our much-lauded democratic ways. Their idea of “freedom of speech” was no different than Moscow Radio in the Cold War days. 
The idea of personal and/or group perfection - that your conduct is superior to others, your beliefs beyond questioning by those outside the group - breeds arrogance. I say this knowing full well that it will offend many believers, all the more so by my suggestion that this arrogance is due to their faith. I am not saying that all believers are so smitten by their sense of perfection. Some among the devout are careful in how they conduct their lives. They are non-judgmental of those who think differently, cautious about telling others how they should live. Their humility is laudable, but unfortunately they seem these days to be a quiet minority among their more vociferous brothers and sisters. When they say or imply (or even think to themselves) that their faith makes them better or more moral than those who do not share their Christian worldview, that is plainly arrogant. That arrogance all too often leads to the conclusion that those who do not share their faith are less moral, less ethical, less compassionate, and so forth. Their arrogance also fosters the idea that those without religious faith are uninformed. 
This religious arrogance is somewhat understandable. If you have convinced yourself that you are talking daily with The One Who Created All Things, you might start thinking that you may be a notch above those who do not have His unlisted number. If you have concluded that you are one of His favorites on earth, as opposed to that heretic who lives across the street, it is not surprising that you might start to develop an inflated sense of self-worth. It may not be the same kind of arrogance that we are most accustomed to seeing in our normal lives, but it is still arrogance. 
The hot-shot guy who zips into a crowded strip mall and double parks, obstructing the normal flow of traffic while he runs his dirty shirts into the laundry, is arrogant. So is the fellow who sneaks ahead of us in a long line waiting to get into the theater, or who flies past the half-mile build-up of traffic only to blatantly merge at the head of that long line. They are the usual jerks that we all know and despise. They put themselves above others; they know they are selfish and arrogant (and do not care). Religious arrogance is different, because the devout are for the most part unaware of how they are seen by outsiders. Indeed, many are so persuaded by their sense of self-perfection that they tend to see themselves as just the opposite of arrogant. 
But let us return to my earlier question. What if God does not exist? What if He really isn’t out there standing at the crossroads of life, blowing His whistle and directing traffic? How does one then explain this arrogance and exaggerated sense of virtue and self-righteousness? If we strip away all the outward trappings of religiosity and look beneath that veneer of spirituality, what might we find? Could there be other explanations for that sense of superiority and other faith-driven behavior? Or might that superiority be a facade, actually masking feelings of insecurity and inferiority? Or fear? Conventional psychology, I suggest, offers up some clues. 
Let me reiterate here that what I am about to suggest in the pages that follow does not apply to all people of faith. Most moderate believers, those as suggested earlier who seem to have given careful thought to what they believe, do not tend to manifest (at least outwardly) the behavioral characteristics that I am about to highlight. If they do, their comportment still tends to be more restrained, far less offensive or off-putting than that of the “we-know-God’s-mind” born-againers. The psychological dimensions that I see as a possible influence in the lives of the devout may not be a factor in the lives of the more moderate thinkers. The primary impetus for the latter's faith may have more to do with the pleasure-seeking behaviors discussed in an upcoming chapter. 
It occurred to me way back as a teenager that fear was a major factor in religion. It was a prominent, underlying theme in many of the sermons that I heard in my church-going days, and you can hear similar fear-driven exhortations in many of today’s houses of worship. Yes, I know, hope, love, and assorted other themes can also be heard in houses of worship, and they all serve a useful purpose. Love and tolerance - to the extent that they are featured in weekly sermons - can encourage empathy and compassion, and we could all use more of both. Hope helps many people keep going, but the fact remains that it is an antidote to fear, and fear is our first line of defense in survival, causing us to go into the well-understood “fight or flight” mode. Religious faith, I believe, is driven in no small part by that primeval instinct. It compels the fearful to search for “answers” that will make them feel more secure, more protected. 
Just as all those primitive folks were scared of the many powerful forces of nature and created imaginary gods to help them cope, many of today’s believers are also fearful as the try to survive life’s many challenges. Like their ancient forebears, they cling to similar mythical - but reassuring - answers. Fear of death, as noted previously, was undoubtedly one of the principle contributors to the human-concocted, now widely-accepted notion that we can continue enjoying sunsets and eating cheesecake in some better place beyond earth. The thought of death, of our own inevitable demise, causes all of us to experience strong emotional feelings. Some of us, however, accept death for what it is: The End. Period. We recognize that until we came into being, we were not here. Several billion years went by here on little planet earth without our blessed presence; billions more may follow without us. That is reality. We accept it. We do not brood over it. 
Despite their belief in an eternal hereafter, many devout believers seem unduly troubled by the thought of death. This can be observed when they learn that their normal life expectancy is threatened by a terminal illness. This would upset any of us, but I have noticed over the years that many believers are inclined to unduly fret, to ask, “why me, God?” They seem to think this should not happen to someone who has played by “all of His rules.” “I’m too important to die at this time, God. I’m doing so much good work for you here on earth. How can this be? Why me, and not that agnostic brother-in-law of mine?” This is another example of conceit and arrogance. And self-deception. 
Their fear of death, of what they perceive to be that great unknown after the last breath, is of course alleviated by the idea of heaven - unless, that is, they are troubled by the uncertainty of which hereafter they might inhabit after their last gasp of air. In that case, the after-death-existence idea may not be so comforting, especially for those who have struggled to uphold all of their perceived God-ordained standards of conduct. The worrisome thought of winding up spending eternity as Satan’s personal bartender, rather than one of God’s harp-players, may not do much to mitigate their fear of dying. That may explain why some devout (but worried) believers fight so hard to survive physically rather than just surrendering to the idea of being forever with their God. They fear waking up in the wrong place. 
Fear may also explain why many religious folk come to believe that they can “talk” with their God. Because life can be difficult, burdensome, scary, more than some folks can handle on their own, they seek help. They search for someone to share the load, a powerful entity who they think can help them with life’s many burdens. All of the major religions claim to have just The Perfect One to do so. A strong and wise “male protector.” For many, especially the down-and-out, it is appealing and reassuring to believe that they are not alone, that there is “someone” out there watching over them, leading the way, making sure that they are safe, helping them deal with life. “Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me....” 
I was constantly reminded of that well-known Biblical passage a few years ago while playing with my still quite young grandchildren. Whenever they heard an unexpected sound, they concluded that there was something scary in the next room. They were suddenly fearful. I had to offer assurance that Darth Vader was not hiding behind the door. I was momentarily their God, watching over and protecting them from unseen forces “out there.” Many devout adults employ this same tactic to overcome their fear. They rely on their imaginary, protective father figure to accompany them on their journey through life. 
The idea that you can chat with “your God” may satisfy a variety of other psychological/emotional needs. If you have convinced yourself that He is real and that He thinks you are special, that He will listen to you, that thought by itself can help bolster your self-esteem. The idea that believers have God’s phone number, while others don’t (but could, if they wanted), can be a subconscious way of making one feel more important, more worthy than those without faith. 
People outside your church network may see you as no one special, clerking the night shift at the local convenience store, except you’re conversing regularly with Him. Or so you think. In your mind, that makes you somebody, more virtuous than that brash guy who came rolling up moments ago in his black-windowed Hummer looking for coffee and cigarettes. Believing in God levels the playing field. You may not amount to much here on earth, but come kingdom come you’ll be sipping milk-and-honey lattes at the Golden Starbucks and that brash Marlboro Man will be inhaling an even more toxic kind of smoke. Such a mindset is no different than that of the impoverished masses of Biblical times and long before. Getting to heaven makes all the earthly struggles and burdens worthwhile. It is the greatest of all goals, the most worthy of all aspirations. It is also a very self-centered goal. 
While the devout do at times help others lead more responsible and constructive lives here on earth, one motive for doing so is (or may be) to pave the way for their own onward journey to be at God’s side in the great beyond. They will rarely admit as much, but their aim is to insure that they get to heaven. Let’s be honest here - heaven is all about oneself. You want to exist forever. Sure, you want all your family and friends to join you so that you can all reminisce and play Charades again, but the fact is - it is all about you. You existing forever. 
This hope to never cease being also conveys the sense, as noted previously, that you are or have been so important in earthly matters that it would be downright shameful for it all to come to an abrupt end. You have contributed so much to your church and to the betterment of human civilization that you should be rewarded with an eternal existence. While this seems to suggest a sense of personal importance and entitlement, it may in fact conceal just the opposite - a lack of confidence in one’s self-worth. 
This is a common psychological defense mechanism, putting on a front to conceal known or perceived weaknesses. There are endless examples of such behavior. Schoolyard bullies and KKK members come quickly to mind. Both display outward bravado and a false or inflated sense of superiority as a means of masking what is or may be a deep-seated feeling of inferiority, a realization that compared to others they do not measure up. Believing that your God thinks you are special helps compensate for or obscures such character defects. Some among the devout may believe that while they failed to become wealthy and successful during their life here on earth, they will receive a heavenly reward and riches that far exceed what all those sinners enjoyed here on earth. 
There is no denying that religious faith can and often does encourage the self-discipline that some humans lack. That can be good for those who are weak and lack the willpower to make the tough decisions they need to tame their bad behavior. Uncertainty and self-doubt about who you are and the road you should travel in life can be dealt with effectively by immersing yourself in a belief system that requires strict adherence to a set of rigid rules. If you lack the fortitude to get your life under control, religious authorities are quite eager to assist you. Religion imposes rules that may enable you to overcome personal weaknesses and encourage self-control. Others (those “in the know”) will establish for you what should be done and not done. Houses of worship attract people who are seeking the advice of those who are supposedly more knowledgeable. This makes it easy. Just listen and obey. Follow the how-to instructions of that guy up there on the podium. This adherence to the thoughts of others has long-struck me as a sign of intellectual laziness and lack of self-determination. Thinking can be hard work, so let someone else do it for you. Let others tell you how to live. Get them to provide the answers. 
Another method employed by the devout to conceal their self-doubt is to continuously strive to authenticate who they are and what they believe. Getting others to believe as you do - proselytizing, or winning others over to The Lord - is a form of self-validation. I do not doubt that religious “soul-savers” honestly believe they are doing good when they set out to “help” others. But in doing so, in fulfilling “the Great Commission,” they are also trying to enhance their self-worth by seeking reaffirmation of their way of life. They want as many people as possible to join their team; this reinforces the notion that they are living right. Strength in numbers. The bigger the tribe, the safer it seems. 
I am reminded here of an article some years back in the Washington Post about the growing popularity of evangelical mega-churches with congregations in the thousands. This is an example of believers subconsciously seeking back-up in numbers. The bigger your church, the more people there each Sunday, the more you must feel that you are living right. The more there are who agree with you, the greater the tendency to believe in the correctness of your worldview. This is one reason churches strive to increase their membership roles. And for the minister up front, what an ego trip it must be. The more people coming out to hear you, the more you must feel absolutely certain that you know of what you speak. 
People join and attend churches whose spiritual and scriptural outlook is identical or quite similar to what they already believe. They generally change churches or denominations only if or when their old house of worship deviates from its usual orthodoxy, or if they develop a different spiritual outlook. They are constantly seeking validation of what they already hold to be true. They expect to hear that when they go to worship. If they don’t, they will go elsewhere. This reinforcement of belief is another survival tactic. The more others share your outlook, the more likely you are to feel secure in who you are and how you live. 
Putting down others - as in those who do not share your faith (or any faith) - is also a common form of self-validation and self-enhancement. Even though Jesus warned His followers about judging others, many of today’s devout believers do just that. If you can make those who believe differently than you look bad (or wrong, misled, or sinful), that makes you look better, at least in your own mind. One can observe this in many houses of worship. As noted earlier, Catholics and others who did not share my boyhood religion were often vilified by our preachers. This old tried-and-true comparison technique is of course not restricted to religion. It is a much-employed tactic in American politics these days. Diminishing those of the other party, destroying their character, belittling their accomplishments or potential, is a frequent tactic employed by many of today’s politicians as they try to shape and embellish their public image or reputation. If you can’t out-shine the other guy, try to make him look as unappealing as you! 
One can also observe validation-seeking in the curious fact that God never disagrees with believers. If you and God are in agreement, then you must be quite the person. It seems telling to me that I have never heard a believer assert that God is wrong, that His guidelines are incorrect. As with all my boyhood preachers, God’s thoughts and instructions are always quite by coincidence identical to those of the person spouting off about what he or she claims is “God’s truths.” Believers will claim that they sought God’s guidance, and no doubt they did, but the resulting outcome will always be what the seeker of divine input subconsciously preferred. “Dear God, should I buy the used Camry or the new Chevy Malibu? Should I paint the living room butter beige or creamy dawn? Should I go spend some time with old Aunt Kate or take the kids to the movies?” 
The answer will always be what the person subconsciously preferred before uttering a prayer. The explanation for this me-and-God always on the same wavelength is that the believer is simply attributing to God what he or she already believes or wants. Getting God’s supposed stamp of approval provides a convenient rationalization, especially if your desired plan of action goes against what others prefer, or what you might have been hesitant about. It enables you to do what you subconsciously wanted to do all along - with or without the support of others. The preacher informs his congregation that he prayed and asked God how they should enlarge their church. God “told” him that members should all “up” their weekly offerings. There you have it. God, so it seems, wanted precisely what the preacher wanted. His prayers were answered. Hallelujah! 
There is a relatively simple explanation for all of this “me and God” in harmony stuff. My brain “talks” to itself as I sit here at this keyboard. My thoughts are swirling around inside my head, often as I talk aloud to myself. I am weighing one word or words against others, constantly asking my brain if there is a better way of conveying what I am trying to say. Different thoughts and ideas are zipping through my brain’s countless nerve connections. I am asking myself questions, then answering those questions - or trying to. This is normal “brain talk.” 
If you have bought into the idea that you can communicate with an unseen, out-there God, normal brain chatter can easily be misconstrued, leading the believer to think that his own thoughts and ideas are coming from “the outside.” This is especially true if you are praying or in a meditative or deeply reflective state of mind. If you have convinced yourself that the answer you seek will come from On High, once you sort this out with your own contemplation there will be a natural tendency to attribute it to your God. 
If God always agrees with you, or gives you the answer you subconsciously wanted all along, you are either truly one of His favorites on earth or incredibly gifted! Or deceived. I say this because, as noted previously, God happens to agree with billions of other believers scattered all over the globe, yet their beliefs or expressions of hope are or may be the complete opposite of yours. A sensible explanation for this conceited subterfuge is that your God is indistinguishable from you. His and your thoughts and beliefs are one and the same. You are the God you worship! Yes, I know. That one little sentence will dramatically elevate the blood pressure of any devout reader - should there be any at this near halfway point in the book! 
There are many other self-deceptive human behaviors exhibited by the devout that can be explained by conventional psychology, rather than that God is providing guidance and direction. A few further examples: 
Personal responsibility and taking charge of one’s life are two positive behaviors frequently touted by the devout. Yet in the strictest sense these two directives contradict other firmly held Christian beliefs. Many devout believers claim that we humans fall short or engage in “sin” because we are fooled or misled by Satan. Blaming the infamous devil (or other humans) for our bad behavior or failures is a way of diverting responsibility. We see lots of that in these days of “victimization.” Conversely, giving God the credit when we do something good or worthwhile instead of rightly acknowledging our own effort is another example of misplaced recognition. When people succeed, they should acknowledge that they did so due to their own effort and determination; that is how to really build-up one’s self-esteem. When we do poorly or fail, we should accept responsibility instead of blaming other humans or a mythical evil force. 
How many times have we heard people of faith pretending to be humble, giving God the credit for their success rather than saying it was due to their own effort. This pretense of humility, in my opinion, is simply an attempt to obscure conceit. My success in life is due to God, they tell others. He chose to make me, little old me, a winner. This way of thinking enables you to subconsciously gloat while outwardly trying to make it look as though it was all God’s doing. The end result is that you still see yourself as being better than others. 
As noted previously, one can see this quite readily in sports, where God is thanked after a point is scored or game won. The religious athlete is making a pretense of humility by thanking God for letting him score. Never mind the opposing coach or cornerback who failed to prevent the touchdown. They too may have quietly prayed for divine intervention on the same play. It is not clear what is going on in the brains of these athletes, but it seems they are pretending to be humble by thanking God, rather than taking the applause for themselves. But look again. Apart from annoying at least some in the grandstands with their little self-righteous end-zone displays, their pointing to the heavens can be seen for what it is - arrogance masquerading as humility. “I’m one talented guy, but, hey ... God made me that way. I can’t help it. He must have seen something special in me - or made me special. I must be really something for Him to have taken such a personal interest in me and my career.” A more rational explanation is that the athlete excelled due to hard work and constant practice - and he had the good fortune to have been born with the right physical and mental qualities to be a successful jock. 
This idea that God rewards perfection seems to me to be tied in with the much grander notion that God Himself is the ultimate perfect one, and that we should all try to be like Him. This faith-driven quest for a relationship with a “perfect father” may be due to a psychological longing by believers for either the good father they once had, or that they never had but wanted. Believers create in their minds a perfect, all-knowing, compassionate but stern, loving father figure. This ideal of a perfect male God may appeal to men and women differently. 
Many religiously-minded men aspire to be what they have determined He is: strong, demanding, the controller of others, one to be reckoned with. The mythical God is their role model. Unfortunately, this is not always a positive development for immediate family members or others that encounter this domineering man of God. It is no secret that many wives and children have suffered at the hands of overbearing male figures claiming to be simply doing “what God wants.” The husband/father’s preference for authoritarian rule just happens to coincide with what he has convinced himself God demands. 
In the case of women, the “perfect father” or male symbol may have even more far-reaching meaning. Women may find in the God-concept an imaginary flawless male - the one they do not have, but long for in their sometimes unsatisfying lives. Their perfect God listens, comforts, loves unconditionally, so they believe. These are all caring gestures that many women desire, but all too often do not receive from the insensitive flesh-and-blood guy in their life. It is no surprise that in many Christian churches females tend to far-outnumber males in attendance. 
I am reminded here of something I observed a decade ago during a visit to Colorado. I had talked my older, now-deceased brother into joining me there for a family reunion. While there, he wanted to attend Sunday worship at one of the churches we had gone to as boys. I accompanied him, always interested in observing religious behavior. The disproportion between men and women in the congregation was quite striking. I counted only about 60 people there that morning, which might tell you something about the appeal of that brand of religion. Of those 60 or so, there were only a few men besides my brother and me. Toward the end of the service, the minister said he “felt the presence of sin” (must have been me) and declared one of those rare Sunday morning altar calls. As in my boyhood days, the congregation soon became quite moved, with lots of emotional displays and soulful music. Nothing had changed in six decades. What caught my attention the most that morning was the demeanor of some of the women. They were so stirred and aroused by the music and words of the preacher and their own thoughts that they started moving their bodies and emitting sounds and moans: “Yes God, Yes God.” “Thank you, Jesus, thank you.” These women appeared to be experiencing something akin to a spiritual orgasm - an emotional and bodily communion with barely-concealed sexual overtones. Perhaps you think I’m exaggerating, but if you had been there to observe their subtle physical gyrations and verbal manifestations of mind and body pleasure you would understand why I draw this parallel. 
(A brief digression here about music and religion: Music in many Christian worship services is essential, especially in the more devout denominations that rely heavily on playing to human emotions. As I pointed out in telling about my boyhood conversions, guilt-inducing, bring-on-the-tears music was a vital element in all of those altar calls. Just as music enhances movies and a variety of other forms of entertainment, and can be a powerful stimulant to our moods, in an emotional church setting it can quickly impact on the worshippers, making them more receptive to the words of the minister. There would, I suspect, be far fewer converts to the Lord without music, far fewer rushes to the altar in pursuit of salvation.) 
Earlier in that same Colorado church service, before the preacher and music got all the women shivering with divine ecstasy, he had everyone turn around and shake hands with their neighbors, especially any visitors. These kind of churches love to do that sort of thing. One of those few men in attendance, a short fellow in the row ahead of us, turned to greet my brother and me. He loudly welcomed us “in the name of Jesus, hallelujah brothers,” and commenced to yak away about “the power and glory of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.” Or something like that. It was clear from observing this “man of God” that his weekly vocation was not deciphering of the human genome. I was supposed to believe, as I stood there that morning, that God had endowed that boisterous fellow with a special knowledge of the universe, to have given him a “spiritual wisdom” that He was unwilling to bestow upon me. He made such an unfavorable impression that I suspected my brother was embarrassed by the realization that I knew he and that fellow were playing on the same team. 
I mention this, not to sound intellectually superior, but because I believe it offers another illustration of how believers can get mired down in self-deception, how they can convince themselves (encouraged by others of faith) that they possess some sort of extraordinary insight given only to those who have “accepted Jesus as their personal savior.” I have observed many such people, all claiming to know the innermost thoughts of God Almighty. Yet their limited intellectual reasoning in earthly matters is obvious to all but themselves and their closest religious colleagues. If God has truly blessed them with divine intuition, it is not readily apparent to those outside their religious circle. I am not suggesting here that it is educational accomplishment or intelligence that separate unbelievers from believers. There are far too many smart, well-informed believers for that to be so. 
All I’m saying here is that I see no evidence of gifted discernment or bequeathed brilliance on the part of the devout. I see nothing in their thinking or behavior that comes close to convincing me that they've hit the jackpot in terms of having their eyes opened to great truths that have been denied me, which you would expect if God had truly enlightened them. 
The Colorado church fellow mentioned above, I suspect, was not always “a good Christian.” I would be surprised were he not an adult convert, one who had once lived “a less-than-holy life.” In the following pages that conclude this chapter, I want to focus on so-called religious transformations, how people rely on a newly found or re-found belief in God’s so-called healing powers to straighten out their lives. 
The idea that anyone can enjoy a special relationship with God and that He can alter lives for the better is recognized by all devout Christians as a given. They firmly believe this, and there is no denying that this “belief” has redirected many wayward souls - people who lacked the self-discipline, moral-fiber, character, and other qualities generally necessary to lead a responsible and productive life. Many people have transformed their lives by “following Jesus,” and they remain convinced that He is guiding them in their day-to-day activities. Once again, if that is really so, we should be able to demonstrate that there is something unique about a religious or faith-based life transformation. We should be able to show that putting one’s trust in God is "the only way" to dramatically improve one’s earthly behavior, as many devout believers maintain. Otherwise, one can reasonably argue that a transformation based on belief in a Higher Spiritual Power is simply one among many human-concocted methods that people have used to alter and improve their behavior. 
Believers frequently emphasize that faith-based alcohol and drug treatment strategies and prisoner rehab programs have a higher success rate than other methods. Numerous surveys suggest that they are right. Many individuals and society in general have benefited from such programs. Even with their high success rate, however, one can rightly argue that the reform came about not because the addicts or prisoners where actually assisted by an out-there Spiritual Force, but because they were convinced by others that He was helping them. It was that belief that enabled them to take the first necessary steps toward recovery or to tame their out-of-control, pleasure-seeking way of life. The fact that addicts and prisoners can be and have been helped by other methods that have nothing to do with religious faith undermines the self-serving claim that “God’s way” is the only way - or that there is even a God’s way. The faith-based methods may have a higher success rate simply because more down-and-outers have chosen that path toward recovery. The Twelve-Step Program and similar faith-based plans have been more widely promoted than most secular anti-addiction strategies. 
If God’s program is the most successful and in a league all its own, one is then entitled to ask: why is it that once addicts supposedly turn their lives around with His help, many still display addictive characteristics? They often become addicted to how they live their faith. They still take everything to extremes, showing the same inability to restrain their urges and exhibit moderation in behavior. They’ve stopped snorting cocaine, but now they cannot function without praying ten times a day or trying to convert every suspected unbeliever that they encounter. They have replaced one addictive behavior with another. Being consumed by God is perhaps better than being hooked on heroin or Old Crow, but the addictive mind is still in charge. 
I recall here another family member, a woman in her forties who had spent the previous 20 years in an unfruitful search for the right man. We eventually lost track of her many boyfriends, protracted affairs, and husbands. It was never clear to us if her behavior was driven by a lack of sexual fulfillment or, perhaps, even more complex psychological issues. There are reasons to suggest that it was both. In any event, she eventually resolved her search for “Mr. Right” by choosing “Mr. Wrong.” She married a super-religious fellow, so utterly controlling and intransigent that he immediately infuriated other family members, even the religiously inclined. She so yielded to this controlling “man of God” that he took over her entire life, surrendering to his edicts to such an extent that she was not even allowed to do her own shopping for clothes. She could do nothing without his approval. She became a “Stepford wife” - exchanging her addictive “need-a-man” compulsion for an imperious controller who completely destroyed her personality while totally dominating her. He was so offensive and she so submissive that the family had to permanently part ways with them. 
Such taming-of-the-addiction stories compel me to ask: Why, if God is in charge and capable of transforming lives, do His so-called miraculous healing powers often fail to truly end the addictive compulsions and behaviors? Why does he cause one addiction to be exchanged for another, or something equally unhealthy, as he did with the above-cited woman? People are told that God is healing them, yet their desire for the pleasure-inducing drugs or alcohol or endless sex often remains. It is quite revealing that all of the various faith-based drug/alcohol “recovery plans" require total abstinence. You must not yield to whatever it is that tempts you. Pour all that stuff down the drain; inhale or ingest no more. Your success in overcoming the addiction depends first and foremost on permanently avoiding whatever it is that tempts you. That sounds to me like the addict - not God - is doing all the work. 
If God has truly intervened, why doesn’t He simply put an end to all the temptation, once and for all? Why, if they have surrendered and put their faith in Him, doesn’t He permanently fix their problem? Some, if not many, recovering addicts, who sincerely and honestly trusted Him to keep them forever away from their poison, eventually fail and go back to their old mind-bending pleasures. The devout will as usual offer a litany of rationalizations for God’s bewildering refusal to permanently heal these people. A reasonable explanation for this odd outcome is that there was no God to intervene, that it was just “the belief” in Him that helped some manage to temporarily end their addictions. Ultimately, they still lacked the discipline to permanently deal with their problem. 
Faith-based solutions can and often do work (both permanently and temporarily) because the idea that all of us need to be on good terms with Our Maker, like believing in the power of prayer, is quite prevalent in our largely-Christian culture. Even “in-the-gutter” sinners have heard that if they don’t stop their destructive ways, well ... they face an eternity stoking Satan’s furnaces. It is no accident that most adult religious epiphanies and conversions occur in people who are dissatisfied with their lives and who lack the determination and drive to on their own lead constructive lives. Such people, especially if they were unschooled in religion, are highly susceptible to being won over by the Bible-quoters. They have no background or frame of reference to counter what the proselytizers say and are desperate to latch on to anything that might work. 
Believers (many of whom themselves once engaged in similar, irresponsible, dangerous living, then were “born again”) are convinced that they can help all the sinners out there. With God’s help, they turned their own lives around, they say, so there is no reason they cannot help others in need. Winning others to the Lord provides the much-desired reassurance cited earlier - confirming for those lending a hand that they are now traveling the right road. However, they will rarely waste their time on people who are unwilling or unreceptive, just as my family walked away years ago when they discovered that I wanted to question rather than buy what they were selling. Had they been truly sincere in their boast that they wanted to save all of humanity, they would have shown me and other hard-sell cases the same conviction that they display in going after the weak and uninformed. They conveniently ignore those who are already comfortable with their beliefs, or who can challenge their salvation appeals. What they won’t admit is that they know they will have the most success going after the naive and vulnerable. 
If walking life’s highways with Jesus is truly an unparalleled, life-changing experience, as those who sell that notion claim, then we should be able to show that to be true. We should be able to show that a religious transformation is so unique that it cannot be replicated. My own youthful get-right-with-God experience, along with my life-long observation of those who claim God has changed their lives, has led me to conclude that so-called religious conversions are neither unique nor spiritual. They are simply self-induced emotional, psychological, and behavioral adjustments prompted by a subjective desire to change - often instigated or encouraged by others. I ask once again: Why the need for others to assist, if an all-powerful God can tell us directly what we need to do to live according to His wishes? Why do we need others to intervene on His behalf? 
Given sufficient desire or motivation to do so, people can improve their lives on their own without any religious or spiritual impetus. They just have to recognize the need and have the willpower to get on with it, or be compelled to do so. Life-altering opportunities abound. Most of us have gone through some of these during our lives. 
For me, and many other young men, Marine Corps boot camp was certainly a mind-bending, life-transforming experience. Many young, unfocussed teenagers have been changed forever by the harsh, demanding mental and physical discipline that The Corps imposes on its recruits. I mention the Marines owing to my personal experience, but military service of any kind - especially for the young who make up the enlisted ranks - can be life altering. How many times have we heard a person say, “my time in the service made me grow up.” For many young people, transforming their lives often means just that - growing up and learning to accept adult responsibilities. It means learning to say “no” to all those short-term, potentially destructive pleasures that are especially tempting when we are young. 
Growing-up is sometimes facilitated by others, as I discovered midway through boot camp. I had no idea when I enlisted immediately after high school what awaited me. I had decided that I wanted to be one of those rough-and-tough Leathernecks. Yes, indeed, that would be the life for me - storming up beaches, dodging bullets, defending America! My naïve mindset vanished moments after arriving in San Diego. Three of us from Oregon were barely off the plane before a tough-talking corporal put fear in our hearts. We sat in stunned silence, wondering what awaited us, as a truck took us to the Recruit Depot. 
Six weeks later, I was completely disillusioned, at the breaking point, convinced that I could no longer take the relentless physical and mental harassment. Others had already dropped out, and I was ready to do so. “Screw Semper Fi” had become my attitude. My left wrist, which I had broken a couple of years earlier playing basketball, started bothering me midway through our 3 weeks of weapons training. Not enough that I was unable to continue, but I convinced our senior drill instructor that I needed to see a doctor. I was thinking medical discharge. I was driven down to the naval hospital in San Diego, where a wise and kindly doctor examined my wrist and asked about the old injury. Then, he said something like this: “Son, I expect your wrist isn’t as bad as you say it is, but you’re thinking that if you can convince me it is, you’ll have a ticket home.” He then gave me a little pep talk, noting that as punishing as boot camp was, it would all be over in another month or so. Come graduation day, he said, you'll be one proud fellow. He emphasized that I would never experience that if I quit, and that for the rest of my life I might regret not toughing it out. 
His little “hang-in-there” talk worked. I returned to Camp Matthews and qualified as a rifle sharpshooter. Some four weeks later, on an early autumn morning, I was among the 70 or so other young “jarheads” in Platoon 241 marching in perfect unison down the “grinder” (parade ground). After boot camp, we were transferred to Camp Pendleton where we endured another 6 weeks of even more-physically-demanding combat training. By then I had learned to take whatever those tough sergeants could throw at us. Not only did I survive, I actually enjoyed that rigorous training. I had “grown up” a lot in just a couple of months. We were given 10 days of leave after the Pendleton training, so I hopped aboard an Oregon-bound Greyhound bus. I detected a glint of pride in my father’s eyes when I stepped off that bus in my uniform. As a WWII Army veteran, he feared that the Marines would be too tough for me, and he was almost right. But thanks to that Navy doctor, I managed to make it. I wished many times in later years that I could have thanked him. 
I have belabored this story because it demonstrates what I am emphasizing in this chapter - that people can transform their lives as long as they have the desire or are motivated to do so. As life-changing as Marine Corps training was for me, I don’t recall ever sensing God’s presence while I was going through that arduous ordeal. It was more like those graphic depictions of hell that I had heard during my church-going days. The only references to God came in the recurring streams of profanity from our drill instructors. 
The encouragement I received from that Navy doctor underlines another important fact in what I am saying here. Had I been religious at the time, I surely would have convinced myself that God was acting somehow through him, and that was how He guided me through that trying ordeal. A more down-to-earth explanation is that I was simply motivated by a seasoned adult to try harder and persevere, to focus on the long-term benefit of not giving up. In the end, I did it myself. No God, no spiritual input. It was just me, heeding that good advice and then mustering the determination to keep going. 
The Marine Corps was just my first major life-altering experience, as some years later I was forced to undergo what in many respects was an even more challenging behavioral change. That change, coincidentally, required me to unlearn some of the “follow the leader” ways that the Marines had taught me. That behavior modification, as you will learn in the next chapter, took many years and much patience from my wife. 
People like her and that long-ago Navy doctor, seemingly wiser and at times more insightful than the rest of us, can motivate others to start over or change course. Many people tell of being so inspired, especially by those contributing to the betterment of society, that it compelled them to do likewise. Good teachers, as we all know, are an excellent example of this. They can influence their young students to be their best, to rise to new challenges and improve their lives. Some of those students then go on to become teachers themselves. 
We have today a surplus of life-transforming methods available to anyone willing to listen and act. Along with Oprah, Dr. Phil, and all the other self-improvement gurus and motivational speakers, we have a plethora of experts, organizations, literature, Internet Web-sites, and other sources with that same goal in mind. Some have religious or spiritual overtones, others do not. Those that are religiously based quite often have the same or similar self-help advice as the non-religious experts. They just package it differently - asserting that “trust in God” must be a part of the “healing” or self-improvement process. Religious or non-religious, all claim that they can change your life for the better, and many do (or can), providing that you are determined to succeed. 
The purpose of many self-help and transformational programs is of course to alter your bank account rather than you - converting your savings into the rapidly expanding, help-yourself wealth of the gimmick promoters. These are just a variation of the old frontier snake-oil salesmen or the televangelists who want you to overfill their offering plates in return for the claim that they have given you eternal salvation or a new knee joint. Or all those ubiquitous TV and Internet commercials coming from companies whose sole intent is to enhance their profits by convincing you that you cannot live another hour without buying a year’s supply of their latest life-enhancing formula. 
For those who think that I am being unduly dismissive of religious transformations, let me describe an experiment I conducted many years ago. I decided to see if I could - with no spiritual or religious input whatsoever - duplicate the “born again” feeling of becoming a “new and improved person.” I decided to really focus on how I interacted with others, striving for perfection. I went out of my way to be a great husband and father and co-worker. I was exceptionally pleasant, understanding, helpful, and non-judgmental. I strived to be more conscious of my words and body language, insuring that I communicated and interacted with others only in the best possible manner. I behaved as though my life had been transformed by the same God that many devout believers claim changed their lives for the better. 
It was a challenge to keep it up, but I succeeded. I was able to prove to myself that my conduct could be as exemplary as that professed by people supposedly aided by The Almighty. I managed to maintain that good behavior for the duration of the experiment. With enough determination, I probably could have continued down that “righteous path,” except I knew my wife would eventually say: “Okay, what is going on here, Mr. Nice Guy?” 
I have repeated that experiment a number of times over the years, just to prove that I can do it. I have been able to mimic the same “I am a better person” feeling I briefly experienced during those boyhood altar calls, when I was convinced by others that I had been touched by God. Now that I am retired and living a relatively stress-free life, being “Mr. Perfect” (well, sometimes Mr. Perfect) is of course much easier. I can now burnish my good-behavior personality whenever I sense the need to do so, as when I detect that my still-working wife is temporarily burned out or not feeling terribly charitable toward me or others, or when my grandchildren tell me that I’m being “grouchy.” It’s all a matter of attitude and self-discipline. Rather than asking God for His help, I just focus on how I am interacting with others, constantly reminding myself to be considerate, understanding, and patient. I do not believe for one second that in doing so I am being aided by The Almighty. I am doing it all myself. 
What all of this tells me is that the divine intervention that many believers claim they have experienced is not (or may not be) spiritual at all. My experiments suggest, if not confirm, that transformations supposedly aided by faith are no different than those that have nothing to do with belief in a helpful God. This supports my contention that the changes did not come from some "out-there power." 
Winding down this chapter, let me say this once again. Most humans have within themselves the ability to alter and improve their outlook and conduct in order to live better, more socially acceptable lives. The impetus for that transformation may come from within, or from others. All of the methods for bringing about change ultimately have one essential requirement - they require you to go through an emotional, psychological, and behavioral adjustment. To quote my father, we just have to show “a little gumption,” pull on our boots, and get on with it. Take control of our own lives. 
I would be remiss if I did not mention here that there are some people who, for medical or psychological reasons, cannot be helped as suggested in the preceding pages. People afflicted by major personality disorders are unable to transform or improve their lives without professional, secular help. Rather than God, they need psychological counseling and, in many instances, relief with pharmacological products. Like His spotty track record in permanently healing addicts, God seems to have done rather poorly when it comes to helping those suffering from paranoia, schizophrenia, and the many other serious mental illnesses. 
The idea that only God can alter and improve lives is of course essential to the continuation of virtually all religions. Without a new generation of believers, a steady stream of new converts, most religions would soon die out. Those who benefit from the furtherance of religious faith have a vested interest in perpetuating their myths and in denying the deceptions that I have discussed in this chapter. These are the controllers - the ones who, for their own psychological and other reasons - persist in telling us what to believe and what to do with our lives.


Chapter 6: God’s Chosen Few - Telling Us What To Do

Sitting in church long ago, week after week after week, I would wonder why my parents needed a preacher to tell them how to live. They told me what I should and should not do, so why did they need another adult telling them what they should and should not do? That was when I first started to question the need for a middleman to tell us how we should live. One could only presume that God would be a better communicator than all of His earthly spokesmen. Why couldn’t He just quietly inform us directly what we needed to know or do? As noted previously, it was such thoughts that first led me to suspect that what I was hearing in church on Sundays was not what God wanted, but what that guy up front pounding his Bible and waving his arms wanted. 
Nothing in the decades since has altered that early judgment. Consider all the different theological directives emanating from the mouths of all the world’s “spiritual” leaders. All around our planet, from the biggest cities to the most remote villages, from the pulpits of the mega-churches in America to the ornate mosques of the Middle East and everything in between, God’s spokespeople for every religion imaginable are mesmerizing their audiences with a wide variety of contradictory “truths.” Most claim to be chatting with the same God, yet their monologues are often oceans apart when it comes to telling us how we should think and act. One clergyman’s interpretation of God’s will may be the complete opposite of another. 
What should we make of that? Much as I asked in an earlier chapter, are there a multitude of gods or goddesses, as was believed in ancient times, each handing down different instructions to their followers? Is the one great God giving conflicting guidelines to a wide assortment of faiths? If so, why? Are all those other gods not real? Is your God the only true one? Or, once again, is there no God? 
Since the last explanation is the only one that makes sense to me, I can return to my aforesaid suggestion that God’s many and varied spokespeople are simply telling us what they have decided is “the truth.” But where did they get the idea that they, of all of earth’s billions of inhabitants, have all the answers? 
I made the point in the previous chapter that believers rarely if ever come to embrace faith or “know” God by some wisdom-inducing bolt of lightening from the heavens. Their “Godly knowledge” was learned from others, passed on from earlier generations of believers. Those who are formally instructed in religious matters, be it in a seminary, Bible College, or other study programs, are likewise simply absorbing the thinking and beliefs of their religious elders. There are of course some preachers without recognized divinity schooling who claim that they were inspired directly from “on high.” We have only their word for that, and many who make such claims tend to espouse radical theologies that generally appeal only to fringe faiths. 
Whatever the explanation, we know that all religions ultimately produce some from among their ranks who come to believe that their knowledge of God and other celestial matters is so great (or presumably will be with further "education") that they should “lead” others. They come to believe that God has blessed them with the wisdom and insight that they need to become one of His earthly emissaries. Most will of course claim that they did not choose that role. No siree! God, it seems, was so impressed by them and their promising talents that He personally picked them. We are led to believe that He looks down from His heavenly realm and singles out those that He wants to do His work down here, then somehow informs those designated ones. 
If God is truly in charge of the vetting process, He owes us an explanation. Was He, who is said to oppose all sin and knows everything that has or will ever happen, unaware of the aberrant sexual desires of all those “chosen ones” that have been in the news over the past couple of decades? Why would He pick men with a sexual attraction to the young and place them in a church where they supervise boys who are part of that church’s rituals? What about all of those well-known televangelists and their surreptitious visits to prostitutes? Remember that prominent, anti-gay evangelical leader who was secretly obtaining drugs and other pleasures from a gay masseuse? Why would God “choose” such people and then bless their work if He truly knows all about us and what we will do in the future? Why, if He is so opposed to homosexuality, would He choose gays/lesbians to do His work? If the wealthy cannot gain entrance to heaven (according to Jesus), why would so many of His popular TV preachers be allowed to collect vast sums of money? Money which they use to inhabit million-dollar mansions, drive around in Rolls Royces, and fly first class, while all the time claiming to be speaking on behalf of the son of a humble Nazareth carpenter. 
You can compile a very long list of similar questions, of “men of God” who have behaved badly, violating both the trust and respect of their congregations and families - and their own sacred vows. You can try to dismiss these pious rascals by reiterating once again my brother’s assertion that none of us is perfect - including clergymen - and that God will forgive their transgressions. That does not explain why He would “choose” such people in the first place. Either He does not choose or He does not know everything about us - or what we will do in the future. Or He chooses some, then looks the other way when all the other sinners-to-be manage to work their way into His ranks without His approval. How do we distinguish the chosen ones from the un-chosen others? More disturbing thoughts for the devout! 
Many among the clergy aristocracy will nonetheless go right on believing that they were personally selected by God. And most of their followers will do the same. What I am suggesting here, given both my disbelief in God in general and the above-stated dubious “chosen” notion, is that they - not God - chose that livelihood and that there are (or might be) a multitude of reasons for their doing so, some or many of which have nothing to do with God or religious insight. 
Some of these “chosen ones” were no doubt “born leaders.” There is no such thing really, but at the same time there are some among us who, due to genetic nature and positive nurturing, grow up to exude greater confidence and charisma than the general population. Such “leaders” gravitate into a variety of professions, including religion. Their commanding personalities propel them to the top. This natural leadership quality, however, is not always apparent in many successful people, even though they have managed to rise to senior positions in their field of expertise. Those “leaders” tended to rely more on hard work, determination, and following all the organizational or corporate rules. 
Regardless of which route one takes on the path to leadership, there are always psychological factors in play - both for the job or career choice and the behaviors that were necessary to survive and succeed in that field. That is true of presidents and admirals as much as it is with policemen and accountants. While many people wind up in life-long jobs out of necessity, doing work that offers little appeal or satisfaction, others may gravitate toward careers that will help them cope with personal needs or shortcomings. I have long suspected that is especially so with some, if not many, who opt to become “spiritual leaders.” 
For a variety of psychological reasons, young clergymen may have settled on that line of work because they wanted a profession that could elicit respect and approval from others - first from their own family and friends, then their congregations, and finally from the general population. The title “reverend” or “father” may provide, at least outwardly, some of the veneration they crave. Ministering to others is also a way of drawing attention to yourself, of enhancing your sense of importance. God’s “devoted agents” must surely derive an enormous sense of power when they inform their flocks what they claim He is thinking that day - or what He thought 3,000 years ago. They may also have wanted and sought out a profession where they could assert control over others, perhaps because they themselves were struggling with self-control. Transferring your insecurities onto others (“projecting” in psychological terms) is a common coping method. Helping others can be a form of self-therapy. As that old saying goes, you have to be crazy to become a psychiatrist. 
My minister brother believes that some 40 years ago God reached down, tapped him on the shoulder, and beckoned him to lead others to the promised land. Perhaps not quite in that manner, but he has never doubted receiving “the call.” I cannot prove him wrong, nor do I want to sound disrespectful, but if there is no God, he was not “chosen” to do anything. In which case, there may be more down-to-earth reasons for his career choice. Younger by a number of years than me and our other siblings, he grew up sensing that our father treated him less favorably than he had us older ones, that Dad was often indifferent toward him. He also felt that he was judged more harshly than the rest of us, though I know from first-hand experience that was not so. My brother, nonetheless, sensed an absence of fatherly approval. His decision to become a minister may (I emphasize “may”) have been subconsciously driven by, among other things, a determination to gain that approval. As a Christian himself, Dad would have felt compelled to respect my brother’s career choice, which he did. Becoming a minister also enabled my brother to assert control over the lives of others, just as our father had done to us. No doubt there were other personal and psychological reasons for his decision to become a minister. 
Let us be honest here. When you cut through all the outward spiritual gloss, religion is all about control. The Bible and all those other ancient texts tell people what they should and should not do. Religious dogma abounds with “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not.” Prayer itself is an integral element of control in virtually all religions. Those who pray are asking their “controlling father” to lead them, to show the way, to dominate their lives, to provide the “how-to-live” guidance that many seem incapable of figuring out on their own. Even if there is not a God to answer all those prayers, the act of praying by itself can be an effort to instill self-control: “Dear God, help me stop snorting coke!” “Keep me from further abusing my wife and children!” “Please, Jesus, give me the strength to carry on!” Such appeals for divine intervention are acknowledgments of character weakness, of a desire to have greater strength or more self-restraint. 
As suggested above and in the previous chapter, there may be a multitude of psychological reasons for why people seek out and then cling to religious faith. Or, if I am to be honest about all of this, not hold onto their faith. We are all governed by the life-experience thoughts that swirl around in our heads. Given the controlling nature of religion, a subconscious desire to dominate others (or impose self-control) may be a major factor in motivating many who gravitate toward leadership positions in that field (especially those faiths of an authoritarian nature). This desire to dominate or manipulate others may be driven by the need to address or alleviate one’s own subconscious weaknesses or shortcomings. This kind of “leadership” often finds a willing audience among those who are in need of similar help. 
The desire to control the thinking and behavior of one's followers is most noticeable among the more dogmatic, authoritarian faiths. Their “leaders” do so by filling the minds of their followers with unprovable fantasies and myths, rather than sound guidance on how to get through life. There is, it seems to me, a discernible distinction between the guidance of a certified marriage counselor and the recommendations of a clergyman, whose advice on how to better interact with your spouse all too often veers off into theological thought that may have little or nothing to do with being a better listener or learning to respect the feelings of your unhappy spouse. There is a difference between the secular drug counselor and the faith-based advisor whose get-off-the-drugs agenda requires belief in a mythical God as the “only” way to overcome an addiction. The difference is the dimension and totality of their plan of action. The pastors and other faith-driven mentors all too often insist that those they are helping must surrender entirely to whatever theologically determined self-help ideology they are promoting. They want to extend their control beyond whatever sound advice they might have to address that person’s problems. 
I can write about, and to some extent explain, the desire to control the lives of others. I am a controller. A reformed one, but like an addict, the impulse or desire to “instruct” others is still there (perhaps that is why I am writing this book?). I am acutely aware of this personality trait and try hard to manage it. Just ask my wife. During a heated argument some 40 years ago, she threatened to take our son and leave if I did not stop “talking down to her.” Apart from my initial shock at her strong reaction, my immediate response was to claim I did not know what she meant by “that tone of voice,” which she said I used on her often. I went into immediate denial - man’s favorite and often first tactic in responding to personal criticism. I knew what she was talking about, but truthfully I often did not realize when I was doing it. I loved her dearly and had the good sense to recognize that she was not bluffing. 
Thus began my long, slow, and not always successful effort to become a less controlling, less authoritarian husband/father. My transformation has not been easy, and I admit to “backsliding” many times. Nonetheless, I have for the most part learned over time to control the “do as I say” ways that I learned from my father and which the Marine Corps encouraged. Enough, at least, that my much-beloved wife has stayed with me now for more than 50 years. 
The point of this somewhat embarrassing admission is to underscore the fact that I write about this with some first-hand experience. Like most people upon reaching adulthood, I conducted myself largely based on what I had learned and observed during my formative years. So did my two brothers. We all thought as adults that we should govern our households much as we had seen our father do. He was the authority figure in our young lives. Our mother, like many wives in those days, was generally submissive and outwardly supportive of whatever rules and disciplinary measures he imposed on us. As we ventured into adulthood, my brothers and I expected that our wives and children would likewise listen and obey.
We had learned during our early years to think and act based on two often-competing sets of instruction:
 1) Our parents and other adults with whom we interacted rarely told us why we should or should not do or think something. “Just do as you’re told” was heard repeatedly as we were growing up. We rarely challenged or questioned. We did not have discussions where we were permitted input. While this authoritarian method is still common in some families, it was even more widely accepted in my younger years as “the right way” to raise children. This “obey the leader” instruction method is the modus operandi of many religions. 
2) The second method is what I refer to as “the open-minded teaching technique.” Generally speaking, it is the foundation of our nation’s public education system. We were encouraged at school to ask questions, to read and learn, to employ logic and reasoning in resolving problems. An essential element in learning how to think is to question. Most schools encourage children to develop their inquiring minds. Schoolteachers can of course be quite autocratic, and most of us had an “old Mrs. Stern” or two as we progressed through the grades. Or just ask anyone who was brought up in a parochial school. The same can be said for some foreign cultures where thinking for oneself in school is not tolerated and obedience to ethnic/cultural/religious orthodoxy is strictly enforced. 
My maternal grandmother was partial to the encouraging and teaching method, providing a welcome respite from the strictness of my parents. She marched to a different drummer and might have been a leader in the women’s liberation movement had she been born 50 years later. In addition to having frequent contact with her during my boyhood years, we all lived with her and my grandfather during my Dad’s wartime absence. Due to my age and our family circumstances at the time, I was around her much more than my two brothers, spending many hours playing and chatting in her kitchen. She did not tell me what to think; she prodded me to do so myself by responding to my endless questions with: “Well, what do you think?” Or, “have you thought about this?” I adored that woman, and she - as much as anyone - may have been responsible for why I eventually came to have a more-questioning outlook on life than my brothers. 
Despite her influence, I still wound up as a young married man relying on the “father knows best” style of running a household. But not entirely. Even before my wife started her gradual retraining of me, I knew deep down that there were better alternatives than the authoritarian approach. Most of us learn by the time we are adults to combine both methods, striking some sort of pragmatic balance. In our day-to-day work lives and as parents, we may resort to being authoritarian at times, while otherwise being the patient, encouraging, good-teacher type. Some adults, however, gravitate toward one or the other of those two methods, and then remain firmly entrenched in that way of thinking and acting for the rest of their lives. 
What I am leading up to here with all of this (and what it has to do with Aunt Bertha) is the proposition that many devout believers tend to prefer and pattern their lives on the authoritarian method. As noted in the previous chapter, it is no coincidence that social conservatives in this country (many of whom are devout Christians) tend see the world in stark black-and-white, right-and-wrong terms. God is good, Satan is bad; conservatives good - liberals bad; Americans good - the rest of the world not-so-good. To such people, unquestioning obedience is often more gratifying (and easier) than nuance, doubt, and uncertainty. Those who favor authoritarian solutions dislike ambiguity or wrestling with complex issues. They do not want to be seen as being indecisive or wasting time in negotiations. They believe in latching on to principles and remaining resolute. Might is right. Think John Wayne, Bush/Cheney, or the Pope - the latter frequently reminding us of the evils of moral relativism. While some of us see that as a rather simple way of assessing the world's many problems, it apparently makes them feel more secure and less fearful. 
Rush Limbaugh, the far-right's widely-worshipped radio commentator, is one of my favorite examples of an authoritarian mind. He is a bombastic megalomaniac as well, but definitely a believer in manipulating and controlling others and of advocating simple solutions. Though Limbaugh does not seem to be outwardly religious, he employs many of the same techniques used by the controllers of the religiously devout. You could put the title “reverend” in front of his name and it would fit perfectly. Like many men of the cloth, he is a master at convincing his listeners that they need not think beyond what he is telling them, that he has all the right answers. Just listen and believe. That is why, like the Christian radio stations cited in the previous chapter, he carefully avoids having alternative viewpoints aired on his show. It’s just him pontificating. No one is permitted to challenge what he’s saying. He continues telling his listeners what he has previously encouraged them to believe, that he and they are right about everything. Like all controllers, he needs an audience of the willing. Apart from needing the adulation that his listeners provide, keeping that large audience of “ditto-heads” also insures that he benefits personally by collecting big money. While many of his devoted fans subsist on meager earnings each year, he is said to be earning $40 million a year. 
This uncompromising, authoritarian outlook can be observed in the way that many conservative Christians view today's controversial social issues. Whether it is abortion, stem-cell research, homosexuality, or whatever new issue has grabbed the headlines, they want uncomplicated answers. They vainly search through the Bible looking for obscure words or passages to rationalize their beliefs.
Claiming that “life” begins at some precise (as determined by them) “moment of conception” requires no further reflection on a complicated issue. Wrap this “no-need-for-further-thought” in the flag of morality (thou shalt not “kill”) and you no longer have to ponder “quality of life.” No need to reflect on whether that tiny “life” is conscience of its existence. No reason to consider whether an unthinking sperm-egg droplet that has never experienced ice cream-topped apple pie or the first green grass of spring can be equated to a walking/talking human. One need not consider how many of those non-aborted embryos will grow-up in fatherless, impoverished, drug-taking households and then turn to a life of crime - a life that the “pro-lifers” will then insist on “terminating” either permanently or imprisoning forever. This lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key harshness is mirrored by their opposition to any form of public funding to help or better educate those whom God seems not to have blessed with His much-touted compassion. Nor have the pro-lifers encouraged a stampede to the adoption centers to take on the responsibility of looking after all those many unwanted babies that they insist be brought into this world. 
Their unyielding “all abortion is murder” line of thought also enables them to ignore the fact that 30-40 percent of all pregnancies are aborted naturally, or that many premature or seriously impaired babies will die soon after birth. These statistical realities compel me to ask why - if their God thinks every fertilized ovum is a “unique and special living person with a soul” - He does not intervene to prevent all those unique and special living persons with souls from ceasing to exist either before or soon after birth? If God truly treasures every tiny dot of “living” tissue, opposes abortion, and has the power to prevent all those natural-occurring miscarriages, why doesn’t He? Many, if not most of those fetuses, had they managed to survive full-term in the womb and not die soon after birth, would have imposed a huge emotional, psychological, and financial burden on their parents and our already struggling health-care system. If God truly intercedes in the affairs of man, why are there also no divinely assisted pregnancies for all the millions of infertile Christian couples who desperately prayed to be blessed with one of those special little ones with a soul? With God, “all things are possible!” 
Some autocratic religious leaders (especially Catholics) are so adamant about protecting their long-standing opposition to abortion that they have threatened their parishioners if they do not comply with the church's rigid stand on such matters. Forget democracy and the much-lauded right to vote as one sees fit. The church will tell you for whom to cast your ballot solely on this one issue. Considering God’s apparent indifference toward all those millions and millions of embryos and babies who are aborted or die naturally each year, one is entitled to wonder if this is really a paramount moral issue - or just a bunch of old men in purple and gold robes not wanting their imperious powers to be questioned? 
Apart from all their hard and fast rules, authoritarian controllers also like simple, emotional symbols to keep their people in line. These, too, require little thought. In Hitler’s Germany and the old Soviet Union, symbols and slogans were widely used to elicit the obedience and support of the masses. In our country, waving a flag or sticking a “Support the Troops” sticker on your rear bumper is seen by many conservatives as an essential way of showing love of country. These gestures convey the idea that “I am patriotic” (and, by implication, the guy who doesn’t wear or wave the flag, is not). Such patriotic displays suggest a "my country, right or wrong" way of thinking. “You’re either with us, or against us,” as our former President proudly put it. This shallow slogan does not, of course, apply to our “enemies.” In those countries (think Iran or Korea), we want and encourage their citizens to defy their leaders and rise up in protest. 
It should be noted, while on this subject, that many of this country's religious flag-wavers have never volunteered in any way to serve this country. If you doubt that, do a survey of today's congress or of the many right-wing radio/TV talking-heads. Most have never worn a military uniform, nor have they encouraged their children to join our all-volunteer armed forces where they could be put in harm's way. Their patriotic slogan should rightly be: “I love this country - just don’t make me or my children bear arms or jeopardize our lives to defend it!” 
While authoritarian (and totalitarian) governments have enjoyed some popular support over the decades (Nazi Germany, once again, and today’s Russia, to some extent), most people living under such conditions would prefer a kinder, more democratic way of governance. They did not choose to be submissive, mistreated subjects, nor do they enjoy living in a society where storm-troopers or secret police may come crashing through the front door. That is what makes religion so curious. Vast numbers of people voluntarily following the lead of the autocratic few who claim to have all the answers. No one forces them - they freely choose to let the controllers dominate their lives. 
Most people raised in such a setting will go right on being submissive. They will continue to quietly obey, letting the controllers think for them. A few, however, as noted previously, may come to disagree and move on to something else. Others will come to realize from watching the religious authorities that the power and control they have over others can be gratifying and rewarding. Rather than shrinking away to do as they are told, they start convincing themselves that God has beckoned them “to come forward and lead.” 
Today's Catholic Church, which evolved from the original movement started by the wandering apostles, is such a perfect example of an authoritarian, controlling religion that it deserves to be singled out. The Vatican is run by a handful of old, “highly demanding fathers.” Not always or necessarily “old” in age, but many (including some Catholics) would surely agree that their thinking is hardly modern. The handful of powerful elites who run that church are convinced that they and they alone know what is best for everyone - not just Catholics, but the rest of us as well. They have no reason to encourage input from the masses. They don’t even require strict adherence to the Bible. The Pope and other Catholic leaders, over the many centuries, have instead concocted a pageantry of bell-tinkling, smoke-wafting rituals and traditions (including strange and grandiloquent attire for themselves) that have absolutely nothing to do with any God or what the Bible says. In terms of wielding power, the Vatican leaders are not unlike the old communist party bosses of the Soviet Union, where the country was governed by a cadre of old men relying on ideological dogma and orthodoxy. Dissent in both instances was and is not tolerated. 
This is not to suggest that the Catholic Church is alone in its autocratic ways. With the exception of some of the more mainstream denominations, many Christian faiths - certainly most evangelical/fundamentalist religious bodies - are not known for their democratic principles. The large and influential Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), for example, claims that local churches are autonomous in terms of governance. When you read between the lines of their policy statements, however, you can see that the ruling authorities still retain enormous control over the regional and local churches. Just ask any female who ever longed to become an SBC pastor. Sorry, the authorities say, but the Bible does not allow that. Want to defy your husband a bit, perhaps challenge his total dominance over your household? Too bad, once again - according to the Bible. Their selective reading of ancient scripture enables them to dictate to their modern-day congregants in a very undemocratic, dogmatic fashion, keeping them on a short leash. 
While the people who chose (oops, were “picked” by God) to run these autocratic religious organizations always claim that they are just doing what God expects or demands of them, the evidence indicates otherwise. As already suggested, their real reasons for choosing the clerical life may be carefully obscured. Consider, for example, the many troubling revelations about a fair number of Catholic priests. I single out that faith once again, not because I want to denigrate the Catholic leadership (I try to be an equal-opportunity critic when it comes to religion), but because their pedophile scandal has a direct bearing on all of this. 
Evidence suggests that the appalling sexual misbehavior of some of their “leaders” is not a recent phenomenon, and that their ruling hierarchies have known about it all along. There was concern as far back as the 4th Century about pedophilia among some of their leaders. The church’s long-ago, gradual move toward celibacy may have originated and then evolved as a means of concealing the true sexual inclination of at least some of their early leaders. Then, as today, the idea that you were “married” to the church or to Christ provided an outward, legitimate-appearing cover for one’s sexual dysfunction. Though some early Popes were married, the church’s eventual adoption of celibacy gave those of confused sexuality a respectable way of avoiding marriage while, at the same time, concealing their true sexual inclination from an otherwise disapproving populace. Their career choice enabled them to assert power and control others while being shown deference and respect. Not just from church members, but from the community at large. 
A long-time Catholic friend of mine seriously considered going into the priesthood when he was young. He had been taught to think highly of the local priest, and - like many good Catholics - his family thought that his becoming one would be an admirable career choice. My friend, however, abruptly changed his mind. When I asked why, he gave a one-word answer: “Girls.” He was a hormone-energized young man who, upon further reflection, could not imagine a life trying to repress his normal sexual urges. 
I am not suggesting here that all priests (or nuns) have atypical sexual inclinations or secret yearnings toward young children or others of the same sex. Nonetheless, the question here is whether some (if not many) who go into the service of that church do so for the reasons that they claim. Given the intensity of sexual desire, I do not comprehend why any young person would take a vow of lifelong celibacy - unless they are harboring thoughts that they know put them outside the sexual mainstream. In which case, their career choice may have far more to do with personal issues than serving God. 
Catholic women may have other, more compelling reasons for opting to “marry God” (that perfect male figure). Apart from those who have same-sex leanings, they may have experienced physical and/or mental mistreatment or observed the same with their mothers or other female relatives. Or they may believe for a variety of other reasons - including that they are not attractive to men - that they will never marry. Becoming a nun or missionary or serving the church in some capacity as an unmarried woman gives them respect, plus an opportunity to help others without further mistreatment or condemnation of their sexuality.  I am not suggesting that those are the only reasons for choosing to serve the church and forsake marriage. 
No matter what kind of explanation one might concoct, no Catholic has ever been able to convince me that a life-long vow of celibacy is “normal” - for anyone. How can that church’s “chosen” leaders proclaim that celibacy for them is right and God-endorsed, while at the same time asserting that birth control is abnormal and contrary to God’s wishes? We are supposed to believe that God gave man a penis and told him to go forth and multiply, then a few thousand years later decided that His grandly-attired clergymen should not do so. Celibacy for them is now “right and normal” - while playing “father-knows-best” with the altar boys? That is God’s will? That is how He wanted His chosen ones to behave? God wants them to cease begetting, yet wants all the modern-day Eves to be constantly impregnated and impoverished? Your religious perspective is totally skewed if you don't recognize that there is something quite wrong with that picture. 
Some Catholics will of course disagree with what I have just said. Even lapsed Catholics. A non-religious friend who was educated in parish schools says he questions whether the church’s pedophile problem is any worse than in the general population. Having been around priests and other Catholic controllers in his youth, he continues to believe that most opted to serve the church for all or many of the reasons they claim, and that sexual dysfunction may have been a factor in only a small percentage of cases. No more so, he suspects, than among the overall population. A better explanation might be that his more-reverential thinking is still unduly influenced by his long-ago indoctrination. The Vatican’s instructional method appears to retain its hold and influence over its one-time adherents more successfully than many other religions. I long ago stopped closing my eyes and bowing my head in “God’s house.” Many former Catholics, I have noticed over the years, still participate in all the traditional rituals at funerals, weddings, and other occasions where they find themselves back in church. That old parish-imposed catechism seems still firmly implanted somewhere in the recesses of their minds. 
My skepticism that God “chooses” His earthly agents is further fueled by the fact that He seems to “call” many sons of clergy to do His work (though naturally not among Catholics). Paternalistic emulation is of course not restricted to religion. The son-following-father career-path is common in business, politics, law, medicine, sports, entertainment, and many other professions. There is nothing especially odd about that, except - it seems to me - for the sons or daughters of religious leaders. One might argue that it makes perfect sense, as the offspring of clergy are more apt to be familiar with the Bible or whatever theological doctrine forms the foundation of their faith. But if the inspiration, insight, and knowledge to become a religious leader come directly from God, as “His chosen ones” generally claim, then it follows that one need not be a minister’s son to “receive the call.” There are plenty of impressive men and women walking around on earth who, with God’s supposed blessing and guidance, could become excellent teachers and spokespersons. Yet, He continues to choose many who already have a religious background. I see this as further confirmation of what I said earlier - that religion is simply learned from others and passed on, rather than being inspired from “on High.” 
God's "chosen ones" are doing the choosing. They are selecting a livelihood with which they are familiar and where they have learned from personal observation that, among other things, they will be able to influence and dominate others. Their work will also insure that they receive deference and respect, so long as they can continue to convince their followers that God truly selected them to do His work. Those who opt for the ministerial life are just doing what many other young people do - picking a profession that, at least at the outset, holds out promise for them. There is, however, a major difference between what motivates inexperienced “spiritual leaders” (or potential leaders) and the reasoning of those who settle on non-religious careers. 
Few professions require a belief that you can understand and communicate with the supposed Creator of the Universe. Schoolteachers lead, instruct, and inspire, but they do so by passing on factual information, what is known or can be proven. Theology is not a required course for future doctors or lawyers. Young social workers learn to help those in need - but faith in a mythical deity is not necessary for their curriculum. Architects need mathematics, but not metaphysics, to build or transform existing structures. No profession except religion requires a belief in an unseen deity and the sanctity of ancient scripture. Many people who serve in these professions are obviously religious, but faith in a mythical deity was not a prerequisite in their career choice. 
Most potential members of the clergy decide on that line of work at a young age, often as teenagers or in their early-twenties. That is not generally a time when they would be  highly informed or wise about the world. When I was that age, even with a recently discharged Marine sergeant’s “follow-me” attitude, I still did not think that I knew enough about life to instruct an audience on anything. I could have handled a squad of privates and corporals, but not a gathering of hundreds or thousands. It takes considerable conceit, it seems to me, to think that at such a young age (even with future religious schooling) you would know enough to tell a congregation of adults (many of them two or three times older and much more experienced than you) how they should conduct their lives. 
I am reminded here of a visit some years ago with my older brother. We were sitting around his kitchen table talking when a young man showed up at the door. He was the son of their pastor, a lad barely out of high school. I gathered from the ensuing conversation that he was going to “preach” at their church that Sunday. After he left, I sought confirmation from my brother and his wife. Much as in the preceding paragraphs, I expressed my amusement at the thought of that “kid” up in front of their church. “Oh,” my brother said, “he can really preach. And he knows his Bible.” Perhaps, I replied, but what does he know about life? What could possibly make you think, I asked, that at his age he possesses the experience and wisdom to tell others how they should live? My brother’s response was simply to reiterate, “yeah, he’s young, but he really does know his Bible, and he really does know how to preach.” His thoughtless dismissal of my question spoke for itself. 
There are many other dubious claims of people being “chosen” by God, but having already adequately expounded on that topic, I will suggest just one further example. Over the past decade or so, both women and acknowledged gays/lesbians have been gradually moving into leadership positions, primarily in the more mainline Protestant churches. Even in these generally more temperate faiths, their advancement has generated unrest, leading some to claim that they should be removed. 
If God selects all of His earthly leaders, and a woman or a gay/lesbian is given "the call," how can their critics question His decision? Well, they say, in the case of “those people,” they weren’t really chosen by God. They appointed themselves; they’re imposters. Yet, only rarely does one hear parishioners challenging the right of “chosen” heterosexuals to serve, even after they have been caught misbehaving. Even more curious is the fact that after their misdeeds have become publicized, many in their church will continue to stand by them. Witness the pedophilia scandal and the many Catholics who steadfastly supported "their good priest" despite all the incontrovertible evidence against them. Some even denounced the secular authorities who uncovered and proved all the charges against their supposed “man of God.” 
Most of the people who signed on to the Jesus movement long ago were illiterate. Along came the few who could read and write, and they quickly became the teachers, interpreters, and eventually the clergymen/controllers. It is no accident that throughout the centuries, those religious “leaders” preferred to keep the masses in the dark, even when it appeared that they were “teaching” them. They were informing them for sure, but the sermons and texts and lessons were crafted to insure that the teachers stayed totally in charge. The ability of religious teachers to control the thinking and behavior of their followers is enhanced by their dated theology. The often bewildering and incomprehensible dogma of ancient religious books enables “the teachers” to put their spin on whatever it is they are telling their people. They can do this in both routine and specialized ways. Talking to congregations and keeping the old words in obscure languages and rituals, while asserting that this gives special meaning to worship, enables them to better exercise and retain control. So does “talking” in gibberish (tongues), as is done in some Pentecostal churches. This deceptive practice enables those who claim to be in the know “to translate” the unintelligible, psychobabble yammering as they see fit. 
The willingness of so many people to believe that their religious leaders know more than them furthers deception. Sit with an open mind in any house of worship for more than 5 minutes and I guarantee that you will hear the person at the podium brashly tossing out one unprovable fact after another. Those who claim to be the most opposed to “bearing false witness” appear, in fact, to excel at doing so. I recently heard a well-known televangelist assert that God knew “millions of years ago” precisely who our parents would be today. Apart from what seemed a curious acknowledgment that our universe is much-much older than the Genesis account, he was asserting that an unprovable fact was “the truth.” He was so persuasive and cocksure that few if any in his audience probably gave a moment of thought to his fabrication. As I continued to listen, I heard him toss out over and over again so-called "truths" that in fact could never be proven. The congregation just sat there nodding approval and saying “amen.” 
Controlling how people think is facilitated by getting them when they are young. Indoctrinate them when they are not old enough to think things through on their own. All religions do this. The purpose of Protestant Sunday schools is to impart the church’s “ways” to young, impressionable minds. Some evangelical/fundamentalist faiths now have their own schools, which they established out of concern that public schools were too secular and not teaching “correct Christian values.” Home schooling has also become increasingly popular over the past couple of decades, largely for the same reason. While the Catholic Church first established its own schools in this country in the 19th Century for somewhat different reasons, the end result is now an educational system aimed at insuring allegiance to Catholic orthodoxy. In recent years, we have learned about the Madrassa schools, whose aim seems largely to create a new generation of militant, anti-West, Islamic extremists. In all of these instances, the intent is not to educate by opening minds, but to insure a continuation of theological conformity, to control thought and behavior and perpetuate the religion. This is the authoritarian way. 
Controlling and limiting knowledge and information is not, of course, unique to religion. Other professions also rely on uncommon terminology and language to make comprehension for laymen so difficult that only their kind can explain. Law, medicine, sports, indeed nearly all professions, do this. All have created new and bewildering words and concepts, plus a specialized language that only they understand. I recently sat in a dental chair listening to my dentist and her assistant discuss my teeth. I might as well have been listening to two people talking in Swahili. Try to understand a doctor's report and it will take hours with a medical dictionary to translate the many confusing words and terms, and even then you will be lucky to understand half of what was said. All of these new and specialized ways of communicating limit our understanding, insuring that those in charge will continue to control us. 
Having said all of this, my minister brother and most other clergyman would at this point no doubt respond: “Hold on there, Mr. Atheist. What could you possibly know about any of this?” No matter what I and other skeptics suggest regarding their true motives, they will go right on firmly believing that they did not volunteer for the job, that they are just doing what God asks of them, and that life on earth is better for all their efforts. Most will deny that they have been motivated by any of the reasons I have suggested. 
While many of today’s clergy appear to be doing “God’s work” in a caring, compassionate manner, they are still controlling the lives of others. They succeed so long as they can manage to convince their flocks that they are the authority, the one who knows what is best. Citing the Bible (or any old theological book) helps solidify control. Convince the masses that you possess a special knowledge and that God has told you what He wants. “It’s not me saying this, folks; it’s The Good Lord.” This is a proven ay of getting your flock to fall in line, to get them to march along according to your drum-beat. The controllers enjoy this; it gives them much pleasure. 


Chapter 7: The Pleasure Is All Mine
 
We live in the 21st Century, a time when we know (or can know) about everything from bacteria to black holes in distant galaxies. We are knowledgeable of all of those many, many things that were unknown to Matthew, Mark, and Moses - and most others for another few thousand years. Our advancements have enabled us to accomplish all manner of things that just 50 years ago were unimaginable, except perhaps to some very forward thinkers. The entire human genome has been completely deciphered; we can now chat with and simultaneously see people on the opposite side of earth; we can navigate our cars by means of signals from satellites circling our planet; we have placed amazing cameras in outer space, where they take stunning pictures of our universe. We can now know about such things in seconds with our Googling fingertips, providing we can work our way past all the commercials, the new-age nonsense, and the countless self-serving websites that now pervade the Internet. 
Our ever-expanding knowledge has enabled us to discard virtually all of the beliefs and practices of ancient people - religion being the singular, major exception. Most people today rely on common-sense and rational thought in their everyday lives, yet come their Sabbath they willingly trudge off to be told that they should live according to the thoughts of those long-ago men who lived in earthen huts and ate with their fingers. 
I struggled for decades trying to understand this. Why could otherwise sensible people not see the same dated absurdity and irrelevancy in the Bible and other ancient religious books that was so apparent to me? Why could they not recognize that today’s God was simply the last standing in that long line of archaic, man-made deities? Why did they continue to believe in the power of prayer, when it was so obvious to me that seeking divine assistance had the same outcome as tossing pennies into a public fountain? 
My puzzlement over these and similar long-standing questions was all the more baffling when I applied them to some of my friends who are believers. These are people who, unlike the Aunt Berthas of the world, think much like me. They are informed, reflective, and sensible in their everyday lives. We read similar books. We enjoy many of the same activities and pastimes. All that is really different from them and me is that they attend worship services. Some do so each week, others less frequently. They are Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, even a couple of evangelical types. 
Their most common response to my inquiring questions about their faith is that they simply find believing to be reassuring. It is, they say, more comforting to them than not believing. Most look upon the Bible as just one of many guides to better living, rather than as a book of absolute shalts and shalt-nots. They recognize its flaws, that it contains many questionable parts. They acknowledge that the evolutionary explanation for human existence cannot be dismissed; they do not agonize over the contradictions between Darwinian and Abrahamic thought, or they have adopted a personal faith that somehow accommodates both. Prayer, for most of them, like their faith in general, is largely a benign expression of hope. 
A few of these friends have modified traditional beliefs, taking from them what they want and creating a personal theology. In doing so, they have formed a subjective creed that satisfies their own needs while acknowledging that some, in a few instances many, of the questions that I am raising in this book are legitimate. One friend, for example, readily accepts the scientific reality that our universe was formed billions of years ago, but he believes that God caused this to happen and then took a hands-off approach, allowing human life to develop and evolve as it has. Many moderate Christians have adopted a similar acceptance of evolution in the face of overwhelming scientific proof. They ignore or rationalize the obvious inconsistencies with the Genesis creation tale. My friend’s “free will explanation” has God not interceding in any way in earthly matters, which for him answers that oft-difficult question of, “why does a good God allow bad things to happen?” He shuns traditional prayer, where people seek guidance and help. He believes that we should thank God for all that we have, nothing more. Even with all of this, his personalized religious outlook is still a flawed attempt to explain the unexplainable. It is still based on unprovable assertions. He has created answers that please him. At least that is how I see it. 
What I came to eventually understand from all of this was that religious faith has survived and endured because in a world of daily concerns and uncertainty, believing makes people feel good. It pleases them to believe and hope that there is some sort of divine entity out there in charge of everything, someone looking out for them. It comforts them to think that what they believe is true. Religious faith, I have concluded, is just one of the many pleasures that all humans seek in their daily lives. For the more devout, it seems to surpass most other pleasures. 
The pursuit of pleasure! So obvious the answer, yet it took me decades to make a direct connection between faith and the human brain’s constant striving for pleasure. Believing that there is a God and a glorious after-life, whether true or not, makes people happy. Faith and hope provide reassurance and pleasure. Experts in human behavior have no doubt long known this, but it took me many years to make that association. 
At this point, Aunt Bertha would probably interject, perhaps indignantly. “Hold on there, young man,” she might say. “Don’t you connect serving The Lord and being a good Christian with drinking alcohol, dancing, gambling, fornication, and all those other "sins.” She would of course be correct in identifying “those sins” as pleasurable; few who have indulged in such pursuits would disagree. But she would be misconstruing my use of the terms pleasure and pleasure seeking. 
As I am about to explain, pleasure - as discussed in this chapter and book - has a much broader meaning. It encompasses far more than just enjoying the calming effect of Prozac, a shot or two of Old Thunder, or yielding to those lustful yearnings that I was warned about long ago. It is more than just the short-term reckless and irresponsible behavior that we often enjoy in our youth. I am referring here to all of the routine thoughts and activities that we humans engage in that our brains tell us are appealing and satisfying - and which we pursue continuously, even when we are not consciously aware of that pursuit. To explain where I am going with this line of thought and what it has to do with Aunt Bertha's religious beliefs, I need to go back a few decades. 
I was browsing through a bookstore in London in 1974 when a title caught my attention: “The Pleasure Areas,” by British physiologist H. J. Campbell. Flipping through the pages, I quickly realized that the author was delving into precisely the subject that at the time was stimulating my own curiosity - how all of our daily thoughts and actions are governed by a subconscious mental process that compels us to maximize pleasure while striving to minimize displeasure. Pleasure, happiness, satisfaction, enjoyment, contentment, or just plain old “feelin' good” - pick your own term. They all involve a brain process that provides a sense of inner peace and positive outlook, an emotional feeling that puts a grin or smile on our face. Dr. Campbell preferred the term “pleasure,” and I think it best describes what we are talking about here. Pleasure , he said, is “the name we give to the subjective feeling we experience when the limbic areas of our brains are electrically active.” 
Perhaps the good doctor, as well as the many other professionals in this field, will excuse me for trying to explain and squeeze into a few paragraphs a topic to which he devoted some 250 pages. And trying to do so in a rather simple, unscientific manner. His central thesis, based on years of research on both animals and humans, was that all living creatures are pleasure-seekers, that our brains subconsciously strive to stimulate the “pleasure areas” of the brain as much and as often as possible. That stimulation, according to Dr. Campbell, the sense of pleasure that we feel inwardly, is caused by increased electrical/chemical activity in specific regions of the brain. The greater the stimulation, the more we experience a feeling or sensation of pleasure. Conversely, electrical/chemical stimulation or lack thereof in the same or other parts of the brain causes us to sense displeasure. The latter may manifest itself in a variety of ways, such as feeling anxious, restless, frustrated, irritated, angry, depressed, and so forth. 
What Dr. Campbell (and other researchers) found was that rats, once they learned the levers in their cages were the cause of positive (or negative) jolts of electricity to their wire-attached brains, would repeatedly hit the lever that gave them bursts of pleasure (or carefully avoid it if it caused jolts of displeasure). The rats would eventually ignore other major pleasure-inducers, such as eating or sexual copulation, in order to constantly push the levers that they had learned would cause them to experience the most pleasurable sensations. That pleasure trumped all others, and they would continue pushing the levers that caused that gratification until some other more pleasurable activity was discovered. We are not rats, of course, but Dr. Campbell confirmed that his findings could be applied to humans. 
In the 35 years since his book was first published, there has been much further research and much more discovered and written about human behavior, brain functionality, and what compels us to do all the things we do. Dr. Campbell’s findings have also been questioned by some later researchers, suggesting that his inter-cranial stimulation had simply tapped into parts of the brain that involve cravings/addiction and reward/punishment rather than true “pleasure/displeasure” zones. Though some of the complex brain processes are still not fully understood or agreed upon by the experts, it seems nonetheless that Dr. Campbell was on to something: that all human behavior is driven by a subconscious preference for and determination to engage in thinking and activities that make us feel good (pleasure), while trying to avoid or minimize those that do not (displeasure). Once aware of this powerful instinct, it can be readily observed in all of our thoughts and actions. 
I first started thinking about all of this when I was in my mid-thirties. I would listen to people talking about how they or someone they knew had done something that they thought was completely unselfish. That selfless activity or gesture, they seemed to think, was motivated by pure altruism. While I did not dispute the beneficial outcome of their efforts - that others were being helped or served in some way - I came to question the claim that there was no selfish intent on the part of the person lending a hand. 
A solidifying event in my thinking about this occurred when I got into a discussion with a friend about his Saturday morning mentoring of inner-city youth. I say mentoring, but all that he was really doing was hanging out and playing basketball with a few kids who had no positive male role models in their life. He was doing this as part of his church’s “outreach.” As we discussed all of this, it became obvious to me that he felt expending those few hours each Saturday was a selfless act, though one that his faith compelled him to undertake. Overlooking his church’s self-interest in such activities, I applauded his willingness to spend some time with kids who might benefit from a bit of male bonding. However, I wondered if he would still do so if it ceased to be a rewarding experience, one that he derived little to no pleasure from doing. Would he stop his mentoring when or if he found something else to do on a Saturday morning that pleased him more? Or would he feel so giving of his time if he was accosted and robbed as he was getting out of his car down there in “the hood?” Would he continue if his safety was imperiled? He admitted that the satisfaction or pleasure derived from helping those kids would diminish and probably disappear altogether under either of those circumstances. He also admitted that there were other activities that he would prefer doing on weekends, but that he felt “obligated” by his church’s involvement. His brain weighed that sense of obligation as a displeasure that he had to balance against the pleasure of feeling that he was doing something worthwhile for society or his religion. In time, he gave it all up to engage in other more pleasurable Saturday morning activities. 
The final argumentation here, it seems to me, is that while altruism is good and beneficial both to ourselves and society in general, it happens not because people are unselfish, but because it pleases us to help others. It is not a true sacrificing of one’s best interest. I am simply reiterating here what is or should be well known: that doing good deeds is a rewarding, pleasurable activity - both to the beneficiary and the one lending a hand. 
The more I continued to think about this over the years, the more I came to believe that our brains have a common motivating mechanism that compels us to first and foremost always do what benefits and pleases us - or those closest to us. Further reflection led me to suspect that the precise brain process that is involved in our pleasure seeking was not just a momentary behavioral motivator, but rather a genetically-driven, immutable impulse linked to our survival instinct. Put more simply, it seems we are all “programmed” from birth to both stay alive and do what pleases us or displeases us the least at any given moment of time. That is the framework, as I see it, which subconsciously governs all our thoughts and behavior as the minutes and hours pass. Once again, I am not inventing the wheel here. This behavioral explanation is recognized by experts in such matters. 
I do not pretend to understand the inner-workings of our brains, but I don’t think you have to be a behavioral scientist or neurologist to observe or understand this pleasure-seeking theory. You do not have to know all about serotonin or the amygdala to grasp the idea that we are all driven by this pursuit of pleasure, or self-interest, to use the more common terminology. This can be readily observed by simply paying attention to our daily activities. We don’t normally do this, since most of us go through the hours and days in an auto-pilot mode, not stopping to reflect on whether what we are doing at any given moment is pleasurable or displeasurable. It is all done subconsciously. 
We can enhance our sense of pleasure by our thoughts. A devout believer can do so by thinking about God or getting to heaven; a slacker can feel happy day-dreaming about being on a sun-bathed beach in Hawaii; a randy male can induce mental pleasure by fantasizing about disrobing the sexy lady next door. Conversely, we can induce a sense of mental displeasure by thinking about going back to work Monday morning, reflecting on someone we love who is suffering from a terminal illness, or worrying if our stock market-based retirement plan is going to be totally destroyed in a financial melt-down. To the extent possible, we try to put displeasurable thoughts out of mind. 
While thinking good thoughts is mentally rewarding, actually participating in activities that enhance our sense of pleasure is even more satisfying. Having sex is nearly always more gratifying than just thinking about it. We can derive pleasure from a mouth-watering meal, playing with our grandchildren, praying, or discovering a cure for the common cold. Displeasurable activities might include having to spend the weekend astride a ladder painting the house, doing homework, or putting up with unwelcome house-guests. Most of the time we are thinking and acting simultaneously as we go about our daily pleasure-displeasure dance. 
While many human pleasures are widely if not universally recognized (accumulating money, sex, eating, listening to one’s preferred music, and so forth), others are not. Pleasure and displeasure can be quite subjective. John Greenthumb may thoroughly enjoy spending his Saturdays mowing his lawn and puttering about in his yard; his neighbor, Frank Foursome, cannot stand the sight of yard tools, preferring to spend his spare time at the country club with his hands on a five-iron or cold bottle of Coors. Helen Teaparty detests housework and potty training, while her sister-in-law, Susie Sunshine, happily embraces all facets of motherhood and cleans the toilets at 11pm. For many people, life offers few or no pleasures. Their existence is one of choosing the lesser of the many displeasurable options that they confront daily. 
We humans are all very similar, yet quite different. We all have distinct life experiences which, combined with our genetic makeup and the nurturing that we received in our formative years, compel us to seek-out different pleasures or avoid what displeases us. At the most extreme, some (fortunately not many) people derive pleasure from engaging in sickening, bizarre behavior that horrifies the rest of us. Explaining the “pleasures” of thugs and bullies, rapists, sadomasochists, murderers, and all the assorted other anti-social wackos is beyond my expertise, other than the thought that the human capacity for empathy seems to have completely eluded them during their formative years. 
While we share a common pursuit of pleasure maximization with rats and other lesser creatures, there is a major difference. Human consciousness provides us with a mental braking-mechanism that can and often is applied to keep us from overindulging in pleasure when it threatens to drag us into self-destructive behavior. Most of us, as we progress from primal, infant pleasure-seekers to (supposedly) responsible adults, acquire a sense of right and wrong that governs our behavior. We learn to control our pleasure-seeking ways. 
If you think we are not pleasure seekers from the womb, just contemplate for a few moments the behavior of the young. The first couple of years are all about satisfying basic needs - eating, sleeping, getting a clean diaper, being held, and so forth. All of their awake hours are aimed at self-gratification. They cry or scream when their pleasure-seeking desires are not met, or when they experience inwardly any sense of discomfort or displeasure. This early-life behavior would seem to confirm the connection between basic survival and pleasure-seeking/displeasure-avoidance. 
Small children will continue to display similar behavior even as they grow. They can be and often are selfish little devils prone to outbursts when they do not get their way. When their pleasure-seeking or displeasure-avoiding ways are thwarted, they often react strongly. In time, however, with proper training, they learn to restrain their selfish impulses, at least most of the time. They get the hang of playing peacefully with others and sharing toys. They change as they learn what is socially acceptable behavior. They come to know that there are behavioral norms that they are expected to follow, even though these may displease. They learn to coexist with others by curbing their selfish ways. 
Most of us, by the time we are adults, have learned that if we continue to allow ourselves to be governed solely by our quest for selfish, personal pleasure, there can be unpleasant consequences. Even so, nearly all humans struggle to keep this innate quest for pleasure maximization in check. The desire for sexual gratification, especially for men, is so powerful that some will engage in risky behavior to temporarily satisfy that need. President Bill Clinton and his widely reported dalliances come quickly to mind. Elliot Spitzer, former governor of New York, is another good example. He had to resign following the revelation that he had been paying large sums of money for regular visits to high-class prostitutes. His yearning for sexual pleasure beyond the bedroom of his own home was apparently so intense that he was willing to risk ruining his marriage and career as a corruption-buster and fast-rising political star in the Democratic Party. In the previous chapter, I alluded to Ted Haggard, once prominent in the nation’s evangelical movement. He was forced to acknowledge several years ago that, despite his repeated rants against homosexuality, he had been a regular customer of a gay “massage therapist.” Apart from the potential blow to one’s reputation, career, and marriage, sexual misconduct can also result in other quite displeasurable consequences with which we are all familiar. 
Another prime example of the continuous pleasure-displeasure back-and-forth that goes on in all our heads can be observed or experienced with drugs. Amazing things happen when certain chemicals are ingested into the body. Users of illicit drugs tell of an explosion of pleasure, so much so that many addicts say they became hooked while trying to recreate over and over again the same rush they got from that first intensely memorable shot or snort. 
Drug-induced pleasures can of course eventually turn into a devastating displeasure that all too often leads to self-destruction or death. Ditto for alcohol, which can provide occasional, intermittent pleasure. Excessive consumption, as we all know, often leads to the breakup of families, ruination of health, and ultimately the same outcome as continued usage of hard drugs. Cigarettes provide pleasure, though the long-term consequences of inhaling smoke into one’s lungs are now well known. Drugs, alcohol, cigarettes - all provide so much short-term pleasure that users will ignore the long-term negative (displeasurable) consequences. 
I discovered a few years ago after surgery just how warm and nice Percocet can make you feel. I had never previously taken any strong pain medicine, but after the first pill it became obvious to me why many people resort to telling their doctor: “Advil just won’t do it for me anymore, doc. I need something stronger.” I quickly realized how easy it might be to become seduced into taking more of the happy-go-lucky stuff. My brain, however, told me that no matter how good that pill made me feel at the time, continued usage would not be in my long-term best interest. Judging from the widespread consumption and misuse of both prescription and illicit drugs, many humans are unable to resist the short-term gratification that our nation’s street-dealers and pharmaceutical companies offer. Just like Dr. Campbell’s rats. Today’s TV commercials offer an endless parade of pleasure-fulfilling promises from the drug industry - everything from 4-hour erections to miraculous cures for arthritic knees and hips. As a nation of pleasure-seekers and pain-avoiders, the drug companies are quite happy to oblige us. They create endless products that enable them to tap into our wallets. Higher profits are their pleasure. 
These examples of pleasure seeking serve to illustrate what should be apparent: short-term pleasure nearly always trumps long-term pleasure. We are genetically programmed to favor immediate pleasure over the delayed pleasure that one might obtain from saving for a rainy day. This makes sense from an evolutionary and survival standpoint. Our primitive ancestors were focused on the “now,” not what they might be doing weeks or months away. Their existence was one of hourly and daily survival. They hoarded nuts to prevent starvation during the winter, not to barter for a bigger cave or trade-up to a better spear or ax. Short-term pleasure seeking (eating, reproduction, finding shelter) or avoidance of the ultimate displeasure (death) was virtually all there was to their daily struggle. Only much later, as the human brain evolved, did they come to recognize and appreciate the need and value of having longer-term goals - goals which if fulfilled could some day lead to more enduring pleasures. 
Nonetheless, throughout the ages this has been a hard lesson to learn, or stick to diligently. Judging from what we can readily observe, instant gratification remains the highest priority for many modern-day humans. As a nation, we are drowning in debt due to the pursuit of “pleasure now.” Most of our money is spent satisfying our desires of the moment, leaving little to nothing for investing in objects or goals with long-term value. When we run out of our own money, we borrow from the banks or credit card companies, agreeing to pay outrageous interest charges just to satisfy our desire for instant enjoyment. We buy expensive, eye-popping cars that we neither need nor can afford; we sign-up for huge mortgages so that we can immediately reside in gigantic, energy-consuming houses that are not necessary to live happily and in comfort; we spend money we do not have to take expensive vacations in exotic locales; we cannot avoid the temptation to buy all the very latest techno gizmos that were designed precisely with short-term pleasure-fulfillment in mind. 
Of all the many contrivances that humans have come up with to satisfy their insatiable quest for pleasure, money reigns supreme - for obvious reasons. It allows us to seek out and acquire or engage in all manner of other pleasures. Without it, our fun-loving behavior is severely curtailed. Our brains view money as just another potent drug. Once we have seen what it can do for us, we want more. Much more. No matter how many millions the wealthy acquire, it is never enough. We read almost daily of the obscene excesses of rich New York investment bankers, corporate CEOs, oil sheikhs, entertainers, and professional athletes. There seems to be no limit to their greed, while billions of other people strive to survive on an hourly minimum wage or less. The wealthy rationalize their endless quest for more and more money by asserting that their station in life clearly demonstrates that they are superior to others and thus deserving of their wealth. Never mind that they just caused the world’s economy to tank or failed to get into the playoffs! 
For we mere mortals, obtaining money to satisfy our daily pursuit of pleasure means having to endure the daily grind. For most people, work is not very pleasurable; it is often quite the opposite. Many surveys over the years have confirmed that most people do not enjoy the work they must do to obtain the money that is necessary for their survival. Acquiring money means devoting a sizable amount of time engaged in some form of displeasurable labor. We do so out of necessity. Here, as in countless other instances, one displeasure is preferable to an even worse displeasure. No work means no money, so we trudge off to our tedious livelihoods in order to be able to buy food and pay for the place that shelters us. 
Procrastination - no doubt more of a true national pastime than baseball - is a way of avoiding displeasure. If you hate mowing the lawn or ironing shirts, you will come up with endless excuses for doing something more pleasurable. You see where it might rain tonight, so if you leave the mowing until tomorrow, it will be too wet, which then permits you to put it all off for another day or so. All of us have a talent for delaying the many un-enjoyable chores that we confront routinely each day. They agitate the displeasure zones in our brains, so we come up with excuses for doing something that we enjoy. We all love our short-term pleasure-seeking excuses. The ancient religious ones referred to this avoidance of displeasure or laziness as “sloth” - one of the “seven deadly sins.” On that one, what the old Bible writers thought is still quite relevant, even if it is a bit of a stretch to equate laziness with death. 
Readers are by now probably once again wondering where I am going with this line of thought. What does all this talk of pleasure and displeasure have to do with believing in what I maintain is a mythical God? Bear with me, as I’m going to bring all of this together in a moment. First, however, it might be useful to further illustrate what I have been discussing here with a brief example of how this pleasure-displeasure struggle gets played out on a typical day. To do so, I offer a brief glimpse into my own daily routine. 
Being retired, I no longer have to respond to an alarm clock. I do, nonetheless, because my wife still works. She continues to work, despite her age, because she still derives pleasure from doing so. I get up when she does and prepare our breakfast. I also fix her a lunch to go. Like shaving, I derive no satisfaction or pleasure from any of these early morning obligations. I get up and help because sleeping-in and leaving her on her own to cope with breakfast and lunch-making would be a more displeasurable course of action for me. She appreciates my “get-the-day-going” assist and would think less of me if I stayed in bed. My morning chores are the least displeasurable options confronting me at that time of day. 
I go through a similar pleasure/displeasure balancing act throughout the day. I now run most of our errands and do our grocery shopping. She hates going to the grocer, having done it regularly for some 40 years. It is pleasure-displeasure neutral for me. Most mornings, after the chores and with coffee in hand (a pleasurable habit), I usually spend a few hours at this keyboard. Thinking and writing about all of this religious and human behavior stuff is a  pleasurable way for me to spend part of each day.
I often prepare our evening meal. This, too, I do not really enjoy, but neither does my wife after working all day. It is another example of my brain choosing subconsciously between the lesser of two undesirables - preparing the meal myself or leaving the task to her. It pleases her when I have something ready to eat. Going out for dinner and letting someone else prepare our meal is a pleasurable alternative for both of us, one that we opt for once or twice a week. Judging from all the crowded restaurants and prepared foods in the grocery stores, many Americans derive the same pleasure from letting others prepare their food or cook for them. 
All of us, whether working, retired, going to school, or engaged in some other avocation, go through a similar seemingly-unthinking weighing-of-the-options process as the minutes and hours roll by. This can be easily understood once you begin to truly think about it. 
Those who are still dubious of this selfish, inward-looking pleasure-displeasure theory may have picked up on my comments about doing things for my wife, even when I derive no enjoyment from doing so. “Aha,” they might say, “there is proof that humans do have an unselfish nature.” They might claim that it demonstrates the human capacity for love and benevolence and all those other nice-sounding words, and that such behavior is thus not selfishly motivated. For the devout, this capacity to love and help others is often connected to God’s so-called influence over our lives. 
Yes, most of us have strong feelings for others and will help them. Society benefits greatly from “loving your neighbor, as you would love yourself” (even if that is not actually possible). What we perceive to be love or altruism is still selfishly motivated behavior. The legendary Mother Theresa and others who devote their lives to helping the needy and downtrodden under difficult circumstances do so not because they are unselfish caregivers, but because it gives them pleasure. They enjoy doing what they do, even if their chosen station in life would appeal to few others. If they derive little to no pleasure from what they do, they will find another livelihood. My love of my girlfriend 50-some years ago would almost certainly have faded and eventually ceased had she rejected my marriage proposal. Love of another is simply one of humankind’s greatest pleasures. We love others because being around or living with them makes us happy. We rarely love (or even like) people who cause us to experience displeasure. 
Another way of thinking about all of this would be to imagine looking down on yourself from above, standing in the center of a large circle. First and foremost, standing there  alone, you live to satisfy and attend to and please yourself. This you do throughout the day and night. You cannot help but do this. It is your mind and your body. Nothing can alter that. You breathe, drink, eat, think, and engage in most activities solely to keep your own mind and body functioning. You exist for yourself. You constantly strive to do whatever you perceive to be beneficial or pleasurable to you - within the confines of what is socially acceptable. 
Standing immediately next to you in that circle are the people who mean the most to you - your spouse (or lover), children, parents, siblings, perhaps a few very close friends. These closest of kin are often virtual extensions of us. We will do just about anything for them, including donating a kidney or sacrificing our own life. That is because they are so important to us (our spouses, children, and grandchildren especially), their lives so precious, that our brains make little to no distinction between them and us. That is why most adults (not all, but most) will rush into a burning house and jeopardize their own life in an effort to try to save their spouse or children. Mothers and fathers are willing to risk their lives to save their offspring because of our survival instinct. We are as determined to insure the continued existence of our children as we are ourselves. Our brains make no distinction. They are us. 
That subconscious “we” identification, however, may be altered should your marriage disintegrate, should the children rebel and drift off into a life of which you do not approve, or should your parents scratch you from their will. In such instances, those close family members will be moved further out in the circle that surrounds you, more adjacent perhaps to those with whom you have an affinity or shared interests, but whom are nonetheless further removed from you and the center of your life. These might be neighbors (except for the ones who make too much noise or block your driveway), friends, work colleagues, members of the same ethnic group or various modern-day tribes that you belong to or associate with. You may be interested in them and their lives, but they are not the center of your thoughts or activities. You are not willing to risk your own life for them. 
Further out on the fringes of your circle of life are all the other people of the world, most of whom you do not personally know. You will identify most with those closest to you or with whom you have a past association. We tend to support or favor the local pro-football or old college team, even if now halfway across the country. We often feel closer to those who reside in our town or county than we do the folks in a neighboring state, unless we have some other connection to those from afar. Many Americans, though they have never traveled abroad, think that we are the greatest nation on earth (and the greatest people). Despite our occasional displays of allegiance to a bigger entity, all those billions of people "out there" are usually far removed from our daily thoughts or concerns. If they have no direct connection to our lives, we may think briefly about them when we read or hear of some unfortunate calamity such as a deadly auto crash or earthquake. We experience momentary empathy. We feel for the victims and their families and what they must be going through, but in most cases this is a fleeting sense of, “oh, how terrible.” Even then, our reflection is often in the form of feeling grateful that it didn’t happen to us. This is because those people are of little or no relevance or importance to our immediate lives. We share their grief, but their misfortune usually quickly ceases to trouble us. Our brains keep us focused on what is important to our own existence and survival, so bad news from afar - if it does not directly affect us - will be quickly buried and lost among our countless other memories. It is our primal, survivalist instinct that compels us to stay centered on ourselves. 
Those dubious or still critical of this “selfish” explanation for human behavior and pleasure seeking might at this point say, “okay, Mr. Smarty-pants, what about those people who sacrifice their life for people who are not members of their own family, perhaps complete strangers?” What about the fireman who enters a burning building and rescues someone else’s child, perishing in the process? What about the soldier who falls on a grenade to save the lives of others in his squad? Or the man who dies after jumping into a raging river to save an unknown person from drowning? Doesn’t this prove that we humans are capable of transcending ourselves, of loving our brothers or neighbors as much as ourselves? Isn’t this evidence of some sort of God-given “love others” spirituality? 
The answer, in my opinion, is no. On the surface, these seemingly unselfish acts of courage or heroism to help or save strangers may seem to contradict what I have been saying. But let us consider these more closely. In the examples I have cited, or similar instances, when we see others in distress, we are able to personalize the peril and react as though they are members of our immediate family. When we see a woman in need or harm’s way, most of us will respond as though she were our wife or daughter or mother. Ditto for the children of others. We do this because we are able to temporarily identify with them, to show heightened empathy, to see them as we would ourselves or our closest family members. Most modern-day societies, in the long course of becoming relatively civilized, have taught us the value of human coexistence and respecting and helping others. We often forget this in our daily pleasure-seeking lives, but most of us have a developed sense of being able to relate to others, an ability to put ourselves in their shoes. Thus, our capacity to help strangers in need. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” was and is good advice. But let us not get the idea that this negates the argument that we are all selfishly-motivated, pleasure seekers. Keep in mind the last part of that famous Biblical passage: “ ... as you would have others do unto you.” 
There is, I submit, still another reason for this willingness to help others, even giving our own lives if necessary. Sacrifice and “heroism” (martyrdom, at its most extreme) are generally acclaimed by most cultures - and have long roots into our ancestral past. People willing to give their lives for the good of the country or some other common, greater good or, as in early times, the tribe, are highly revered by their peers. Men in particular are prone to sacrifice their own lives for others in large part because bravery and courage have been a valued male characteristic probably since our long-ago predecessors were chasing game and hunting and killing each other in the primeval forests of Africa. Our ancestors passed on the idea that “real men” fear nothing, that backing away from the threat of death is a form of cowardice. Then, just as today, putting your own life on the line - especially if it means protecting your family members or others in the tribe - is the ultimate survival effort, a grand test of one’s valor. Better that you be seen or judged (even if dead) as brave and courageous than weak and scared. Falling on the grenade is heroic, but it is often a split-second action subconsciously triggered by military training. Soldiers are taught that it is better for one to die than the entire squad, just as Secret Service officers stand ready at all times to take a bullet for the President and the country. It is their duty - a pledge that they have made to themselves, their national security colleagues, and the country. Failure to live up to that duty would be seen by their compatriots as cowardice. The military (like policemen, firemen, and similar professions) also fosters an ethos of brotherhood, where fellow soldiers become much like those family members who occupy that cherished inter-sanctum of your life. They are willing to give their life for their “band of brothers,"
This does not mean that all humans will go to such extremes. Some will stand frozen on the river bank as the small child goes floating past, or stare and listen helplessly as the screams come from the flaming house. For them, staying alive is seen as a greater plus than being touted by one’s fellow man as a dead hero. Avoiding death means not taking a chance, not risking your own life. That is an alternative, less-dangerous way of insuring survival chosen by some. Though all of our brains have a common, self-preservation instinct, we all have different life experiences, so we choose different paths to that end. 
Okay, you ask, so what is the point of all this pleasure-displeasure mumbo-jumbo? What does it have to do with Aunt Bertha and others of her faith, those who are convinced that we humans exist for some higher purpose, that we are loving, compassionate, moral beings infused with a goodness coming from Our Maker? They will no doubt continue to reject what I am suggesting in this chapter. They do so because just thinking about what I am saying here will cause them to experience displeasure. Here is how I see it: 
Most people, as already noted, become and remain believers due to the influence of their parents or other authority figures in their young lives. Whether passed on from generation to generation or acquired later as an adult, once a believer has embarked down that road, there is rarely a turning back, rarely an admission that joining the Jesus club was a mistake. To do so would be to admit that your initial decision was wrong, implying that the intellectual reasoning (or lack of reasoning) that went into that commitment was flawed (a most displeasurable thought). Having to admit that we are or were wrong about something is quite unpleasant. We go to great lengths to avoid admitting that we might have erred, that we might have made a dumb decision or acted stupidly or irresponsibly. Just read the daily newspaper or watch the TV news - it’s full of people doing precisely that (more on this in the next chapter). 
Believing that a sublime after-life awaits you provides enormous happiness and inner-peace, as does the idea that The Creator thinks you among His billions of human creatures are extra special. Believing that He will listen to little old you and actually respond to your wishes is a supreme, pleasure-inducing ego trip, surely an almost unparalleled form of self-gratification. Such beliefs, along with other staples of religious life, are what keep many believers plodding along. Their faith makes them happy; it keeps them going. 
All of this also helps explain why so many devout believers tune out skeptics like me, why they refuse to open their minds to the possibility that their God and heaven might be nothing but gigantic myths. The instinct to protect what they have chosen to believe is so powerful that their first line of defense is to tune out all challenges. I cannot tell you how many times I have experienced this over the years. Try to discuss religion, and they pay no attention to what you are saying. It’s as though you were not speaking. Ask sensible but difficult-to-answer questions and they ignore you, responding instead by telling you what they believe. Their reaction is to cover the eyes and ears. Seal up the cave entrance; keep that threatening agnostic-beast out of my life. “I don’t discuss my religion” is an oft-heard defense. They experience displeasure when their faith is questioned by others. They refuse to reexamine what they have already decided to accept as “the truth.” This is their way of defending what they chose to believe long ago. It is their way of coping with life, of surviving. 
That, as I see it, is why Aunt Bertha and those who share her religious outlook cling so tenaciously to their faith. Their thoughts about God and heaven provide more day-to-day pleasure than the harshness of reality brought on by reason and logic. Next to sheer physical survival, religious faith and the idea that life can go on forever provide so much pleasure that they are even willing to forego many of the short-term pleasures available here on earth and stake their future existence on un-provable myths. Normally, I would applaud those who are willing to invest in the future. Not so when that pleasurable, self-serving, long-term goal is based on nothing but ancient fiction. 


Chapter 8: Darwin's Last Laugh
 
What I have said or suggested in the preceding chapter is not just my thinking on the matter. Experts on human behavior have long recognized that we are all genetically-based “survival machines.” Our genes determine who we are and influence what we do. Combined with our many life experiences, they govern our very existence, moving us to think and act as we do in order to make our way in life. 
The idea that physical survival is the greatest of all human pleasures is, it seems to me, indisputable. If we are dead, we can no longer enjoy the autumn leaves, singing hymns, playing golf, counting our money, or whatever other pleasures turn us on. Unless, that is, as Aunt Bertha and much of the rest of the human population believe, death is not really the end. It obviously pleases many among the world's population to think that our time on earth is just a passing interlude, a temporary performance until we pass on over to “the other side” and exist forever with The Creator and the souls of all our old friends and unknown or unrecognizable ancestors who speak in foreign tongues that we do not understand. Perhaps there is a heavenly translation/cultural information service that enables all those billions of souls to understand and communicate with one another - even those who went before us by thousands of years. 
If survival is our most powerful instinct and human brains constantly strive for pleasure maximization, the idea of a life-after-death satisfies both. How deliciously ironic - the religiously-driven notion that we can exist forever being part of our survivalist, evolutionary heritage! 
Is it possible that the desire for immortality, passed on over countless generations, somehow managed to work its way into human genetics? Can thoughts, or behaviors inspired by those thoughts, over long periods of time, alter our DNA? We know that simple life-forms, when confronted with obstacles or threats to their existence, can mutate to survive. Is the idea of a pleasant alternative to death possibly a long-ago mutation in the human genetic code? Do modern-day humans now have buried somewhere in their complex twists of DNA some genes that compel or urge us to embrace faith, that manage to somehow persuade us that death is not the final end to our existence? Did this belief somehow become part of our survival instinct? Do some of us lack such mutations? Or do some of us have different mutations that cause us to intellectually discount beliefs not based on reliable evidence? 
My research into such questions suggests that the answer is either no, or highly unlikely. Nonetheless, future research may eventually confirm that “spirituality” does have a genetic basis. Some humans, with enough time and practice, can induce a transcendent state where they are temporarily detached from the physical world around them. Their spiritual disconnect from the moment can now be observed and measured by means of brain scanners and other nifty devices. It remains to be seen in the years ahead what this means in terms of what I am suggesting in this book. The devout will surely argue that this confirms what they have been saying all along, that we are infused with a God-given spirituality. But, it might also mean that “spirituality” is simply a relatively new development in the long and continuous evolution of the human brain. Perhaps future studies will reveal that it is just one of the brain’s many pleasurable manifestations that has been co-opted by promoters of religion. 
The idea that our survival instinct has adapted over time is recognized by behavioral scientists. The underlying motive for much of our daily routine, as already suggested, can often be easily traced back to our primal instincts. For example, I have found over the years that my ability to remember faces is much better than my recall of names. Most people with whom I have discussed this agree. This seemingly common trait is most likely because the survival of early humans depended first on visual acuity. Long before our prehistoric ancestors had developed languages or alphabets, they survived by being able to recognize visually (or smell or hear) what threatened them as they ventured forth from their lairs. They did not need names for those threats, but they did need to be able to visually recognize, remember, and prioritize those threats to their existence. The older and more-developed visual memories remain with us today. 
Most people these days, at least in the more developed countries, no longer have to fret about actual physical survival. Our essential requirements - food, clothing, shelter, and so forth - have, for most of us, long-been fulfilled. We feel secure, though the recent financial meltdown and our ever-growing national debt make many of us feel less so. We go about our lives giving little thought to basic survival - until the doctor informs us that we have a life-threatening illness or a gun-toting robber confronts us in a poorly-illuminated parking garage. The most worrisome survival threat for most of us these days is when we venture out onto the scary highways of America, which are increasingly plagued by people whose own survival is threatened by their incompetence at maneuvering a vehicle down the road. Many of those already-inept drivers are now also being distracted by cell-phones, iPods, twittering, twattering, text-messaging, and all the other self-absorbed, pleasure-driven gadgets that now dominate so many lives. 
Most of our time now as modern humans is spent on activities that on the surface appear to be unrelated to survival or self-protection. I say “appear to be,” because that connection is not readily apparent, and there is an important distinction. Our time is now spent largely on the survival of who we are - survival of our egos, our reputations, our ideas, our lifestyles, our creature comforts, and all the other trappings of 21st Century life that define us as individuals. Our existence now includes all the multifaceted human behavior and activities that we use to satisfy our desire for personal pleasure. For most modern humans, basic existence has evolved into pleasure-driven excess and embellishment. 
Instead of finding and defending a cave to shelter and protect us, we take that pleasure-inducing money mentioned in the previous chapter (nearly always borrowed) and build huge McMansions with whirlpool baths, kitchens with granite countertops and three refrigerators, and huge entertainment centers. These do provide shelter, but they also satisfy our quest for happiness. If we are bored or restless, even with all the non-essential gizmos and contraptions that most of us now possess, we no longer have to sit around the campfire telling stories; we do not fear beasts when we venture forth from our million-dollar shelters. We now own and manipulate beasts - the steel, gas-guzzling type. To temporarily satisfy our thirst for entertainment and pleasure we can climb into them and drive to a ten-screen movie theater or a rock concert or a five-star restaurant that serves delicacies from around the world. 
We no longer eat and drink just to stay alive; we can now consume foods, liquids, and all-manner of other human-concocted products simply for their taste or appeal or what we think they might do for our bodies. Or not do for our bodies. So driven are we by our pursuit of short-term pleasure fulfillment that we will eagerly ingest donuts, big whoppers, and all sorts of liquid and solid foodstuffs that we know are not beneficial to our bodies. But we don’t care. They taste so good or make us feel so happy that only the most disciplined can resist. This is another example of how the quest for short-term pleasure can affect long-term good health. 
If we aren’t happy with our appearance (a displeasure), we can alter our bodies cosmetically and in other ways for no purpose other than to make us look better or younger. We (mostly females) now nip-and-tuck body flesh, reshaping facial features, breasts, buttocks, and any other body parts deemed less than perfect. We wear false hair-pieces to make us look younger and project a more appealing facade to the rest of the world, especially the opposite sex. For those with excess money, perfect white teeth are now essential. We can have expensive, designer eyeglasses that go beyond the utility of improved vision. We perceive that they improve our physical appearance, making us more attractive. For those who see wearing glasses as a displeasure, we now have contact lens and/or surgical solutions for flawed eyesight. Bodily alterations abound, and each day seems to offer up new options. All of these modifications to our natural bodies are designed to transform how we look, how we feel about ourselves, how we want others to see us. We do this because it gives us pleasure. This is a survivalist enhancement of who we are. 
How we dress serves the same purpose, thus the flourishing of a huge business aimed no longer at providing functional garments for the purpose of covering our bodies or keeping us warm or cool. Apart from separating us from our money (a pleasure for the merchants who dispense such items), the fashion/clothing industry is intent on making us feel good about ourselves (pleasure) and helping us satisfy our basic instinct of trying to be more desirable and thus more likely to breed with those that we find to be attractive. If past the begetting stage, we do so just to enhance or protect our self-image and reputation, as in looking smart, nicely dressed, and successful. 
Modern-day life also abounds with pleasurable alternatives to the ancient need to go hunting and scavenging each day. We no longer have to roam great distances to find and kill that night’s meal or till the fields from dawn to dusk. Others raise and grow the stuff for us, sometimes halfway around the world, in which case it is brought to us by way of huge flying machines that can move through the air at great speeds. Airplanes are an excellent example of modern-day enhancements that have nothing to do with basic survival, but rather to improve the quality of human existence and maximize our pleasure. We now have strawberries and other much-loved fruits and vegetables year round, many of them grown on distant continents and brought to our nearest grocer thanks to those great air ships. 
Modern-day materialism involves the accumulation of prized but hardly necessary possessions. This is done to please us and put on a show for others. It is another form of survival on our terms - making us look superior, more successful, richer, cool, take your pick. Automobiles are an example of this common tendency. To get from here to there, unlike our ancient forebears we can now drive a motor vehicle. A plain, simple, functional car (sometimes even a bike - or walking) would serve that purpose, but instead we have created engine-propelled vehicles that reflect our personalities and status in life. As with clothing, fashion has supplanted functionality. The young, hormone-driven members of our species like flashy cars with no tops or bright-colored Jeeps where others can see their gorgeous hair (re-colored and enhanced in a beauty salon) blowing across their tanned-from-a-can faces. They want cars that go exceedingly fast, that generate sex appeal. The wealthy and influential often prefer cars that they know will tell others: “There goes a very important, successful person.” 
All of this, be it our cars, clothing, houses, where we shop, dine, or send our children to school, reflects how we see ourselves and how we want to be seen. Practicality is not important. Self-promotion is now an integral part of our survival instinct. Like battering rams or strutting peacocks, we now dress and act to impress or intimidate others or to protect our way of life. 
Who we are and what we think and stand for are very important to most of us. They are our values and principles. They define us. When others question or attack our words or thoughts or behavior, like primitive animals the hair on our neck bristles as we gird for battle. Admitting that we are wrong, that we made a mistake, or behaved irresponsibly would undermine who we are and reveal that we are not as perfect and smart and clever as we want others to believe. We will go to great lengths to defend our decisions and reputations. 
People accused of doing something wrong, unlawful, or stupid will first proclaim their innocence. When that doesn’t seem to be working, they will resort to blaming others or the favorite bogeyman of the devout (“the devil made me do it”) for their lapse in judgment or shortcomings. When all else fails, they will hire a lawyer who, for a handsome chunk of pleasure-promoting money, will concoct a defense based, not on the truth, but on what might salvage the reputation and livelihood of the one in trouble. This stubborn insistence that they did nothing wrong is their way of trying to survive with their ego, reputation, and means of economic sustenance still intact. The latter is a part of basic survival (food on the table, pay the rent, etc), but it is often overshadowed by the more important need to salvage one’s self-image. 
This defensive, self-serving behavior is so common and widespread that you can observe it everywhere. Just scan any newspaper or watch the evening news. Many of the stories are about people trying to fend off reports that would cast them in a negative light, thus damaging their reputation or inflicting monetary or other harm on them. In a recent edition of the Washington Post, 15 out of the first 22 articles starting from the front-page pertained to individuals or groups engaged in this very form of modern-day survival. In each instance, people were denying wrong-doing, blaming others, defending a corporate product that tests revealed were harmful to people, rationalizing outrageous salaries by CEO’s and other grossly-overcompensated executives, and so forth. Presidents (and presidential candidates and their surrogates), other elected officials, corporate executives, lobbyists, celebrities, professional athletes, and/or spokespeople for all of the above, all become very adept at this. As do the rest of us. We all try to divert difficult or embarrassing questions that might require an honest, but displeasing answer. Hunker down, rationalize, shift the blame, change the subject. Try to survive. 
Former President Bush and Vice President Cheney are two excellent examples of this common human characteristic. Both have been most reluctant to admit that they and their administration might have made any mistakes. If they did, it was a highly-qualified mea culpa. Yet their policies and actions - many of them ostensibly to thwart future terrorist attacks (but mainly to insure reelection in 2004) - caused millions of innocent people to suffer and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Their policies contributed significantly to our ever-escalating debt, yet there is no certitude that all of that money spent on “national security” will make us immune from further terrorist attacks. Our children and grandchildren will long be burdened by the massive debt that their so-called “protect the homeland” effort and “war on terrorism” have helped create. Far, far more people die each year in this country from cancer or car crashes than from “terrorist incidents,” yet our annual expenditures on medical research and vehicular or highway safety are miniscule compared to what we are now spending both here and abroad to supposedly keep us safe. 
Much of the world knows this. They judge the Bush Administration to have been a disaster, not just for America, but for the entire world. While the former President has been largely silent since leaving office, Cheney and other supporters of their administration are continuing to assert that they made no mistakes, that they acted out of principle, that what they did was right for the country. Denying that they erred on a grand scale would be an admission of failure, that their decision-making prowess was flawed, that their “leadership” was aimed not at doing what was truly best for the country, but rather insuring control by the GOP and benefiting those who donated vast sums to keep them in power. They are now in the survival mode big-time; their legacy is at stake. Cheney’s recent warnings that President Obama’s approach toward national defense will result in another terrorist attack on America is a classic example of this survival instinct. The former vice president admits to no wrong. Should there be another attack (and it probably will happen, but have nothing to do with our current President’s policies), Cheney will be able to say, “I told you so. We were right all along.” He hopes that this might restore his now-blemished reputation. If it doesn’t, few will remember his "they sky-is-falling" TV appearances. 
Presidential campaigns (indeed virtually all striving for public office) provide another example of today’s survival efforts. Both Senators (now President) Obama and John McCain and their campaign staffs and surrogates tried to hoodwink the voters during the 2008 campaign, doing whatever they thought was necessary to enhance their own appeal or make the other guy look bad. This required much deception, a lot of it deliberate, even if subtle. It took a very limited IQ to recognize that much of what was thrown at us in their speeches and TV commercials was exaggerated or untrue, yet they knew that enough of it would stick to make the effort worth the time and money. If you can make the other guy look bad, untruthful, or ill-suited for public office, you may benefit. Much like the devout do when they put down unbelievers (and, some might suggest, what I am doing in this book). 
This same defense (survival) of reputations and egos has also been on full display during our recent financial/economic debacle. Everyone knows that the big investment banks bear huge responsibility for what happened, yet their powerful CEOs have refused to acknowledge any flawed judgment or wrongdoing. Congressmen and the various governmental oversight agencies, whose responsibility was to insure that the big banks and investment houses did not drive us all over the cliff, likewise failed. They have been most reluctant to admit that they were asleep at the wheel. Two years ago, this country’s automobile industry was on life-support, but the heads of those companies blamed everyone but themselves. It’s always the other guy’s fault. Did nothing wrong. Never mind that for two decades they churned out vehicles that appealed to fewer and fewer people. In the case of the big banks, their claim that government should have done more in the way of regulation is downright laughable. These “free-market” types did (and continue to do) all in their power to restrict government regulation of their nefarious ways. 
The instinct to preserve who we are is so powerful that we will go to amazing lengths to counter anything that poses a challenge to us or what we believe. Being truthful can be very displeasurable, and changing, as we all know, is likewise exceedingly unpleasant (and difficult). And so it is with religion. To avoid the unpleasantness of admitting that they were (or might be) wrong, that they have been “following false prophets,” the brains of the devout cleverly churn out a variety of defensive rationalizations. This explains, I believe, why it is so difficult, if not impossible, to get Aunt Bertha and others like her to open their minds to the reality that the evidence in support of their beliefs is either non-existent or unconvincing. Their survival instinct compels them to ignore or dismiss all threats to whatever it is they decided long ago in order to make it in life. 
Rather than accepting reality, that each human enjoys a brief moment in time, that we live and die and that is it, believers for thousands of years now have been living a fantasy. They have concocted myths that enable them to believe that the circus will never pull down its tents and leave town, that the show will go on, that there is no end to our existence, that life will continue in that perfect and painless paradise. 
I wallow once again in the following redundant thought - because it has an important bearing on what I am emphasizing in this chapter. While most people of faith profess to believe in immortality, many - when confronted with actual physical death - will eagerly grasp at whatever they think will forestall death and their onward journey to the great hereafter. They try to delay the inevitable. You would think that if they sincerely believed in a heavenly existence, they would willingly unplug the life-support machine. 
My deceased brother suffered much in his futile effort to prolong his life here on earth. My father did the same, reaching for his life-sustaining pills whenever he thought he heard the grim-reaper’s footsteps outside his bedroom. If I believed that upon death "my soul" was headed to a better place, I would do nothing to delay that journey. I might even try to book an earlier flight. Suicide is of course a big “no-no” for many people of faith. Tinkering with God’s timetable is thought to be unacceptable, except when it comes to delaying the whole process. Then the devout frequently opt to take matters into their own hands, trying to thwart God’s schedule for their demise by devouring bottle after bottle of pills or getting a heart transplant. 
As noted previously, uncertainty as to which hereafter one is headed for might explain this curious behavior. Concern about which direction your soul travels on its great journey would be enough to encourage some stalling. Another possibility might be that when confronted with a real life-threatening situation, the more basic and powerful survival instinct - the one whose sole purpose is to keep our bodies functioning - takes full control of our thoughts and actions. The imaginary after-death existence (heaven) winds up taking the back seat. Reality takes charge. 
This determination by many believers to delay death also suggests to me that their thinking at the end is governed by the same brain mechanisms that we all employ in such circumstances. There is nothing observable that would suggest much of a spiritual presence in their decision-making. It is down-to-earth and pragmatic - driven by that primal survival instinct. This is not to suggest that all believers engage in such foot-dragging at the end. Some are so supremely confident that their soul is headed toward the good place that while they might not welcome death, they will quietly surrender to that inevitable outcome. Others, I have observed, do not. 
All of this compels me to wonder why God gave us a survival instinct - if our only purpose in being here is getting to heaven? Why bother? If He looks after us, cares for us, why do we have the ability to defend ourselves and prolong our lives? He could have given all of us a pre-determined (by Him) number of years to live, enough time to decide if we want to surrender our souls to Him and join His heavenly enterprise. When our God-specified time runs out, off we go to that grand family reunion in the sky or to Satan’s chain-gang. In which case, I see no need whatsoever for humans to have a survival instinct. On the other hand, if we are the end product of millions and millions of years of physical and mental evolution, we got here because each of our many forebears managed to somehow survive and prolong our genetic line. 
I will be the first to admit that our existence - each of us individually being who we are - is quite astonishing. If you believe in evolution, those of us walking around on earth at this very moment would never have been here had there been just one infinitesimal change sequentially in the countless centuries that it took to produce each of us. Had my parents not had sex one hot August night out there in the Colorado dust-bowl, I would not be here. I would never have been. This book would not have happened (good, some might say). My grandchildren would not be laughing and riding their bicycles. Even had my parents had sex an hour earlier or later, there most likely would have been another sibling - not me. That little gold-medal swimming sperm that became me, the one who reached the awaiting egg finish line at that precise moment, quite possibly would have been out-raced or shoved aside by hundreds of his sperm siblings. Ditto for my grandparents and great-grandparents and all the way back to wherever life got its start. It’s all quite incredible when you stop and seriously reflect on it. 
There are, it seems to me, two possible conclusions regarding this great mystery of who we are and where we came from: 
1) As the product of a very, very long evolutionary process, the likelihood of each of us being here today, of being precisely who we are, of being unique, is in the range of ... I have no idea! It is a staggering number, but since I am neither mathematician nor statistician, I leave the number crunching to others. 
2) Or, a most powerful, unseen deity created each of us. We are all unique and special in His eyes - even though He will send us off to burn in hell if we don’t worship Him unconditionally. Apart from His unforgiving nature, this is a very simple explanation that pleases and satisfies all the many religiously-inclined - so long as they get to heaven. 
As jaw-dropping as the first option is, I find it more rational and believable than Aunt Bertha’s fanciful notion about that Great Power being “out there” looking after each and every one of us every nanosecond of each day, that He is aware of what billions of us think at any given moment in time, and that He knows what was and what will be - forever and ever more. 
Rational thought, seeking truth, and recognizing reality - even if displeasurable - is my pleasure. Having a reasonably good and rewarding life here on earth has been enough for me. Now in the so-called “golden years” (I prefer “sunset years”), I find that life here on earth is passing me by. Like the dinosaurs, I am becoming obsolete. I have no need or desire to exist forever in some great beyond. What if paradise has people blabbering away on cell-phones or loud, annoying teenagers loitering about in front of the Pearly Gates? What if there are fast, careless drivers on the highways of heaven? I prefer the silent darkness of an eternity, about which my no-longer functioning brain will have any awareness. I will not be. Apart from not delighting in or welcoming the idea of an endless existence, I also do not fear for one second the possibility that I (excuse me, "my soul”) might wind up frying in that hellish afterlife so graphically described long ago by those itinerant revival preachers. 
That, dear reader, is how I see it! That is my reality, and I firmly believe that it is the reality of all human existence on this tiny orb hurtling through the vastness of our virtually limitless universe. I am firmly convinced that is the real truth about who we are and where we came from. For me, that reality is far more sensible than the fantasy one that Aunt Bertha and all her fellow travelers so tenaciously embrace. 


Chapter 9: Revelation
 
Despite their seemingly opposite theological perspectives, former President Bush and his fellow Christians have much in common with Osama Bin Laden and his Muslim jihadists. All are convinced that “their God” is real and that humans should conduct themselves in accordance with what they are certain “their God” wants. They all believe that if they do that, they will spend eternity in that splendid place beyond the stars. They just disagree on what you have to do to get there. Those of us who reject religious faith have been shoved to the sidelines, where - in this age of mass destruction weaponry - religious certitude and extremism threaten all of us. 
Hatred of America, fueled by religious zealotry, inspired the 2001 terrorist attack on the United States; faith-fueled conviction influenced, at least in part, our revengeful but misdirected response. Though there are other considerations in this current conflict, it is largely a clash of cultures and religious belief. The so-called “war on terrorism” is just the latest chapter in an ages-old human conflict over whose religious outlook is “the truth.” For thousands of years, the idea that powerful deities influence life on earth has been the cause of mindless violence, warfare, and death. On and on it has gone, century after century, humans still living and fighting and killing according to ancient religious thought. 
One of those old men, the author of the Book of Revelation, wrote in his opening passage: “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy ... for the time is at hand.” More wisely than Saint John The Divine, I make no predictions in this, my concluding chapter, as to when or if life on earth will cease. Nor do I offer any blessings or anything comparable to or as dramatic as earth-ravaging angels or seven-headed beasts. My final thoughts, I hope, are more contemplative than frightening and prophetic. 
In the preceding chapters, I have laid out some (but not all) of the reasons for my long-ago rejection of the religion that was forced upon me as a boy. I have: 
• Explained why I believe the Bible and other ancient doctrinal books should not be taken seriously - or considered to be conveyors of “the truth.” 
• Made what I believe is a reasoned, historic explication that spirits and deities were first conceived in primitive minds out of fear, ignorance, and misunderstood dreams, and that today’s popular God is simply the heir to those long-ago, clueless thoughts. 
• Suggested that many people of faith do not understand (or disregard) true cause and effect. In this connection, I have challenged believers to think about and - if possible - disprove my charge that prayer, like all expressions of hope, is nothing more than wishful thinking. 
• Put forth and defended the proposition that religious beliefs and behavior are not divinely-inspired, that they are learned from others, that they can be explained by conventional psychology, and that they are driven by the brain’s relentless endeavor to survive while maximizing pleasure. 
• Made the case that believers are no more exemplary in their earthly conduct than unbelievers. 
• Finally, I have persisted in denigrating what to me is that humorous fantasy of countless billions of invisible souls somehow shooting across the universe for grand reunions of family and friends in rainbow-touched meadows of eye-dazzling flowers. 
Were it possible to find in this world a panel of truly objective, impartial judges, I am confident they would declare “my reality” more historically and scientifically accurate, sensible, and truthful than Aunt Bertha’s. She and those of like mind would nonetheless be unswayed by that verdict, and by now we should all know why. As long as one feels good believing in an invisible God and utopian afterlife, why forsake that belief? Why give that up for what the devout see as a barren, hopeless existence where we are simply born and die and that’s it? Why consider such an unappealing idea when there is an ego-driven, self-satisfying alternative? 
Many believers will take that thought one step further by asserting that there is another very important reason for holding on to their faith. Without religion, so they claim, life on this planet would have been far worse than it has been throughout the many centuries. Notice here they will acknowledge that life has indeed often been harsh and cruel for many of earth’s inhabitants, even though we are told that their caring God has always been in charge, looking after things down here, responding to their many appeals for bountiful tables and safe journeys. As bad as it has often been, some believers will quickly point to the “Godless-rule” of communism as an example of what would happen if The Almighty were to be tossed forever onto the garbage heap of history. That argument, like so many others they put forth, is misleading and self-serving. It is a further example of their survival impulse at work - we must defend who we are and what we stand for, we must fight for our worldview at all costs. 
Communism and religion are in fact quite similar in that both are ideologies that offer utopian theories on how to best restructure human governance and behavior. One offered to make life on earth a paradise for workers; the other claims there is a heavenly paradise awaiting all who toil for God while here on earth. It is fair to say, given all the evidence, that both have failed to live up to the hype of those who created and nurtured those movements. Religion continues to flourish in many parts of the world, while communism stumbles on toward its likely final demise, at least in its current form. Other “socialist experiments” will no doubt continue to surface in the future, since humans are by nature idealistic. The idea of a fair society, one where all benefit, has for many people greater appeal than a “law of the jungle” rule where those with power and wealth often totally and shamelessly dominate. Communism, with its proletarian promises, set out to be the former, but quickly disintegrated into the latter. Religion lives on because it continues to offer hope and pleasure - both for those who still embrace all the myths and fantasies and those who control them. 
The devout might also point to Satan cults, witchcraft, and a wide assortment of other dark and evil beliefs and movements as confirmation that life without God would be some sort of hell on earth. Such argumentation obscures what should be obvious. For most thoughtful unbelievers, those who consider God to be a non-entity, it follows that devils, witches, goblins, vampires, ghosts, werewolves, and all the other so-called frightening forces of fear and evil are likewise nothing but products of the human imagination. People who parade about in Gothic attire or dance around altars of stone at the summer solstice are very much like the traditionally religious. They all believe in an illusion, an un-provable, metaphysical power or force “out there.” One could add to this list: fortune-tellers, psychics/mediums, reincarnationists, astrologers, horoscope-readers, UFO-trackers, and all the others who are peddling what they claim (but cannot prove) to be “the truth,” all with the aim of deceiving the gullible, making them feel good, or plucking greenbacks from their wallets. 
Defenders of the faith will also continue to argue that all human values come from God, that without His rules and principles to guide our lives, civilization would collapse into anarchy. Human discourse would break down and there would be a free-for-all with everyone out for himself. There would be uncertainty and chaos and war. People would cheat and lie and behave badly. Hypocrisy would be rampant. In other words, life here on earth would be just as it is now under His watchful eyes. Good things and bad things would still happen and people and nations would be preoccupied with their own self-serving, survivalist interests. 
What the devout claim is Godly influence, I see as - and here I go again - nothing but learned behavior. If humans are good (and most of us try to be, most of the time), that is because we have discovered that good behavior, on balance, is usually more rewarding and beneficial in the long run than bad behavior. It is also generally less dangerous and less self-destructive. Not all humans recognize this, of course, and some of those bad apples have done great harm over the centuries both to themselves and others in their relentless quest for power and riches and other pleasures. 
Humans are for the most part good because we were taught to be good. If we had good parents, they passed on their positive values and instructed us on how to live socially responsible lives; we taught our children to be and do likewise. Religion may be, but is not necessarily, a factor in good behavior. Countless children have grown-up to become upstanding, responsible, moral adults without ever once having sat through a Sunday school lesson. Others, who got pats on the back for memorizing childhood Bible stories or verses from the Koran, grew up to become robbers and rapists. My still young grandchildren have never been to a worship service; thus far, they know little if anything about God or heaven. Yet, I have no doubt that they would (and will someday as adults) be judged just “as good” as any of their small peers who are compelled to trek off weekly to have their heads filled with “Jesus loves you.” Or a pulpit-pounding preacher scare them to death with the threat of horrific repercussions if they do not do as he says. 
The best rebuttal to the claim that only the devout can be truly good is, as I have suggested earlier, quite simply to open your eyes and look about. Apart from the fact that the devout are rarely as good as they see themselves, the world is teeming with perfectly decent humans who never enter a church or synagogue or mosque or temple or whatever other ornate edifice is said to inspire God-approved behavior. Most unbelievers, to the extent that they can be lumped into a distinct category, are guided by principles and ideals just as worthy and noble as those that are said to motivate people who wear the cross or veil or yarmulke or whatever other talisman or garment is supposed to insure angelic conduct. Though they tend to think otherwise, the devout quite simply do not have a monopoly on all things good. Nor are they more successful in life, or even in what they themselves claim is the most sacred of all human relationships - marriage. In fact, there is some evidence that they are less successful. According to numerous surveys, the divorce rate among southern Bible-belters is higher than among atheists. There is also sufficient reason to question the claim that the devout are “happier” than unbelievers, as is reported from time-to-time by supposedly unbiased surveys. All that such surveys tell us is that unbelievers are likely to be more honest in discussing their beliefs and attitudes. Many among the devout need or want others to see them in a positive light, so they have an interest in embellishing the truth about how their love for Jesus has made them happier than others. 
Rather than linking good behavior to God’s influence, it might be more appropriate to attribute it to the human capacity for understanding the need for and showing empathy. There might also be a practical explanation for why humans over time came to be more understanding and respectful of other tribesmen. As the human brain developed and matured over tens of thousands of years, the idea of peaceful coexistence and walking in the other guy’s footprints slowly caught on. It was a very long and slow process, and not without countless backtracking. Nonetheless, man eventually figured out on his own that trying “to love thy neighbor as thyself” might be a pragmatic form of behavior. Human males (perhaps with a little input from their more sensitive and thoughtful cave-mates) eventually came to understand that killing works both ways. Your chances of survival improve if you are not out there constantly clubbing others to death. No matter how tough and fearsome you think you are, the other guy might get lucky and get in a good whack that turns your lights off. “Thou shalt not kill” was good advice, not because it came from a mythical God, but because humans came to recognize that it might help prolong their own life. Survival! 
While the devout will nonetheless continue to assert that our sense of empathy comes from their unseen deity, another explanation strikes me as being more likely. Humans eventually learned to recognize and transcend (at least some of the time) that primal, selfish nature of ours, to acknowledge that all of us on planet earth - black or white, rich or poor, young or old, male or female, whatever - have an equal stake in the game of life and should be respected and treated kindly and fairly. Our ability to be more understanding and compassionate toward others, especially those most unlike us, might also be interpreted as a sign of intellectual maturation of the human brain. It’s still a work in progress, but we appear to be moving in the right direction. Not all of us, by any means, but most of us seem to at least recognize the value of accepting and respecting those from other tribes. 
Empathy and compassion have of course often been shoved to the sidelines during the long march of time, even in modern times. Consider the 1935-45 WWII era. A military psychologist at the Nuremberg trials, asked to explain how the Nazis could have done what they did to the Jewish people and other minorities, offered a two-word response: “No empathy.” Untold numbers of innocent people were ruthlessly slaughtered in Japan’s determined but failed effort to conquer Asia and dominate the Pacific region. To many, our use of the atomic bomb to end that war was a demonstration of strength which, despite its military purpose, lacked any sense of compassion toward the many thousands of innocent non-combatants who were doomed in advance to a horrific death. Empathy was clearly marginalized by all sides during that traumatic decade of the 20th Century. 
Despite such recurring setbacks, most modern-day cultures recognize the value of treating others as we would want to be treated. Doing so, as that famous Bible passage says, is good and relevant advice. But it was probably recognized as such by at least some early humans before the words of the Bible were ever etched on parchment. While we don’t consistently treat our fellow humans with concern or respect, empathy has become a widely shared value. The well-off frequently assist the less-fortunate around the globe, both routinely and when famine or other natural disasters strike. Generally speaking, most better-off people and nations tend to help those in need. Not enough, in many instances, but the “help your neighbor” impulse is there. 
Another argument by believers for why we need God in our lives is their firmly-held, but mistaken claim that the rules and laws that govern us are His handiwork. To argue that we would not be where we are today without our Judeo-Christian heritage is, once again, largely self-serving rhetoric. Since large regions of the world have been influenced either directly or indirectly by so-called Judeo-Christian values, it is impossible to know how life would have developed and matured absent that religious supremacy. The rules and laws that govern this country and other parts of the world often evolved in tandem with religious thought. They were conceived by men who may have thought they were being inspired by God. With no proof that He was the guiding hand, we can state with confidence that we are governed by what humans, in the past and today, have determined is best. Many laws, of course, tend to benefit the lawgivers, rather than the larger population. 
One can reasonably argue that better laws and more humane behavior might have come about faster without the hindrance of religious thought. Slavery, for example, might have been eradicated earlier (or been less cruel to the enslaved) had religion not been used to defend that practice. Keep in mind that Biblical passage about how you can beat your slaves and so long as they don’t die that is okay with God. People in past centuries might not have been falsely accused of being witches or heretics and burned at the stake, not to mention all the other instances of religious certitude and self-righteous judging that have led to the death of countless innocents. True equality for women might exist today had men not used their self-serving, antiquated beliefs “to keep them in their rightful place.” Women in parts of the world might not be walking around today with veiled faces or red dots on their foreheads were it not for religiously-inspired decrees designed by men to keep things as they were in the Middle Ages. One can compile a very long list of theocracy-based edicts and practices that have been used over the many centuries to both impede human progress and destroy those who were deemed not sufficiently religious. 
Since those Judeo-Christian “principles” have done as much harm as good throughout the centuries, one can reasonably argue that human progress might actually have been hastened under the influence of other governing ideologies, had they been allowed to develop in centuries past. One can look at 21st Century Europe, where God and religion have been shoved to the sidelines, to see that secular governance can be just as (if not more) successful, benevolent, and compassionate as what we claim we have here in the land of the free and home of the brave. Life in Europe, where all citizens have equal access to health care and other benefits, might well be more satisfying and rewarding than it is for the people of our far-more religious nation. This is not to suggest that secular Europe does not have its problems - one being the growing impact of their ever-expanding Middle-Eastern populations, whose reluctance to assimilate is creating headaches for some of the countries. The determination of many Muslim immigrants to hold onto their “traditional values and beliefs” is now fomenting religious conflict in that region.
The observable fact that unbelievers manage to live respectable, productive, law-abiding lives without praying or reading the Bible or relying on what others claim is divine intervention further suggests that theology is not necessary to the governance of this nation of ours. It is not essential for the promotion of general welfare, the insurance of domestic tranquility, the furtherance of a more perfect union, the establishment of justice, or the blessing of liberty. Had human development not been encumbered by religion all these past many centuries, life on earth today might be not just different, but better. We might all have benefited had true empathy been cultivated as a priority, as a more worthwhile cause than memorizing the words of old religious prophets. We do not know, but that possibility cannot be ruled out. 
Contemplate, for a moment, all the time, money, and other resources that have gone into promoting and defending religion over the many centuries. Just think about all of the costly religious edifices around the world. Yes, they are beautiful buildings, but think what might have been accomplished had all those places of worship instead been repositories of “true knowledge” - houses of education rather than worship. What if, rather than keeping the masses illiterate and uninformed all through the Dark Ages and before, they had been taught to read and write and ask questions and challenge the status quo? Consider the progress that might have occurred had the children of stonemasons and indentured servants been truly “educated” rather than indoctrinated by so-called “holy men” and village priests. How sad, when one thinks about what might have been. How regrettable that human progress is still being hindered in many parts of the world by out-dated religious and cultural dogma. The magnitude of religion’s impediment to human progress is quite stunning when you look back and reflect on how faith has distorted reality through the many centuries. 
Consider what a better earth this might be today if instead of donning one’s Sunday best and trudging off to hear repetitious sermons each week, all those worshippers dressed instead in work clothes. Rather than taking time off to pray six times a day or sitting week after endless week in your place of worship hearing the same tedious words on how you can be a better you (and giving money to those telling you how to be good), why not spend that time and money actually being a better you by doing something constructive? Instead of standing about after church showing off your newest bonnet or Sunday “best,” take the family and go clean or paint a school or make repairs to an apartment with no heat. Go teach the illiterate to read or the foreign-born to speak English. Help some young kid in jail turn his life around (without a mythical God). Provide transportation for someone without a car. Go pick up some of the countless tons of litter that our pleasure-fueled, commercially-driven economy has bestowed upon us. Go do some yard-work for your ill or elderly neighbor. Instead of killing people on suicide missions in the absurd belief that doing so will lead to fulfillment of some bizarre, religiously-driven sexual fantasy, devote your time and effort to constructing schools to help move your country out of the Middle Ages. The possibilities are limitless, yet many believers think it is more important that they be sitting or kneeling in their place of worship in the mistaken belief that that is what their God thinks they should be doing. Had we rigorously cultivated the human capacity for being consistently considerate, compassionate, and charitable, as much as we have glorified the gods throughout history, what a better planet this might be. 
What if today all religions spent their time and money not trying to change the minds of those of other faiths, but going out of their way to set a truly good example for all of humankind? Not just in words, but in deeds. What if instead of denigrating those of other faiths (or no faith), all religions were to acknowledge that they do not have a monopoly on truth (that IS a real truth), that people of all faiths (or no faith) are no better or no worse than themselves? That another man’s religious thought (or non-religious thought) might be closer to “the truth” than yours. What a better world it might be! 
Humanity might also have been better served had we all learned to accept and live with an awareness that our brief time on earth is all there is. Admitting that there is nothing beyond our earthly existence might have motivated more people to focus on the here and now. We could have devoted all of our time and resources to improving life here for all of us rather than fostering false hope or slaughtering populations and plundering towns and villages in religious inquisitions. There might have been no terrorist attack on America had young Muslim men not been indoctrinated with that “virgins in paradise” nonsense. The rest of the world recognizes the absurdity of that delusion. But let us not get too smug about that! The Christian myth - that “paradise” will be a place of pure joy and self-serving pleasure - is equally fanciful, if not delusional. 
Might we also all be better off had we learned to acknowledge the truth about ourselves, rather than trying to live the many lies that are forced upon us by all the religious elders? We should stop perpetuating those myths about how God compels us to be noble and unselfish. We should acknowledge that when we help others we do so for the self-serving reasons that I have cited earlier - because it pleases us to do so. We should admit that our charitable impulses are driven by pleasure-seeking neural mechanisms in our brains. We need to look in the mirror and be honest about what we see staring back at us. This recognition would not undermine all the noble things that humans currently do. We would still aid the needy and contribute to worthwhile causes, but being honest about what motivates us would be a good first step toward recognizing the truth about ourselves. Honest self-appraisal is ultimately better than deception and denial. When we succeed or fail in our earthly endeavors, we should rightly acknowledge that we deserve the praise or criticism. 
Acknowledging that we are all pleasure seekers might also be a first good step toward better understanding why it is often difficult to motivate and inspire our young, or to keep them out of trouble. That recognition might also help us see why it is such a challenge to keep some among our adult population focused on what is important for long-term success and prosperity. It is little wonder that so many among the young succumb so easily to the temptations of short-term pleasures. We adults are their role models. It is hard for schoolwork (especially if the long-term value of learning and the acquisition of knowledge have not been properly exalted) to compete with the many immediate pleasures designed to appeal to today’s youth - cellphone chatter, text-messaging, twittering, video-games, watching TV, drugs, or just hanging out at the nearest mall. Training young minds to put their time and energy into long-term goals is no easy task, but it would help - perhaps - were we to acknowledge the truth about what really motivates us. Success in controlling negative, unproductive behavior is more apt to happen if we acknowledge what really causes the behavior that we want to change. 
Admitting that we humans are fallible might also be a major step toward improving our earthly existence. We all make mistakes and do things that we later realize were wrong or misguided. Though I explained in the previous chapter why I believe it is so difficult for us to acknowledge our failings, learning to honestly recognize and accept this common survival trait might be a first good step in encouraging more honesty in all human endeavors. What a better country and world this might be if our leaders were to honestly own up to their mistakes and shortcomings, rather than stone-walling, side-stepping, or smooth-talking. This would provide some evidence that humans can be driven as much by intellectual maturity as our primitive survival instincts. 
Humans are the only creatures on earth capable of truly understanding consciousness, of asking why we exist. Believers, who are appalled by the idea of “life without meaning,” of our being here for no apparent reason, cling to that dreamy notion of a better life in the hereafter. For the last time, I ask: What is “the meaning of life” once you are in heaven? What is the purpose in being there? We are told that those who go there, the ones who suffered and toiled endlessly on earth, but steadfastly worshipped God, will enjoy an eternity without care or worry. No hunger, no pain, no sickness, no worries, no death, no grieving, no taxes, no beggars on the golden-paved street corners. In which case there will be no need for doctors or missionaries or caregivers or volunteers at homeless shelters. No need to do anything. What is the meaning of that life? Lying around eating strawberries dipped in chocolate, sipping lattes with honey, listening to angelic choirs! What is the reason for being in such a carefree paradise? And how does that question differ from: “What is the purpose of our earthly existence?” What is the purpose of a heavenly existence? 
If you think that getting to "paradise" is all that matters, that what occurs here on earth is unimportant, this may cloud your perspective and make you indifferent toward what does happen here. It may encourage you to hope for and support political, military, social, and other causes and agendas that appear to you to be a fulfillment of ancient religious prophecy. That is precisely what many conservative believers in our country are doing these days. They don’t care about the violence and warfare in today’s Biblical lands or elsewhere because they believe that must happen before the “Great Tribulation” or “Rapture” can occur. Some encourage it, praying that it will come to pass. 
If your reading of the Bible has convinced you that the “end times” will come only after or during the appearance of the so-called “anti-Christ,” you may waste your time on earth trying to identify that so-called future evil one. President Obama’s “non-Christian name” has already generated claims from some religious extremists that he is “the one.” Never mind that the Bible (1 John, 4:3) proclaimed: “The spirit of the anti-Christ” is “even now already in the world.” If that passage is to be believed, our current President’s “spirit” was here on earth thousands of years ago! 
If your faith leads you to see an ominous “666” buried in the logo of a Times Square billboard, the silhouette of the Mother Mary on a piece of toast, or “God’s face” in the latest Hubble pictures from outer space, if you think these “signs” foretell “the end” or some other sun-stopping event, your thoughts and behavior are being driven by religious goofiness. You have created a truly false reality. You need professional help, not more time in prayer and devotion. 
If you believe that earth is just a place of temporary residence, you may ignore the observable fact that our pristine forests are disappearing, our once-lush meadows are evolving into teeming suburbs or landfills, or that melting icebergs are now lapping at the foundation of your beach house. You may not care if we destroy planet earth. Such indifference, in some instances spurred on by influential evangelical leaders, encourages some among the faithful to dismiss the destruction that we have caused and are continuing to cause in our relentless consumer-driven quest for profit and personal pleasure. Destroying our planet is surely a greater sin than having “impure thoughts” about your neighbor’s maid-servant. 
Not doubting or questioning the thoughts of ancient men (or today’s many religious controllers) suggests a willingness to go through life discounting factual or credible evidence. This naive “no need for the facts” mind-set can and often does spill over into the trusting believer’s many other non-religious viewpoints. Such thinking can lead to the oft-heard claim that “liberals” and “government bureaucrats” are the source of all our problems! Absolutely, say the true believers. “Satan is the real publisher of The New York Times and Washington Post!” No doubt about it, they say. “Reforming health care is a socialist plot and Obama is intent on turning this great, God-loving country of ours into the atheist Soviet Union.” Of course, they all shout. “We’re going to start killing everyone over 65 and our schools will soon be turning all our kids into gays and lesbians.” It’s already happening, they scream. With conservative radio and the Internet now widely-dispersing every crackpot statement or theory, such nonsense takes on a life of its own. No need to think, question, or have anything remotely close to a rational discussion. 
People are of course free to believe whatever pleases them - so long as doing so does not infringe on the rights of others to believe and act as they want. That, as previously noted, is the problem, especially here in what many among the devout firmly believe is (or should) be “Christian America.” Their form of Christianity, of course. Too many diehard believers are not content to mind their own business. Instead of insuring that their own behavior is truly worthy of emulation, they spend their limited time on earth lecturing the rest of us on how we should get on our knees and surrender to their God, on how we should be just like them. Some of these true believers take matters even further. Just as in ages past, they kill those who do not share their demented convictions - Bin Laden’s favorite tactic. His misguided worldview destroys rather than builds, causing time and capital to be wasted. His “God is great” fanatical outlook is aimed at dragging all of us back into the Middle Ages. The same can be said for those of all religions who, certain that they are doing God’s work, engage in similar destructive behavior in his name. 
One need only recall what I said in Chapter 3 about how both Bin Laden and President Bush were confident that God was on their side as they unleashed their horrific destruction. Believing you “know” the mind of God encourages you to embark on whatever risky course of action you have convinced yourself that you and He endorse. If, as suggested earlier, God had never been part of man’s historic legacy, many of the bloodiest chapters might never have happened, and history might have unfolded differently. I am not suggesting that man - given his testosterone-driven nature - would not have found other reasons for running amuck and lopping off heads. All we can be certain of, looking back in time, is that the notion of God being on one side or the other has been a curse for countless humans. Some, if not much, of the terror and bloodshed might not have happened had humans not been so certain that the King of Kings was on their side. 
One can cite many other examples to illustrate how religious beliefs can distort reality and adversely affect thinking and behavior. Some of these, as with abortion and other controversial issues, I have briefly mentioned or alluded to in earlier chapters. One can be for or against abortion on moral, humane, or other grounds, but that should have nothing to do with what ancient men might have thought. Abortion is just one of many instances where the devout turn their “principled” stand into an all or nothing, crusade-like cause. If you aren’t totally on their side (as in presidential campaigns), then that and that alone, to their way of thinking, means you are unfit for public office. Never mind what other outstanding qualifications you might bring to the table. That simple George Bush attitude once again: “You’re either with us, or against us.” End of discussion. 
Opposition to birth control, apparently because God wants nothing to stand in the way of “going forth and multiplying” (unless you are one of His chosen, celibate ones), is another case of religious dogma trumping reason. During his trip to Africa in early 2009, the Pope declared that condoms should not be used because they are “wrong.” In Africa, mind you, the land where AIDS has ravaged entire populations! Much of the world - beyond the walls of the Vatican and parish sanctuaries - listened to his words in utter disbelief. The world’s preeminent religious leader asserting that it is better to chance getting infected by or passing on a deadly virus than to slip a protective sheath over your penis. It is better to give your spouse or lover a killer disease than to use a condom! Not to mention that it is better to keep all those impoverished women constantly impregnated! This is more than just sane thought being trampled into the ground by religious conformity. Condemning condom-usage, which can prevent death and possibly help alleviate further poverty, is utterly irresponsible. The Pope and other Catholic leaders who zealously cling to their outdated theology should be ashamed. 
Homosexuality offers another example of how religion is used to distort or magnify an issue that, given current knowledge, should no longer concern society. Religious conservatives blather on about this, warning that civilization will collapse if we honestly recognize and accept that some of “God’s children” prefer companionship and intimacy with those of their own sex. Homosexuality is a reality, a fact of nature rather than the aberration long-voiced by religious purists (some of whom were/are homosexuals themselves). It is now widely-recognized and accepted (at least outside the Bible Belt and other traditional religious enclaves around the world) that same-sex attraction is not a “choice,” that gays and lesbians are born that way or have a genetic predisposition toward those of their own gender. This fact of life has been around since earth was flat, but long suppressed and stigmatized by religious and social convention. Some among the general population are quite simply attracted to their own type; those who have studied this phenomenon are beginning to better understand why that is so. Though not commonly observed, same-sex attraction also occurs in the animal world. 
This fact of life troubles and undermines what many religious conservatives stand for. Their ancient doctrine asserts that there is purely man and woman and nothing in between, so explaining those who fall outside that cast-in-stone sexual/gender classification is problematic for them. Rather than accept reality, their religious code of conduct compels them to either condemn or “transform” (as in convincing “the sinners” that they can become and remain true heterosexuals). Oh sure! Those were great “family values” in the past, when gays/lesbians felt compelled to marry heterosexuals in order to conceal their true sexual orientation. Lots of failed marriages and dysfunctional families were the result. So much for honesty being a Christian virtue. It is better to condemn “homos” and live a lie than admit to one’s true sexuality. 
No traditional family in America is in any way endangered - as religious conservatives constantly assert - by two gays/lesbians enjoying each other’s company in the privacy of their own home (pleasuring one another no differently than many heterosexuals do). Playtime in the bedroom by the latter, need I point out, is rarely aimed at begetting and thus keeping the nation’s birth rate steady; they, too, are simply engaged in the pursuit of pleasure. Neither “marriage” nor “civil union” will cause earth to wobble and fall out of the sun’s orbit. The unthreatening reality of homosexuality is distorted and exaggerated in order to make “the sin” conform to the unbending orthodoxy of the devout. Let us not also forget that the religious controllers love to use all of these divisive social issues - abortion, homosexuality, embryonic stem-cell research, and others - to keep their followers all fired-up, and thus more likely to continue dropping dollars into the Sunday morning offering plates or sticking checks in the mail. 
These examples of how religion compels believers to create or further false realities also serve to illustrate my contention that religious thought encumbers and unduly complicates life. Many believers claim otherwise, asserting that their faith provides clarity and “peace of mind.” Such professions, I believe, are another example of self-deception. While faith may make the believer experience a sense of happiness and inner-peace (so do meditation and marijuana), religious belief nonetheless often requires agonizing thought and continuous struggle to adhere to all the perceived rules of God-ordained conduct. Believers must constantly wrestle with such questions as the commonly heard, “why do bad things happen to good people,” or "why do some of my people (the devout) behave so badly?" Why is God not responding to my prayers? Am I not praying hard enough? Does God detect in me a lack of sincerity or insufficient faith? Why is upholding my faith sometimes so difficult? Has my behavior really been good enough to insure passage to heaven, or will I burn in hell? Why does my atheist neighbor seem as kind and caring as those seated next to me each Sunday? 
We unbelievers are not bothered by such mind-twisting thoughts. As noted in Chapter 4, we readily accept that bad things happen - all the time, at every moment. If someone we know has an unexpected death, or something quite unfortunate befalls us, we do not have to ask “why?” We do not look for some mysterious and underlying meaning or explanation. We expect the unexpected. We do not fruitlessly search for or contrive answers that have no basis in fact. To put it rather bluntly, poop (to use a slightly-less objectionable term) happens! That is reality. These unfortunate occasions have nothing to do with belief in a supernatural deity or what your horoscope revealed in the morning paper. Not having to always be seeking answers to such convoluted questions is liberating. Not having to heed what some ancient prophet thought makes for a much-less complicated life. The peace of mind I experience recognizing that life has no meaning beyond what we do here with our limited time on earth is every bit as reassuring as, “with God all things are possible.” Perhaps more so!  The serenity and confidence that I felt long ago when I rejected my mother’s appeal to “get right with God” are still with me after 55 years. 
Apart from my already much-discussed pleasure-driven theory about faith, faulty reasoning must be considered an underlying factor in religious belief. It is an absence of sound thought that fosters the senseless notion that we should pattern our 21st Century existence on what ancient minds thought. The idea that modern man should carefully follow instruction manuals written eons ago is both laughable and counterintuitive. Even without reading one word of the Bible or other ancient doctrines, it is absurd to think that people living way back then would know more than modern man does about who we are, where we came from, or how we should live. Just a few hundred years ago, our slave-owning founding fathers put together an historic document, the Constitution, but even those smart, forward-thinking fellows could not begin to comprehend what life would be like in this country today. As visionary as they were, there is little evidence that they foresaw political parties and the immense role they would come to play in governing this country. Nor does their famous document reveal an awareness of the coming influence of corporate America and the many advocacy groups and all their lobbyists. I sense no futuristic reflection that would suggest they anticipated this “land of the free” becoming such a great beacon to people around the world, or that our multicultural nation would have a “mulatto” as its President in the early 21st Century. 
Rational thinkers do not want to be governed by obsolete thoughts and practices. None of us would want to be hauled into an ancient court of law (to the extent that fair and impartial tribunals ever existed in the long-ago past). Yet, as stressed earlier, much has been said and continues to be said by the devout about the importance of “religious law.” I seriously doubt that they would care to be falsely accused of some grievous crime and then drug in chains into a legal hearing that relied exclusively on those old laws. Or be judged by a jury of Old Testament prophets. More to the point, how many believers today would want to be tried in a court where evidence, logic, and reason were not admissible? What if our legal proceedings permitted an accused to be found guilty solely on the testimony of a Christian witness whose only claim was that he “knew in his heart” that the accused fellow on trial was guilty. No evidence, no corroborating witnesses, no cross-examinations. Yet that is precisely the defense used by many believers when they are asked to explain their religious faith and what they believe to be true: they “know in their heart!” Let me stress that once again, in case it did not sink in: Would you - a devout believer - want to be tried in a court of law where you could be found guilty solely on the basis of one witness who “knew in his heart” that you were guilty? 
Just as no one today would want to be tried in such a manner, one can compile a very, very long list of human practices and customs that we now reject outright, that have been eclipsed by time and progress. Modern humans do not seek the advice of ancient “healers” who prescribed the attachment of leaches to bodies to suck out “the evil spirits” or whatever else they mistakenly thought caused sickness and death. We pay no attention to what the long-ago alchemists thought. We do not manage our world economy by relying on the barter systems of the old trade routes or the accounting methods of ancient merchants. We do not track the world’s massive flow of goods and services by carefully inscribing their movement on parchment with goose quills. Our modern-day ships do not navigate the oceans relying on obsolete maritime means and charts, nor do we teach world geography based on 4th Century maps. We do not communicate with smoke signals or the pony express. 
Most thoughts and inventions and products that were common just a hundred years ago (never mind thousands of years ago) are now obsolete. Vanished, gone, except for passing mention in the history books or as museum relics. The inventiveness of the human mind continues to produce new and improved ways of thinking and doing all manner of things. Despite that oft-heard yearning for “the good old days,” no sensible person today cares to return to such times. Yet, vast numbers of believers go right on thinking that those who formulated religious dogma “in the good (really old) days” were wiser and better informed than us, that they had unique insight into all manner of things that somehow to this day surpasses our own ability to seek out and unravel the truth. 
As suggested earlier, most of us can easily produce better laws than the big ten said to have been handed down by God through Moses. Most of us are better informed and, I suspect, much wiser than Solomon when it comes to nearly all topics. Nearly any educated person these days could stand toe-to-toe with Socrates or Plato. Pick any subject and almost any well-informed, modern human is apt to be more knowledgeable than those who gave us all that dated religious thought. Why, then, not subject all those old words and thoughts to a critical review? Why not rely on intellectual reasoning to guide our decision-making and govern our lives? Why pattern our lives on their archaic beliefs? 
This line of thought leads me to another question that has long perplexed me and others who share my secular outlook: Why must we respect religious thought? Why do people of faith have a self-proclaimed, “God-given right” to not have their beliefs questioned or challenged or discredited, if it can be reasonably shown that their thoughts do not deserve such deference? Why do people of faith have a right to act outside the conventional laws of commerce and medical services by claiming religious “freedom of conscience?” Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. Why should belief in the unproven warrant different or better treatment under our laws than belief in the provable? Why should religious leaders be exempt from the secular laws of this land? Why are priests and other religious “leaders” who molest children not charged as felons and imprisoned? Why are their superiors, who knew about and helped cover up such crimes, not charged for aiding and abetting? Such favorable “outside-the-law” treatment is indefensible. It occurs only because of the power and influence of the religious elite and their political patrons. 
I am also compelled to ask, at this juncture, why is it that the devout do not subject their own beliefs to the same scrutiny that they purposefully (but often erroneously) give to what we unbelievers find to be credible? Countless books have been written by believers trying to discredit evolution and all of the other scientific and historic evidence that we unbelievers accept as being sensible, realistic, and true. Certainly more sensible, realistic, and truthful than the idea that there is a loving yet ruthless deity lurking out there somewhere, millions of light years away, who is capable of knowing instantaneously what billions of earthlings are thinking and doing every second. Believers (not all, but many) mockingly dismiss the irrefutable DNA evidence linking chimpanzees and humans, yet they eagerly embrace what unbelievers see as the preposterous notion that there are three separate divine entities (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are one and the same. Many believers reject the scientific evidence that earth is several billion years old, yet assert without a shred of doubt that their God (whose existence cannot be proven) could create heaven and earth in just 6 days. They don’t bother to read one word of The Origin of Species, yet unquestioningly accept the entirety of the New Testament as “the truth.” They ignore the bodily restoration of an ages-old T-Rex based on skeletal evidence, yet eagerly accept the claim that the body of a man known as Jesus was resurrected and went off to heaven where He now watches over us. This inability (or refusal) to subject their own beliefs to any sort of honest review, while rashly scorning those of their critics, suggests once again their survival impulse at work. They insist on clinging to their spurious beliefs no matter what. 
No one disputes that our universe and presence on planet earth inspire awe in all of us. But that does not give license to go out and manufacture simplistic, unprovable explanations that ignore all of the readily-available evidence. Believers should not be allowed to go unchallenged when they assert that the human eye, brain, body, or life itself are simply too amazing and complicated to have just evolved over time, that there had to have been “a Maker,” a Great Power who designed and then made it all work. The watchmaker analogy, whose flaw was noted earlier in this book, solves nothing other than to discourage further inquiry. 
Perhaps, providing we humans do not completely destroy ourselves and the planet we inhabit, someone in the future may discover that what I believe, as outlined in this book, is only partially true - or not true at all. Further research may confirm that humans do have a gene that compels people toward spirituality. Should that come about, a more scientific explanation might undermine my contention that primal pleasure seeking and the survival instinct are what keep religious faith alive. Perhaps it will be discovered that the brains of believers and unbelievers are different to the extent that those differences can explain the adherence to or rejection of faith. An avid researcher of the future may discover that the answer to why our ancient planet is hurtling through space is something altogether different from both God and the Big Bang theory. Maybe a secular scientist seeking to disprove the existence of God will discover that He is real. Or, that our universe is actually the handiwork of a super-corporate board of directors in some other cosmos, that all we can see with our space telescopes is nothing but a drop of water or some other unknown celestial chemical compound in a much, much bigger universe. 
That is why we must keep moving forward, constantly exploring new ideas in search of new evidence, looking for “the real truth” about who we are and where we came from. We do not do that when we continue to base our lives on the thoughts of those who believed it was necessary to spill goat blood on eastward-facing altars or who, like Saint John the Divine, foretold all the seas becoming “as the blood of dead men.” 
The Book of Revelation warns in conclusion that anyone who “adds unto” or “takes away” from what it says will be confronted by all manner of plagues and other horrific consequences. I don’t know that I have added to or taken away, but I have certainly questioned and cast doubt. In which case, if I took all those warnings seriously, I should be very concerned. I am not. I lose no sleep thinking about such matters. A stroke or heart attack or losing battle with cancer, no doubt, but ten-headed locusts or fire-snorting, lion-headed horses charging across my bedroom? You’ll have to pardon me if I think not. I am content knowing that I have tried to live with logic and reason as my guides - rather than faith and imaginary conversations with an unseen deity. 
I also sleep well knowing that if I am wrong about all of this and there really is a God and heaven, I will one day be welcomed “up there.” How do I know that? Upon learning that I had been baptized as a boy, a preacher once reassured me that despite my impious outlook, my baptism would guarantee safe passage into the realm of golden streets and fountains of milk and honey. There you have it - straight from the mouth of one of God’s chosen few! One who knows God's innermost thoughts! Would he deceive me? Surely not, though admittedly other clergymen don’t share my kind patron’s optimism about the direction of my soul’s onward journey. They tell me, as though they really know, that I must be born again (once again), saved, sanctified, purified, petrified, anointed, appointed, or whatever other simplistic, ritualistic nonsense they deem necessary. It’s all quite hilarious really, when you can step back from all of it and objectively analyze what they believe to be true. There are billions of believers out there, all “talking” to their God, all “hearing” what they want to hear. All hearing different things! 
The idea that “my soul” might spend eternity somewhere in the far reaches of our universe simply because my body was once briefly immersed in a chilly Idaho creek is laughable. Equally daft, in my opinion, is the claim that the world’s many religious folk know anything at all truthful about our destiny beyond that last journey in a hearse or the fire of a crematorium. I have no doubt that they are completely wrong about all of it. Even if there is some sort of super-powerful deity residing in a "paradise" somewhere out there in the galaxy, who is to say that the utopian destination will not be for those humans who used their God-given brains for honest reflection, rather than adhering to ancient thought? What if heaven is the ultimate destination for those who promoted scientific inquiry, rather than for those who embraced groundless beliefs? What an ironic twist that would be - all the pious ones sweltering away in Satan’s sweat-shop, while their atheist antagonists are sipping iced-tea and chatting amicably with “Their Savior.” 
Let’s be honest here. Being an “expert” on a place that no one can prove even exists requires stunning deception and arrogance. Some of my critics will no doubt counter that the views expressed in this book are no less deceptive, and equally if not more arrogant. To which I would remind them of what was said in my introduction - that unlike most of God’s earthly spokespeople, I do not claim that the thoughts expressed in this book are “the truth.” They are what I “believe” to be true, what makes the most sense to me. Nothing more, nothing less. The real question in all of this is why do believers continue to claim that they “know” the truth - when, to be perfectly frank, they know nothing at all about any great beyond. If they did, as I reminded readers in an earlier chapter, these discussions would have ceased thousands of years ago. 
Many times over the decades I have heard believers express the opinion that it is best to not take any chances about what happens after death. “Better to be safe than sorry,” they say. Best to not gamble, in case God and heaven are real. I was reminded of this fearful outlook many years ago while flying across the Pacific. I quickly discovered, in the course of polite small talk shortly after take-off, that I was seated next to one of God’s chosen ones. He was a man roughly my age who had spent many years as a missionary in Asia. We passed a number of hours on that long flight in a rather good-natured exchange. Toward the end of our discussion, he said he could understand my take on religion, claiming that he had once thought much like me, but found belief to be more appealing and comforting than disbelief. His “questioning phase,” he said, eventually gave way to his fear of being wrong, so he opted to “play it safe,” letting his survival instinct govern his thinking. Belief offered him more pleasure than doubt and uncertainty. 
I have been asked (though only rarely) what prompted me to turn my back on religion. What compelled me to think so differently than others? Some have suggested that I might have had a more positive view of religion had I been raised in a less-dogmatic faith. It has also been proposed that, even at my advancing age, I am still “rebelling” against that strict upbringing. Others among the devout are convinced that - like the infamous “there are no atheists in a foxhole” (another myth) - I will reach out to God on my death-bed. 
I have no doubt that all of these viewpoints are wrong. My youthful rebellion against religion was simply the spark that fueled a lifelong search for something more convincing and intellectually challenging than, “you just have to have faith.” I found reason and logic more appealing than belief in an invisible deity. 
It is my hope that this little book has explained, at least in part, why I decided long ago to search for real answers, rather than accepting “the truth” offered by those ancient Bible writers or all those “you’re going to burn in Hell” revival preachers. 
I bring all this to an end by quoting a passage from Mark Twain’s “The Mysterious Stranger.” I said in my introduction that others, more gifted than me, have addressed many of the topics that I have covered in this book. Twain was surely one of the best, and I doubt that Aunt Bertha ever read him:
 
“A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones ... who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of the mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell; mouths mercy and invented hell; mouths the Golden Rule and forgiveness ... and invented hell; who mouths morals for other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man’s acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him.” Amen.

******

Given her advanced age, I knew when I embarked on this writing project that Aunt Bertha might not be with us when (or if) I ever completed it. Word arrived in the summer of 2008 that she had “passed away” quietly in her sleep. I decided to continue writing as though she were still alive, planning - as I am doing here - to report her demise as a brief attachment at the conclusion of the book. 
Perhaps there really is a caring God, as she went as we all hope to go - one night while asleep in our own bed. And perhaps I am wrong. Maybe at this very moment her soul is speeding toward heaven on that journey of a million years. Even more miraculously, maybe she is already up there conversing with Her Savior. I truly, truly doubt it, but none of us really know, and - as far as I am concerned - never will. That is the beauty of religion and why it has endured for so long. No one can, with absolute certainty, prove or disprove any of the ages-old, unresolved arguments. So the myths and mysteries and hopes for an eternal existence live on - giving pleasure to successive generations of believers. 
May Aunt Bertha rest in peace, be it in her rain-swept Oregon grave or her new home in heaven. 


About The Author

J. A. Steiner spent his formative, church-going years
in Colorado, Idaho, and Oregon. He served in the Marine Corps
for 4 years and is a graduate of the University of Oregon.
He lived and worked in Asia and Europe for 13 years,
during a 30-year career with the Central Intelligence Agency.