New Site

On the off chance that anyone stumbles onto this page, I'm now blogging at:

http://exatheist.blogspot.com/

I will still be using this space for my tour blogs, but other than that, will be using the other one exclusively.

Lent Experiment and other thoughts

So with one week to go, my Lent experiment is going well. I've played a few games on my laptop from time to time, watched some movies on Hulu, and bought a bottle of Scotch (generous gift from my parents for my half birthday/sympathy for an especially difficult weekend), but other than that have avoided the three vices I decided to cut off for the time. And really that was the point, not to entirely eliminate these things (I love video games, movies and liquor far too much to really give them up), but to put them in their proper place.

For instance, during the above aforementioned difficult weekend (I discovered the unpleasantness of the self-employment tax, and then got thrown out of my busking spot in Central Park by police as they came and cleared all of the buskers out as I was trying to make the money to pay my taxes), I had a bit of a freak-out. Instead of going home, buying a bottle of something or other and drowning my sorrows in video games, I called up a friend, and we got together and hung out the rest of the day. All in all a much healthier way of dealing with life's issues than going off into fantasy land and pretending they don't exist. Hopefully I have the willpower to continue in this mindset even after the theological motivation moves on.

Recently, I had an experience that I would say made me feel even more confirmed than ever in my newfound faith. I won't go into too many details, but let's just say I got hired to play with a string quartet at a party that turned out to be much more wild than I had bargained for, and came face to face with the obvious brokenness of New Yorkers who work incredibly hard all week waiting for the time when they can unwind with sex and drugs. It's a funny thing, but I find that perhaps the greatest sign that "right" exists in the universe is when "wrong" so readily rears its ugly head. I think people have the problem of evil backwards: evil is not a sign that God cannot exist, it is in fact a sign that He MUST exist, because we know evil when we see it. Obviously many (probably all of us) have been blinded to various forms of it, depending on who we are, but we all (or at least the vast, vast majority of us) at least see some of it for what it is. The simple reality is that the existence of "wrongness" implies an ultimate standard, and a standard implies God (a moral standard cannot exist without a reasoning consciousness). Perhaps an odd way of looking at it, I'll admit, but even back when I was reasoning through the problem of faith, I always found the concept of evil to be one of the biggest logical sticking points for me as a nonbeliever. For, without God, how can I say that evil is anything more than a point of view? And yet my inner being so utterly resisted that notion, it was just impossible to accept, even then.

Now, I see much more wrongness in the world than I did when I was an atheist. And yet, amazingly, I see so much more that is right with the world as well. It seems that all good things in the world come from God, and yet almost all of them can be abused by our free will. So now when I eat an amazing meal, or take a sip of a good scotch, I realize that the pleasures these engender are tiny facets of the divine nature - God delights in useless things, things that serve to increase our enjoyment of creation without providing any sort of strictly utilitarian outcomes (obviously, when I eat I become full and replenish my body's energy, and yet there is no utilitarian principle in the enjoyment of food). And yet, were I to eat way too much (or at least, to do so on a regular basis) I risk losing good health, and of course losing much of the enjoyment in eating (any addict will tell you how the pleasure taken in a thing decreases as the simple addiction to it increases. Satisfying an overpowering urge for something doesn't equate to pleasure). To say the least, I find the simple idea that all good things come from God to be heartening, and a necessary counterweight to keep one from being brought down by all the ways in which His gifts have been abused.

Just some things I've been thinking about lately.

Lent

So the season of Lent started two days ago, it being Ash Wednesday. Of course the actual placement of various dates is entirely arbitrary - who will ever know when Jesus was born, or exactly what part of the year he spent those 40 days in the wilderness. What's important is that people take it seriously.

Yesterday I was having a conversation with a friend, and remarked on exactly this arbitrariness, that one should strive for spiritual closeness with God all year. But then he made the excellent point that Lent is the one time of year that believers set aside to refocus themselves on Jesus. Just as how in an earlier blog post I remarked upon the impossibility as a person of living one's life entirely with God in mind, so it becomes impossible to live one's year that way as well. And so these 40 days are set aside for just that purpose, to refocus oneself not alone, but with the community aiding one another in this endeavor.

So I was thinking last night, after returning home, why not try it? After all, I am a brand new believer. What have I to lose, by actually taking this time seriously? And so for Lent, I have decided to give up not one thing, but the category of those things in my life which constitute mindless escapism. For me, that means three things: video games, netflix, and alcohol.

I just took the first step this morning: deleting every game from my hard drive. That meant everything from large games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion, down to even the small Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis ROMs. That doesn't mean I took my discs outside and shattered them. That wouldn't do much good anyways, as everything these days is downloadable. But it does mean that I have to take the lengthy extra steps of reinstalling (or re-downloading) and patching these games before I can use them again, as opposed to the simple step of popping in a disc or double-clicking on an icon.

The next to go will be alcohol. That doesn't mean I won't have a beer with friends or maybe even grab an occasional one at the corner store. What it does mean is that I'm not going to be buying six-packs or keeping a bottle of hard liquor in my room, for those nights when I just want to get buzzed and forget about the world. I do put it in the future tense, however, as I do still have a bit of a bottle left, and I'm loathe to waste it. But I'm sure it will be gone soon enough. One thing at a time . . .

Lastly, my netflix billing cycle finishes up on March 17th, so I'll be putting a month-long hold on my account starting then. Again, I don't wish to waste money already spent, and besides, I have a couple Indiana Jones movies coming that a friend and I have been meaning to watch for some time now. However, as soon as the 17th rolls around, netflix is gone as well.

So there it is. This month will be an experiment. I often admit to myself and others that I lack the discipline to remove these crutches from my life, but maybe now, with the help of God and my community, I can do so, for at least a time. And here it is in writing as well, lest I "forget".

So what do I plan to do instead? Well, there's reading. I am fortunate to have two pastors giving me books on nearly a weekly basis, so that a bit of a backlog has developed. I also have yet to read about half of the New Testament, and all of the Old Testament. I of course have my cello. The weather is also getting warmer, meaning opportunities not just for busking in the park, but for actual exercise as well. I also would like to try my hand at writing songs; oh I always say it, and always get some ideas and then always quit before I barely even get started, but no time like the present to try again.

And then there's the most important issue: learning how to communicate with God. Even to my mind now it sounds silly. And yet I feel I'm a Christian today because God communicated with me. Maybe it's time to learn how to speak back, and then to listen. How can I merely dismiss this idea without having ever honestly tried it? So that is what this month will be for as well.

Christianity and power

So the more I read the bible and the more I learn about Christian theology, the more disturbed I am by those Christians in this country (although this applies to religious people anywhere) who wish to insert religion into government. The reality seems, time and again, that when you combine religion with politics, you end up corrupting both.

On American politics -

Take George W, for instance. Most analysts seem to agree that he rode the evangelical movement in this country to victory. And what did they get in return? Abortion is still legal, gays can still get married in some states (ie, the constitutional amendment was talked about but never really pressed for), and the "Hollywood culture" here is still as strong as ever. And yet in the meantime many of these groups seemed to sacrifice Jesus' insistence on poverty and the idea that wealth can be poisonous to the soul so as not to offend his richer donors. Or maybe this was going on anyways, I've heard tell of so-called "prosperity gospels" used in some large churches to attract a wealthier congregation. Still, I get the feeling that part of it has to do with the marriage of certain groups of religious conservatives with the Republican party, which generally seems to promote policies more helpful to people making lots of money (I'm not here arguing for or against either of these groups. I have my opinions on that subject, but it's not the issue I want to get into here).

And so in the end, we ended up with some religious groups sacrificing some core elements of the gospels in order to have their issues heard in Washington, and you had Washington paying lip service to those issues, but in the end not strongly pressing for any of them. And for some reason the issue of gay marriage became more important than the radical generosity and grace of Jesus, at least on the public persona these groups put forth. I would say that may have to do with the idea that when Jesus' message is taken to its logical conclusion, it's not a popular one. Give until it hurts. Don't spend your money on things you don't need. Pray for others, commune with God, and spend less time worrying about your own needs and desires. If someone does violence to you, allow him to. If a man takes your goods, don't try to take them back. That sort of message doesn't tend to go over so well.

And of course, on the political side of things, you end up with the same sort of corruption of message. Now, I haven't yet figured out the theology on homosexuality. I've heard competing arguments either way, read the relevant biblical passages, and am not sure what to think. That said I can see why various people, at least from a biblical standpoint, can come down on either side of the debate, although clearly the "it's a sin" group would be in the majority. That said, LEGALLY, it should make no difference whatsoever what religious people believe. We have this wonderful principle in our constitution and our political culture generally referred to as the separation of church and state. Marriage has been given so many legal connotations, tax laws, visitations, wills, child custody, what have you, that it's currently indistinguishable from any other legal contract. Now, for most people it certainly carries a greater significance, but legally, it's merely a contract between two people. To deny that contract to a group within the population merely for religious reasons is insane. And yet most politicians won't press this issue mainly because it ticks off a lot of religious people.

In general -

A theocracy is a really, really scary form of government. Fortunately, we don't have one in this country, although it seems sometimes as if some people wish we did. The simple reality is that you cannot force people to be "moral". And God certainly wouldn't have it that way. If God wanted us all to follow His laws all the time no matter what He would never have given us free will. Of course He wants us to follow His laws, but He wants us to do so willingly, and I can't imagine that He doesn't realize that in the meantime we are going to mess up a LOT. It's part of the journey to becoming children of God. Of course, a theocracy wishes to take away that journey, to use the weight of law, of violence, to make sure that everyone is in compliance. And that's just insane. It's peoples' hearts that matter, not their actions. And if hearts are in the right place, actions will inevitably follow.

In the end, there are quite a few biblical passages that talk about how as Christians we must become weak and humble, because in the end such things are where true strength lies. In the story of Jesus, an omnipotent deity allowed himself to become a baby, to grow into a man and be tortured and killed, when He could have saved Himself with a word, and did it all for the salvation of humankind. His weakness became the greatest strength. And thus Christianity and political power will never mix. And that is a beautiful thing.

And now back to music

So in the past few weeks I've recorded tracks for two different albums - five tracks for Emanuel and the Fear, my longtime project, and another two for Roxanne De Bastion, a London-based singer/songwriter who actually opened for us on our first show in London. These two sessions had one thing in common: they were low-pressure, chill, and the end results were really quite stellar.

Which brings me to the point: you don't have to spend a ton of money, basically destroy your sanity, and do all sorts of editing, to make a good album. You have to have good music, the capability to perform it well, and some good mics. And that's really it. Yeah of course there's some editing going on, but really, these tracks are all going to be pretty close to legitimate performances, and if there's one thing I've learned from these sessions, it's how I want to record everything. What you hear on the record is what you'll get live, for the most part (obviously dependent on a decent sound man and good gear, but meh, you work with what you have). I'm immensely pleased with these recordings, and I can't wait to hear the final versions. Plus, the recording engineers for both projects were really sympathetic types who really seemed to believe in the music, and that makes all the difference in the world as to the vibe in a session.

On another topic -

My passion for being a musician tends to wax and wane. Lately it's definitely been trending upwards - I've been having some good gigs recently, not only good in the sense that they have enabled me to pay my rent and make some more connections, but good also in the sense that they have been very artistically fulfilling. Like doing a lecture/demonstration series for high school students, or last week premiering a piece by a NYC composer and performing another by one of the composers in residence with the Chicago Symphony (for the record, Mason Bates, who apparently is a well-known turn-table artist as well as composer. Fun piece, too). Having gigs like that, good sessions, rewarding work, I just often find myself at a gig thinking, "thank God I'm a musician." And that's a nice thing to be able to say, it's not always so true. Or maybe it is always true and I just forget it sometimes. And it looks as though the trend will continue, as I just landed a gig recording some tracks later this month with a Cuban pianist/composer, whose work I have played before and had a blast doing it. Can't wait to see what he's cooked up this time.

On the God front:

Currently reading a book about Paul and women. There's a lot of stuff in Paul that can certainly be taken as fairly misogynistic, at least in the context of modern culture. This book is actually claiming that Paul was in fact urging equality between the sexes, and that his meaning was twisted by people unwilling or unable to break out of the Athenian mindset (as opposed to the Spartans, where women were generally equal, but they didn't end up influencing the cultural trends in the way the Athenian philosophers did), which generally held the view of women as inferiors at best. I've only read half of the book so far, but from what I've read, he is using a lot of arguments based on various uses of Greek words that had more meanings and connotations than the simple English translations could convey. It's a very interesting book, and it's certainly helping me see just how difficult it can be to really puzzle out the meaning of scripture.

For instance, he is pointing out how Paul uses different words that can be translated to mean roughly the same thing, but actually have vastly different connotations. For example, he uses one word when referring to the relations between children and their parents, and masters and slaves, but then uses a different word when talking about the relationship between wives and husbands; and yet the two different words are translated in basically the same way "to be subject to". The argument is, if Paul really meant for women to obey their husbands in the same fashion, as has often been taken for granted over the course of history, then why did he use two different words?

Now, one may say that, if mistranslations cause us to call into question views of the bible that have been mostly unchallenged for most of its existence, then how can we trust anything in it? I would argue that part of that comes from experience. For instance, we currently live in a world that, at least in large chunks of it, provides women with opportunities equal to, or at least nearly equal to, those that men have. And thus we have seen that any differences between the genders don't extend to such things as leadership and intelligence. We see in the world little reason to think of men as coming before women, and it turns out that this book I'm reading ends up making a very convincing argument that, in fact, Paul was indeed arguing for basic equality between the genders, and not reinforcing the old cultural norm, as has been thought for centuries. Regardless, it's a fascinating argument, one that has given me much food for thought.

Oh and for the curious among you, the book is "What Paul Really Said About Women", by John Temple Bristow. I don't really know enough about the subject to know if his research is accurate, but I'd guess he's basically on target with most of it, given that his conclusions certainly make the letters of Paul make a great deal more sense to me.

An actual argument

So now we get to the point where I actually try to craft an argument for faith. I think it's an important exercise; not because I assume anyone is ever truly convinced by arguments. But I do think a good, solid argument for something can sometimes at least plant the seed of doubt in even one who is thoroughly convinced that God does not exist. I certainly am not going to go over the whole plethora of argument in regards to faith, merely a few that have stuck out in my mind. Nothing I say here will be original, of course, but really, in this day and age, what is? With an easy access to information, can any of us really craft a unique argument that has never been before put into writing? I imagine a small number of us will, probably entirely by accident, but I also imagine this will be an extremely rare occurrence.

First I'd like to start with the idea of the supernatural. Now, in C. S. Lewis' book "Miracles", he in fact starts his argument for the supernatural with the existence of peoples' ability to reason, without which one cannot even know of science, much less of the supernatural, but here I am writing a simple blog post and not a 200 page book, so I'm going to get straight to the point. Because frankly, without the supernatural, Christianity cannot possibly exist, since it is entirely premised upon a supernatural act, that being the resurrection of Jesus. I would call this act supernatural because it clearly falls outside of any reasonably accepted view of nature: that death is permanent. And so for Christianity to be valid, the supernatural must indeed be possible, in fact inevitable.

And here of course is perhaps the biggest stumbling block for any nonbeliever: the fact that, in this day and age, at least among "well-educated" people, it is pretty much taboo to admit to the existence of the supernatural. Everything has a "logical", or "rational" explanation. And yet this "logic" and "rationality" seems to me now to be downright irrational. What if the most rational explanation for something is in fact the supernatural? And yet since we discount it out of hand, it is immediately removed from the list of even possibility, let alone rationality. It seems odd that we can so cavalierly remove from our sphere of understanding something that thousands of years of human civilizations have taken for granted. Are we so arrogant in this day and age that we think all who lived in those eras were fools? To paraphrase Lewis, they may not have known about the workings of storms, and sickness, and all of those things that modern science knows of, but they certainly understood death. They certainly also understood logic and reasoning.

Now, I'm not going to here put up the bible as "truth" although I certainly in many respects believe it to be so. But putting aside that issue for the moment, something that has struck me in my exploration of it, particularly in the letters of Paul, is its reliance on logic. Paul was certainly a man who existed, of that there seems little doubt. What also seems mostly uncontested is that he was one day a man notorious in his persecution of Christians, and the next possibly their greatest teacher to come after Jesus. What happened in between is up to the reader, although Paul himself claimed he was visited by Jesus. The point, however, is that even though Paul believed the truth of Jesus' teachings to be self-evident (at least as expressed in Romans), he realized that he would have to make lucid, logical arguments for them. In reading a letter like Romans, one can see clearly crafted logical ideas that build on one another into an overall thesis. I think it's sometimes tempting to view Christianity as the work of superstitious men pining for salvation, for life after death. And yet in Paul one finds just the opposite: a clearly rational, brilliant writer who believes that he has been called by God to convince people of the truth of Jesus.

And here I also hold myself up as an example. I am not a superstitious man. Even now I find myself deeply skeptical (although certainly less so now than I was) whenever I hear talk of supernatural occurrences. But then again, it depends on who is doing the recounting. If I know the person, know their character, know how they think, if it's a person whose intelligence and judgment I trust, then which is more likely: that the supposed "supernatural" experience that they are recounting never actually happened? Or that they are telling the truth? Now of course psychology tells us that if an event happens and six people witness it, we will get six different stories. And yet an event did happen, outside of their perceptions of it, and it is likely that some are closer to the truth than others. That's why the source of the story is so important.

And so if you view me as a rational, intelligent person, how then does one explain my conversion? Well, there are any number of ways one could explain it away. Maybe I'm not as rational as I'd like to think. Maybe deep down I have yearned for religion all of my life, and was then slowly swayed by a church until my mind concocted the whole experience. And yet anyone who knows me knows that I have at times in my life been overtly hostile to religion, at other times ambivalent, but never accepting. The point is that for me, it took experiencing something outside of my awareness, outside of my story, outside of anything I had ever even conceived of, to find God. I couldn't have made up my conversion even if I wanted to which, in my mind, lends it a great deal of credibility; not, mind you, to others, who of course weren't in my head this whole time; but to myself, as even now I am tempted at times to doubt my own experience.

I would also hold up as example any one of the plethora of rational men of faith, whose writings are scattered all over the history of philosophy and literature, or who can be seen teaching today at various churches. To doubt the core rationality of so many brilliant scholars and thinkers is to my mind just a little bit weird. I am not saying that Paul, myself (I of course here am not attempting to truly compare myself, or my experience, with Paul. However, there are a few similarities, namely a divinely inspired absolute shift in beliefs, and a need to see Christianity logically and rationally explained), and all of these thinkers are speaking truth (although of course I believe so), as, well, there must always be room for doubt and skepticism. What I am saying is that the only reason I was able to dismiss even the possibility of the supernatural for my entire life was that I never even asked myself the logical questions that this conclusion must ask, namely, are all these people insane, or stupid?

So for anyone who may be reading this who thinks religion to be mere superstition, or for the religious who discount any occurrence that seems to carry a whiff of the supernatural, I would say, just examine these questions. Read some letters of Paul, or some works by Lewis or Chesterton (to name my personal favorites). I'm not saying you will agree with them, I still find plenty to question in all of them (yes, even Paul - which is good. The bible should be grappled with, not just blindly accepted), but it will be harder (I hope) just to discount them as random whackos.

And if they were not crazy, then what was it that they experienced? If we are merely victims of constant stimuli out of our control, can we really know anything? Can we state anything at all as fact? Can we trust our own ability to reason? Why is it that we trust our abilities to discover the universe and the science that explains it, but not our abilities to discern when things happen outside of that understanding?

The Problem of Conversion

So I've been a Christian for three days now. That gives me a lot of credibility on matters of faith, yes of this I am aware, but all snark aside - I think it's important to catalog this experience so that my future self can look back on it and remember where I came from.

The biggest question, of course, is the big "what now?" And the joyful answer is, "I have no clue." I say joyful because life suddenly seems like a grand adventure, in some respects, as if the cloud over my eyes has been removed and now I see things clearly. Now, this is in many ways an exaggeration, in the sense that I now see things so clearly that I realize that I know far, far less about the world than I thought I did (although certainly more than I did last Friday), and yet still retain all of my old knee-jerk reactions as if I do. But I suppose it's a step in the right direction.

The other answer to the "what now?" can, I believe, be found in scripture. For instance, in realizing how little I know about the world, I am beginning to realize that all of my ideas about money, sex, discipline, morality, all of them need to be re-prioritized. I don't mean this in some legalistic, "if I don't do this I won't get into heaven" sense. That would be silly. But, having come to the belief that Jesus Christ died for our sins and calls upon us to follow Him, I believe that it would be foolish for me not to examine, and examine seriously, that implications of that.

On issues of money: does God REALLY care if I buy the latest computer game instead of using that money instead to feed a starving family? Well, I would guess the answer is that it does indeed matter. I'm not saying that the implications of this say much about the state of one's soul, but I think that these are issues that I should consider. I guess the crux of the matter is that now I feel it is important to examine why I am buying various things. I'm not suggesting I'm considering divesting myself of all worldly possessions and living like an ascetic. Merely that now it has become something to at least think about.

On sex: well, let's face it, without God, it's really hard to find too many strictly human moral arguments against sex before marriage, divorce, and pornography. And yet God clearly cares about these issues, as they are mentioned regularly in the bible (well, pornography is merely implied, but the implication is not exactly subtle). Thus I find I must do pretty much a full reversal on the issues: not as to how I judge those who engage in them, but how I treat them in my own life. I don't feel guilty for how I dealt with these things in the past: I wasn't a believer then, and had no reason to behave any differently. Unlike actions such as murder or theft, these are sins that aren't exactly readily apparent to the nonbeliever, and thus it was what it was. That said, I no longer have any excuse.

On discipline: I find myself in a very much undisciplined state of late. I have far too much free time on my hands, and I don't often use it so well. However, with the accepting of God into my life, I now must acknowledge that the gifts I have been given are tools which He means for me to use for the furtherance of His kingdom. Now I must practice more not merely to better myself on my instrument, but because it is a gift from God. Discipline also implies the ability to maintain faithfulness even when God's presence is not readily apparent. Four days ago I had what I would call a revelation of the divine. But things will not always be so (I am assuming). I will likely go through long stretches of time without being given such concrete indicators of His presence, and thus must learn faithfulness as an end unto itself.

On morality: for most of my life, "situational ethics" and "relativism" were pretty much the status quo. But the reality is that there is an ultimate moral standard. I must allow this standard to challenge my own concepts of morality, even when they are at odds with what I am used to. Not an easy thing for me, given that I'm fond of following my own judgment. I'm not saying that reason must be removed from the picture, far from it. Without reason we can hardly hope to interpret scripture adequately. But also, without humility, it is just as impossible.

All of these are merely first impressions on some basic issues. Of course at first blush, it seems mostly "negative": I need to change such and such, this or that is wrong, and so forth. And yet in many ways it is quite liberating. The reality was that the way I was living wasn't working, wasn't bringing me happiness, or even basic contentment. Now I feel that even in times of trouble, I will have hope for the future, and the realization that when I fall, God will always be there to catch me. It's a start, anyways.