It's an article about a man who went and lived with the bush people known as the Hadza for two weeks. His portrait of them is of a content and happily ignorant people. They're unsentimental and don't get caught up in things like thinking about the future or setting up social hierarchies. Everything is shared between everybody and they have little personal possessions.

In particular this statement got me thinking,

"The Hadza are not big on ritual. There is not much room in their lives, it seems, for mysticism, for spirits, for pondering the unknown. There is no specific belief in an afterlife—every Hadza I spoke with said he had no idea what might happen after he died. There are no Hadza priests or shamans or medicine men. Missionaries have produced few converts."

Christianity's main message is salvation. That message fits so well with civilized life. Social interactions are messy. It's easy to throw life out of balance and get lost inside any number of different excesses. The mechanics of daily modern survival require constantly looking into the future; What'll happen to me tomorrow, twenty years from now, eighty years from now, after I die?

Jesus works with that system, Jesus is good for that system. What about for people like the Hadza though? Will they be eternally punished for their sins because they don't care to think of what happens after death? How can a people without possessions benefit from the Sermon on the Mount?

Christianity's form of salvation is great because it doesn't work on a tally system of good deeds and bad deeds. It's more about going in the right direction and having God make up the difference. But it also has issues because of the damnation factor. Damnation puts people into two groups; saints and the hell bound.

The general consensus among Christians is that in order to be saved, one must be in some sort of relationship with Christ and God. But that leads to the problems of people who've never heard the gospel or people like the Hadza who can't understand the importance of the gospel. Are they a special circumstance when it comes to salvation or are they just out of luck?

Over the break I was at a friend's apartment. I had an ok time, but at one point in the evening I realized that I really didn't enjoy being with those people. We weren't interested in the same things in life. They had different priorities and being around them just left me feeling empty.

It's much the same feeling I get when I waste an afternoon surfing the internet or watching television. Time is precious, so why would I waste it doing something ethereal and pointless. I have all these things that I would like to do but I don't because I find it easier to sit my butt on a couch and not do anything at all. How much would I get accomplished if I cut those things out of my life?

There's a movement of living called minimalism. In this movement people attempt to cut down to the important things in life. This is different from asceticism in that it doesn't require descending into poverty. Rather it focuses on utility and quality. A person living a minimalistic lifestyle will not purchase a bunch of different objects or tools that can do the same job. Rather they choose one tool that can be used to do a job effectively. There's little room for nostalgia or hoarding things. If it doesn't serve a purpose right now, whether practically or easthetically, then it goes out the door. Additionally they will cut out activities and pursuits that are not of prime importance to them.

A minimalist would not try to own all at once an expensive home theater system, apartment, sports car, motorcycle, lake house, personal garden, and every gaming system known to man. It would be far too much to enjoy. Rather the minimalist will pick those things that are most important. If the man is not interested in maintaining a yard or spending a lot of time inside, he won't buy a large house. It'd be a waste of time. It'd be more practical to rent out an apartment in the city or purchase a condo. The minimalist owns his things, his things do not own him. I think that is something worthwhile to pursue.

So far I've cut out a lot of my video game playing and television/movie watching. I haven't bought a game or a movie in a while. I enjoy films, but I don't ever feel like watching a film more than a few times anymore (with a few specific exceptions). Now I focus on doing more activities that I find much more rewarding, like writing or spending time with special people. Over the past year or so I've slowly been heading my life towards this lifestyle without actively seeking it. Now I'm being a little more proactive, but still have a ways to go.

Here are some examples of minimalistic design in a house.

Noah is an electrical engineering at UTD. I met him at a party of a mutual friend and was impressed with his intelligence and strong stance on Christianity. I decided to interview him on his stances and allow him to address some of the issues raised in the previous interview. The result is lengthy but interesting and I believe worth taking the time to read.

1. America seems to be slowly heading toward a religious landscape similar to that of current western Europe. Why do you think that is?

First off, I don't really know enough about the other religious groups in America to say much about them, but I'll do my best to answer as a Christian. I think we (speaking of all people calling themselves "Christian" in America) have kind of dropped the ball on some things, and I promise I'm not trying to sound judgmental here. I'm just making a fair observation based on the people I've met in my short life. I think most nonreligious folks in America don't have a huge problem with Jesus. Most of the time, their problem is with His followers. Some of us have retreated and tried to stay separate from everyone else, hoping to avoid the "bad influence" of the world. Some of us have taken to Bible-thumping and made ourselves moral Nazis, walking around and telling people off for their sins (which are evidently so much greater than ours). Some of us are actually fine upstanding people, living life and shining our light the way God intended His people to live, but those are getting harder to find these days.

I think what I'm getting at here is that we've forgotten to show how relevant Jesus is to people today in America. People develop their understanding of the person of Christ by interacting with His church, and that means we are responsible for putting forth the correct image of Him. I fear that we have given the impression that Christianity is bogged down with dusty old prejudices, outdated rules, and ignorant assumptions, and consequently have misrepresented the dynamic, active, and powerful God that is behind it. I think that subsequently, and understandably, a lot of people have just kind of checked out , taking a placid, disillusioned stance on religion in general.

2. What are your thoughts on evolutionary theory? Do you see any problems with it? What about theistic evolution?
I think it has been demonstrated throughout the ages that nature is dynamic and vibrant and able to steer its own course within certain boundaries. However, I remain unconvinced of many of the premises of current evolutionary theory. For example, I wouldn't trust it enough to build a philosophy based on it. I'm no expert in biology, but from what I understand, we're really extending ourselves a long way to be making assertions based on homologous genetics and fossil records. As far as attempting to surmise the origins of human life (or any life, or even matter), I think we're making quite a long shot as things stand. That being said, I want to be clear that I don't personally have it out for anyone that chooses to believe in evolution. However, I urge any inquisitive mind to consider that alternative explanations are plausible, and I think a scientist should be willing to consider anything for the discovery of truth. Also, I think it's fair to point out that while science can provide us a very precise perspective on how our world works, it doesn't explain it entirely. As long as humans exist, we will still be forced to extend our faith into something in order to have a working worldview.
I believe the Genesis account of creation, that God created everything in six days, including humans in His image (meaning that we share some of His traits). I believe the above because I believe the Bible (more on that later), not because I think that "we Christians have better science and it's already proven our God", or anything like that. Please note that the Bible is generally not a scientific book, although it has some eerily perceptive commentary and gives an excellent basis for human scientific progress. I believe that my God is the most high, sovereign, holy, infinite God, and all else the Bible claims Him to be. I also believe that He didn't just make our world and step back; He stepped into it in the person of Jesus Christ. Only through Christ can the original connection between God and mankind be restored to its proper state.
As far as theistic evolution goes, I'm not real sure why it has gained so much momentum, except that it appears to make peace between two extremes. Honestly, it doesn't seem to be logically consistent with evolution and Christian theology proper. It seems to be born out of a misunderstanding of God and His Word. If God is Who He says He is (I know that's a stretch for some, but bear with me), then His Word is actually as unchangeable and mighty as it claims to be. Why couldn't He have created everything in six days? Also, if we interpret the Genesis account (a book written in a historical narrative form) as purely allegorical, couldn't the whole Bible be read as "allegorical"? And if the Bible is really so flimsy as that, it's just another book like every other, why even bother with it? By no means have I covered every scenario there, and certainly an almighty God can create a universe however He pleases, but I will leave this question with one last thought. The Genesis account doesn't tell us precisely HOW (scientifically speaking) God created things after matter had been called into existence. What if our research in these genetic trees is simply discovering the order of creation? Certainly what looks like the work of billions of years of adaptation to us could have been derived by God's voice over the course of a few days, and we would be none the wiser looking back on it.

3. Your position defies the commonly accepted scientific evidence for evolution that concludes that the fossil record shows increasing complexity over time. Do you have a problem with radiometric dating? What about claims that multiple radiometric methods have produced consistent results?

Let me preface this by admitting that I am by no means an expert in this field. I'm an engineer for goodness sake, I only care about which wires I need to plug in to get my robot to turn on. There are hundreds of men VASTLY more intelligent than me that stand on either side of this argument, and I can't pretend to play in the big kid sandbox when all I have is a figurative plastic spade. In the little bit of reading I've done on radiometric dating, it's become evident to me that there are many evolutionist and creationist scientists that accept the results, and also a good number that don't. Although we're making the best estimates we can with the tools we have, it's important to remember that radioactivity dating, and other methods of dating, are at best educated guesses, albeit guesses that often agree with one another because they are calibrated with one another. In the same way that we can't know for sure that Noah built an ark, we can't know for sure that our dating methods are actually consistent with our history.

That's about all I can honestly say, there are definitely better people to give you a more detailed spiel on radiometric dating. I see the issue of evolution and creation as a carefully disguised disagreement of faiths, rather than a disagreement between science and religion. If the Bible is really the truth that it claims to be, then legitimate studies of our earth will not contradict its truth. It may contradict our understanding of its truth, but that just means it's time to revise our understanding, not throw the Book out the window. In the event that we somehow proved the process of carbon dating and discovered that the earth was very old, I certainly wouldn't throw away my Christian faith based only on that, the testimony to the Bible's truth is too strong to ignore.

4. What do you think are some of the biggest reasons that point to the existence of God, that anybody would be hard pressed to ignore?

The first one that comes to mind is His creation. It doesn't take a scientist to recognize that our earth is beautiful, and almost unfathomably complex. The very fact that nature has the ability to cope with itself is a marvel. If you ever really want to have your mind blown, talk to a neurologist, or really any biologist of any kind. Even the most fundamental building blocks of life, things like DNA and amino acids, are in themselves mind boggling in their elegance and intricacy. To me (and apparently many others), the degree of brilliance and ingenuity shown by life forms suggests that a sort of Architect must exist and that it must be an extraordinarily creative being. Secondly, although a component of the first category, is mankind. I list mankind as an evidence of God's reality because of our nature. We have consciousness. We can reason and laugh and argue and hate. We have the capacity to ask, "Why do I exist?" We also have the desire to find a satisfactory answer. Further, every human being has some sense of "fairness" or "decency" in him or her. Moral standards vary widely across the world (although I suggest they may be very similar at the core), but every self-aware human being has some sort of inner expectation of how he or she ought to be treated. Simply the existence of a transcendent law implies that an arbitrator has to exist for the law to exist.

In the book of Romans, Paul writes specifically that God has clearly demonstrated Himself through creation so that humans are without excuse (Romans 1:20-22). Speaking of the Bible, that is the last bit of evidence I will list here. I submit that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, and that is actually a very substantiated claim. The Bible has probably been scrutinized more than any other historical document, and is still widely accepted as a soundly preserved and reliable historical document. I won't go into a detailed description here about the evidences that support the Bible's reliability, but I would love to tell you more about this sometime, since I feel that it's extremely important.

5. Have you ever experienced periods of doubt in your religious beliefs? If so, how did you resolve that conflict?

h, definitely, it's all part of being willing to open-mindedly search your faith. Dealing with doubt is the flipside of having faith, not the opposite of it. I go to the University of Texas at Dallas, where a person's entire worth is measured between 2.0 and 4.0. Being one of the few Christians in the honors college isn't easy, and I constantly hear attacks of one sort or another on religion of any kind, from all different angles. When I find myself doubting things about God or the Bible or anything related, I do a little research and/or consideration on the issue to see if it even holds water. Many times, research helps me see if there's a legitimate need to change my conceptions about something. If nothing else, research helps me discover what the facts about my beliefs really are.

Now, most importantly, it isn't only the research that reassures me of my faith in Christ. There's a thing called the "Testimony of the Holy Spirit". Because I'm a believer in Jesus Christ, God's Spirit lives in me and testifies to the authenticity of my Christianity (Romans 8:16-17). It reminds me of my salvation like a receipt reminds one of a purchase - it represents something that is bought and paid for (Ephesians 1:13-14). It also works in me, affecting my actions and helping me grow to be a better person, the person God intended me to be. No one can see the inward testimony except me, but the outward change in my life is undeniable to any person that knows me well (Galatians 5:16-26, Ephesians 4:17-24, Philippians 3:17-21, Colossians 3:5-17, Titus 3:3-7, 1 John 2:3-6). And I'm not bragging on my own righteousness or anything like that. I'm saying that God is responsible for the change, not me. The Bible isn't just a motivational book that inspires me to live better. It's God's work in me, and my submission to Him, that produces these changes (Philippians 2:12-13). Turns out it's not just me seeing these effects either. Millions upon millions of my fellow believers across the globe have also experienced the same changes and have the same testimony in them.

6. Science lately has seemed to support the idea that much of our actions are motivated by our hormones and brain structure. For example higher prenatal testosterone levels are associated with more aggressiveness/risk taking and damage to certain parts of the brain can result in an inability to feel sympathy for others. Where does that leave room for the soul?

Turns out I'm one of those guys that has a lot of free floating testosterone, and I'm told that makes me excessively horny and angry... I'm definitely horny, I guarantee you that one, but I don't know about angry all the time. Anyway, let me preface my answer by telling you a little about myself. When I graduated high school in 2006, I became extremely depressed. Didn't know what I wanted to do with my life, didn't have the gumption to pursue anything, got a job I hated at Wendy's, moved with my family across town. Everything was changing all at once on me. The depression grew worse and worse until my parents decided to take me to a neurologist - a capital fellow by the name of Dr. Frank Minirth. He looked at my psychological profile and almost instantly knew the problem. He told me that if we took a CT scan of my brain, the front end would light up like a Christmas tree. "Basically, your problem is that you're brilliant." Turns out my frontal cortex is too powerful for the rest of my brain to handle, causing it to go into "panic" mode on an almost daily basis.

In other words, I constantly live life with a feeling of stress, paranoia, or sadness. He put me on a VERY small dose of antidepressants (SSRIs) to help kick start me in dealing with my issues. Problem was, the antidepressants made me feel stupid, and they kind of froze my emotions so that I felt like Christian Bale in Equilibrium (awesome movie, by the way). When I discovered I could no longer write music, that was it, I dropped the meds cold turkey (don't recommend that, but it worked for me). I made a conscious decision to live with my problem and find a way to function. I would rather be crazy than unmusical with memory lapses. And here I am, third year of college and so eccentric I scare people, but making it. When the problems arise, I just remember that I don't have to be a slave to my feelings or impulses and choose to focus on the tasks at hand instead. Many days it's hard to do that, but all I do is put one foot in front of the other.
I say all that to tell you that I don't think our actions are necessarily DETERMINED by our brain structure or our chemicals, hormones, genetics, etc. I think that humans have the capacity to choose in spite of all that. Although our propensities are largely determined by the type of person we are (our brains, our chemical makeup, things like that), we still have a responsibility to choose a course of action for ourselves. As another thought, we have found ways to model thoughts as electromagnetic impulses (you've probably heard about this), but we can't determine what causes those thoughts. Humans have a will to choose a course of action or to change their minds on something.

That certainly leaves a lot of room for a soul. There are other hints of "soul" in humans, too. We are all born with a sense of fairness or justice that appeals to a transcending law, we have a conviction to search and find meaning and truth in our lives, we all want to be loved (we can feel alone), we have many desires that aren't purely selfish, we are born with knowledge that God exists and frequently fight over it (don't believe me? Go read youtube video comments, He gets some serious press). These things alone suggest to me that there's something more than physical about the human.

7. Evolutionary theorists have responded to the natural law of man by theorizing that moral sensibilities came about over time in humanity as a survival instinct. What is your response to this criticism?

This has never made sense to me. Many evolutionary theorists also hold that matter is all that exists (excluding a supernatural or metaphysical), in fact they would have to in order to be making this argument. If that is so, then humans are a biological part of an infinite continuum of cause and effect, and our actions are determined as a superposition sum of our biology and surroundings. In a system where only natural process exists, our choices are determined entirely by conditions that we may or may not recognize, and consequently there's no reason to make explanation for morality of any kind. On an extra philosophical note, the epistemic implications of a closed system of matter are very depressing, to the point where we can't even know that we don't know anything. You might ask, what about the evolutionist that believes something beyond just nature exists? Well, if one believes in a supernatural something, there's really no necessity to explain morality as a purely physical phenomenon, is there? Why so reluctant to believe that God created man in His own image?

8. In my interview with my friend David, he mentioned the idea of conservation of momentum as evidence for the non existence of the supernatural. Do you have a response to this?

Yeah, I've actually heard some things very similar to that before. Sounds like David might be becoming a naturalist - someone that believes matter is all that exists. Please correct me if I need clarification, I might have misunderstood, but what I gathered is that he believes every effect is the result of a cause (or many causes that may or may not be known); thus, if the "supernatural" (anything not physical) were to intervene it would disrupt the laws of physics as we observe them. However, I would like to point out that we cannot believe both the above AND contend that humans have a will to choose their course of action. That option simply isn't logically open to us. If Conservation of Momentum cannot be applied to all observable reality, then clearly there is still room for supernatural/metaphysical involvement, and for human free will. I'm not saying that anything metaphysical has to exist, just that this leaves room for it.

If Conservation of Momentum CAN explain all reality, including human behavior, our actions are merely a product of stimuli, and we are entirely determined by the system we live in. For humans to be able to rise above the causes and make a distinct choice would require that humans somehow be different from the rest of matter. We would have to have something it does not, something that can defy the tide of causes and produce its own effect. I would classify that as supernatural because it doesn't appear to be physically quantifiable (as of yet). I know this next comment is going to sound cliche, but another problem that comes to mind is the problem of origins. If a metaphysical force did not cause matter to exist in the beginning, what did?
I also seem to recall David talking about the metaphysical acting upon the physical, thus violating the laws of physics. Colossians 1:16-17 tells us that God sustains all things - I'd imagine that includes the laws of our physical world. I believe that Jesus violated those laws numerous times, and that indeed it still happens on a regular basis throughout the world today. There are a ton of recorded instances in the Bible where Jesus, and other men of God, did things that are arguably impossible without supernatural basis (John 20:30-31). Surely not all of these were mistranslated or misquoted. And even if those accounts are horribly mistaken, look at the testimony set forth by missionaries today. Sadly, we don't get to hear about a lot of the things that Christians observe during foreign missions. I have some close family friends that have been missionaries in the past or are currently missionaries now to the far parts of the world. They've told me about experiences that make the hair stand up on my neck. For example, in some of the more remote places of the world, shamanism still has a strong hold over people. Fallen angels, or demons, as we usually call them, give the power to miraculously heal sicknesses and injuries (and do much darker things), forcing missionaries to prove that their God is greater before people will even think about following Jesus.

I've even heard of churches in South America that require a man to perform an honest to goodness resurrection (not a resuscitation, an actual death-to-life resurrection) before he can be an elder in the church, because the witch doctors can do pretty much anything else. I have a really close friend you could probably talk to more about these things, let me know if you want me to hook you up (it'd probably have to be via email or Skype or something, he's in Aussie right now). In any case, I hope that I've at least provided sufficient food for thought. The supernatural is something I think we can't ignore at this point, unless we have a good reason to disbelieve the mountain of evidence before us.

9. What would you say to people who have moral objections to Christianity's stance on homosexuality?\

Well, I promise (again) I'm not trying to sound judgmental here, but I think we Christians have largely dropped the ball on dealing with homosexuality, and I'm thinking specifically of the American scene here. The simple fact is that we believe homosexuality is a sin, it's listed clearly in the Bible alongside other sins. Unfortunately, it looks to me like we've demonized homosexuality as the ultimate sin when that is certainly not the case, and consequently shunned an entire group of people that would benefit far better from our acceptance. Just look at who Jesus spent His time with - thieves, liars, tax collectors (oh heavens no!), prostitutes...basically anybody He could've hung out with to piss off the "religious" folks of the day. Jesus was fond of pointing out that self-righteous folks already have their own righteousness, why would they need His (Matthew 9:12-13)?

The fact that homosexuality is a sin certainly doesn't mean we have any reason to hate homosexuals - it SHOULD mean we have all the more reason to love them and bring them into our community. The change comes AFTER that. We shame our Lord when we take His standard for living and slap it on others that don't follow or worship Him. We can't expect people to live up to our standard until they've met the Person that gives it, and decided on giving over to Him. And how will they ever meet Him if all they ever see from us is condemnation? All people should be encouraged to come to Jesus as they are. Once they've come, they don't stay that way.

10. Is there anything else you would like to say?

In closing, I'd like to encourage everyone that has read this blog to believe whatever they want to believe. The purpose of this interview (at least on my end) was to give everyone an answer as to why I'm a Christian, not to make you all believe as I do. I've chosen to walk this walk because I feel that it's a very consistent, rationally defensible, fulfilling system of belief. It's not just religious jargon or a manmade system, it has a legitimate claim to divine origin. And in the very worst case, if I'm completely and utterly wrong about everything, and Jesus wasn't really God, and God doesn't even exist, then certainly I'm living the most fulfilling and satisfying life that any wrong guy ever lived. God gives us more significance than anything in this world can, because He has created people in His image. He made us able to create, to love, to reason, to choose, to feel, to be uniquely different from one another, to be clever, to be artistic, and to show ingenuity in our world. He motivates me to be the best I can be at everything I do, because I know that He made me with a purpose and a future in mind (Jeremiah 29:11). He gives me joy and hope in this life. Joy, because even though life only gets tougher as I get older, I know that God will never leave my side (Hebrews 13:5). Hope, because His thoughts about me outnumber the grains of sand on the seashore (Psalm 139), and He takes care of me every day of my life. He protects me and leads me through life like a guiding light (Psalm 119:105, Psalm 32:8).

Time and time again, I've prayed for help, and He has answered. And not only will I testify to this, millions upon millions of others claim the same faith, and our number grows daily. Followers of God have been villainized and slaughtered countless times dating back to before Jesus ever appeared, but still the Word of a Savior for mankind has been passed on. The earliest Christians, people who knew Jesus personally, were savagely persecuted and pressed to deny what they professed about Jesus, and their certainty was so great that they rather chose death. Voltaire predicted that within 100 years of his death Christianity would have died out entirely, and within fifty years of his death, Geneva Bible Society was printing Bibles in his home.

Everyone knows there are a lot of posers out there, and many more that misunderstand the real core of Christianity, but the "god" they proclaim is one of their own making, not the real deal. I strongly urge any curious soul to search the Scriptures and find the real One they contain. He isn't a rigid, cold-hearted God of rules and cosmic killjoyness. He isn't a pansy piece of fluff that gives everyone a latte and tells them to feel good about life all the time. He isn't a giant Santa Claus that vends health and wealth if you just pray hard enough and send in your handkerchief with money. He's real, personal, approachable, He has made Himself available to us through Jesus Christ, and He has made Himself discoverable through His creation and His Word.

Landan: Ok, I'm here with my good friend David and I've been doing a series on the relationship between science and religion. David is someone who used to belong to the Christian religion until he moved to atheism. So I think he can bring a unique perspective to this topic. So...David

David: Yes.

Landan: In high school you seemed really devoted to your faith. What prompted you to start down the road of religious skepticism.

David: That's a funny question. It was actually started at Ouachita Baptist. Umm...there was a guy, Bart Ehrman, who wrote "Misquoting Jesus". It was talking about biblical inaccuracies, translation problems, and the different kind of manuscripts that they found. And so I prayed before I started reading the book. I said, 'God I will never deny you as king and I just want to know the truth, so guide me through this process'. And at first it was, ok I'm a Christian Humanist. So I evolved from fundamentalist to Christian humanism, where I derived my morality from reason. And then it eventually devolved into pure humanism, which is purely atheistic in its nature

Landan: All right.

David: It all started at Ouachita Baptist when I started reading...I believe the first book I read was actually on Psychology, it was about depression. That gave the perspective that we're the summation of our brain chemistry and so I thought where in the world is
there room for a soul in that. If some chemical's just zipping along the way it should in a brain, at what point would the soul say 'No I want it to go to the left'. And then suddenly it just turns left and starts going in the left direction. After reading the psychology book that was the main question that popped up into my head. And from there it just tumbled.

Landan: So you went through a period where you were switching back and forth between these ideas. So I guess the transition was a difficult one for you?

David: Oh it was extremely difficult. It's hard to break a habit that you've had for twenty years. I'm still having trouble with it. I think it was probably helpful that I gave up the idea of hell first, when I became a christian humanist. Simply because then I was able to look at things squarely without having to be afraid of...'Oh no eternity depends on it' and stuff like that. Whether or not I'll be happy and eternally blissful or eternally damned. Once you abandon the idea of hell, it's a lot easier to look at things in...had I not abandoned the idea of hell, I think I would probably still be a Christian, if simply out of fear.

Landan: How did your family react to your conversion to atheism?

David: Actually, funny story. My brothers didn't care,they're both agnostic actually. When I told my dad, he took me into the living room. He gave me about a two hour lecture on Godless liberalism in America and how the health care system won't work out. I think that was his mechanism for coping with it. I don't know how I would handle my child telling me he was an atheist if I was a Baptist for 50 years. So, I can't really blame him for having to cope with it. Other than that, I mean every now and again I get a lecture, but it's smooth sailing for the most part.

Landan: How did your mom react to that?

David: My dad told my mom. I don't know her initial reaction, but she did cry a bit in front of me, which was difficult, but that's mostly done now.

Landan: Right. So you still attend church right?

David: Yes I do.

Landan: Uh, do you want to explain why you do that?

David: [laughs] Sure. Well actually at church, everybody knows I'm an atheist. So when I told this girl who was sitting next to me, she said 'What are you doing in Church if you're an atheist?' I thought that was a strange question. Seems like everybody would want me in church, but it doesn't really matter. It's here nor there.

I still go to church because, partly out of a twenty year habit, partly because I want to continue to expose myself to something I don't necessarily agree with to keep me on my toes. Because, if all I did was read books I agree with then I would become intellectually dull. It's slightly invigorating to go to Church.

Landan: Other than the example you gave, what's the reception been like? Have people avoided you? How have most people reacted to you would you say?

David: They've actually been surprisingly friendly. They didn't become hellbent on trying to reconvert me or anything like that. They just treat me like a normal human and I really like that. It helps me feel like I belong to a community. I don't really relate to them on the same level that they do obviously to each other, but it's nice because I feel like I'm still accepted there.

Landan: That's good. So, you've hosted some debates there?

David: I'm actually still advertising the debates, but through a series of random events and circumstances we haven't actually been able to host a debate yet, but it's in the works still.

Landan: Is there anything you miss from your period as a Christian? Do you feel like there's anything you've lost in your transition process?

David: The loneliest person in the world is an atheist in an empty room. Simply because there's no one to talk to. So I will say that every now and then when I was a Christian when I got lonely I could just sit down and pray or read the bible and I'd feel like I was connecting with someone. But now that I'm an atheist I don't necessarily feel that divine company. I don't particularly feel a need for it, but it was comforting when I was a Christian to know that I'm never alone. As an atheist it's a different story.

Landan: So would you say that...I know this is kind of a cliche' that a lot of Christians use is like a God shaped hole. Do you feel that at all?

David: I don't necessarily feel a God shaped hole. For a while it felt like I had a God shaped hole in my heart, simply because I was raised that way. If you talk to a person who was born and raised atheist, they would think that idea was totally foreign. I think I'm progressing toward that. So either my heart is getting harder or it's just not caring.

Landan: A lot of Christians argue that creationism is a viable argument against evolution and they have all these different foundations like the Discovery Institute. Obviously you've looked at these ideas. What was it about them that you found unconvincing?

David: It doesn't predict anything, it doesn't have an intellectual fervor about it. Let's say that we found a new kind of fossil tomorrow and it completely baffled us. We could say, 'Ok we can't explain this, it's impossible to explain this because it's so foreign to us that we have no idea where it came from. So we're going to chalk it up to creationism, put it on a shelf and forget about it.' Now what if they'd done that with the dinosaurs, where something so foreign was initially found and they said oh I guess God did it and put it on a shelf and never worried about it. Where would we be? I mean,creationism doesn't predict anything. It doesn't satisfy any sort of curiosity, except on a very surface level. It's not a very viable scientific theory, largely because it can't be dis proven.

Evolution predicted DNA 70 years before it was found, no 90 years before it was found, and it predicted a genetic code. So, when 1952 rolled around and Watson and Crick discovered DNA or at least the shape and function of DNA, that strongly supported evolution. I can't think of any evidence that would support creationism except for a lack of knowledge.

Landan: A lot of Christians would retort that non-theists believe in evolution by default because it supports the idea they want to believe. What would you say to someone who argued that?

David: If God wanted to sit down with me tomorrow and wanted to have coffee with me, I'd be more than happy to do that. I could get to know the guy, we might become friends. Until that happens I see no reason to believe in a creator, God, or higher power. The idea that we're going to evolution by default is...I'm sure some people do it, but that's really faulty scientific reasoning.

I believe in evolution because it's the best thing out there right now. If they came up with a better theory then I would believe that. That's why I brought up the God example. If God sat down with coffee and said 'Hey come over here and drink with me', yeah I'd do it. Then I'd have a completely different look on things because there's evidence to support other things. I believe in evolution because there's evidence to support it. It explains a lot more than creationists give credit to it.

Let's pretend that you found an arc of pebbles over a stream in some forest. A creationist would walk up and say, oh it's the divine watchmaker. That arch couldn't have gotten there because if it was missing any stone it would just crumble. An evolutionist might walk up there and be initially perplexed, but then he'd say 'well wait, if I start out with a mound of pebbles and then a stream starts flowing through it, it's going to eat away at the pebbles beneath the arc until finally you do end up with a stable arc.'

If you talk about things like the evolution of the eye, which has been explained. The idea that creationists have a trump card on us simply because it agrees with what we already believe, that's really a moot point. Most evolutionists believe in evolution because it works, not because they already agree with it.

Landan: What about scientists like Francis Collins, who's head of the human genome project? He's an evangelist and he believes in evolution. What are your thoughts on this type of thinking that's been fairly prevelant now? That evolution and Christianity can coexist.

David: The big problem I have with that is, at what point would we acquire a soul? If you go back to the origin of life and say that life was something that God started. Except, that if you look further back, that can be explained with evolution. It's on a chemical level rather than a living level, an organic level. It's really just thermodynamics. I sent you that video.

Landan: Yes. (This is the video he's talking about)

David: The origins of life can be explained with thermodynamics and diffusion. It seems superfluous to believe in a creator when everything appears to be explained. When would we acquire a soul? When we started walking upright? That seems arbitrary. When would God say, 'Ok I'll give a soul to this guy, but not to his parents?'. Or maybe there are degrees of souls, of consciousness, where you develop.

It goes back to the original problem I have with the soul. At what point does it influence the physical without becoming physical? Then it can just be explained away by normal means. For something to metaphysically exist and then influence the physical. The metaphysical would have to manifest itself physically, at which point it's just abiding by all the other rules that govern the physical realm. Maybe there's a metaphysical realm, but I don't see that it has anything to do with this life.

Landan: Besides scientific issues, what moral and theological problems do you have with Christianity?

David: The feeling I get from Christianity is that people are afraid that if you stop believing in it that it won't be true anymore. That's why they have the idea of hell in there. I mean, how many people would be Christians if Christianity professed that there were no hell? What would be the driving factor to become a Christian? When you look at the other religions where they don't need a hell, there's Islam.

Landan: Well Islam has hell I think.

David: Yeah, Islam and Judaism have hell. Sheol. But if you look at the non judeo-christian religions, a lot of them actually lack a hell. I find those more appealing simply because it doesn't give me the feeling that I have to believe in it in order for the truth to be perpetuated by my belief. I'd rather believe in a religion where it doesn't need me to be true. That's just the feeling I get from Christianity. As far as morally goes, I've no idea what they've got against gay people. Is it bad to have too much love for someone? I just don't understand that.

Landan: Ok on that same note, a lot of the popular atheists like Richard Dawkins think that religion is a menace to society and that we need to eradicate it. What do you think about that?

David: That's kind of a double standard, because a lot of religions think atheism is a menace to society. There was a poll performed on Americans; 41% said they wouldn't let their child marry an atheist because they don't share the same view for America. To try and yank that sword away from the religious folk and use it on them, that doesn't seem right to me. If people want to pray in their closet and just leave me alone about it, I'm perfectly fine with that. As long as they aren't blowing up my building over it.

Landan: So you're also pretty knowledgable in the realm of physics. Have you learned anything in that field that bolstered your lack of belief in the supernatural?

David: Conservation of momentum. I mean past that, which is a pretty big foundation of physics, I can't think of much. Electron placement. If anything I could see room for metaphysical influence in that, because the best we can do is have a probability of where an electron might be. Even that's more of a god of the gaps idea. If I believe in a god of the gaps, then I'd rather just not believe in one at all.

Landan: Can you expand on conservation of momentum.

David: Oh, yes. Some chemical process is going on in your brain and it makes you want to do something naughty. Then a little angel on your shoulder says, 'no don't do that, you'll regret it'. So then you make the conscious choice not to do it. Who's to say that wasn't already predetermined? I'm not die hard deterministic about things. It's not to the point where I feel like everything's futile, but the idea that something metaphysical can influence the physical, would deny the laws of physics. The law of conservation of momentum says that unless something happens, everything will be the way it is. For that metaphysical force to influence the physical, that would kind of destroy physics at its core.

Landan: Well, thank you for your time. I really enjoyed this.

Christianity currently finds itself in the midst of an interesting transition. Young people have shown a greater willingness to leave behind their parents' religious traditions than they have in the past. This is due in large part to the growing minority of the non-religious and an increased social acceptance of atheism (source 1, 2 ). Still, the majority of children who grow up in evangelical households will maintain their Christian identity, although often in a form that looks significantly different than that of their parents'.

In order to deal with the conflict between growing social pressures and keeping their faith, many Christians have responded by claiming a belief in both evolutionary theory and Christianity. This approach has been especially popular among Christian intellectuals and scientists such as Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins. The Catholic church itself has taken a stance that permits if not welcomes those who are staunch believers of evolutionary theory (source).

Most often, the debate over whether or not Christianity and evolution are compatible is waged over the theory's relation to the first two chapters of Genesis. Theistic evolutionists are quick to point out the contradictions between the creation story in Genesis 1 and the creation story in Genesis 2. They claim that this shows that the stories in Genesis are allegorical rather than historical and does not present a conflict between the belief in evolution and the belief in the inspiration of scripture. Detractors of evolutionary theory however, tend to claim that these inconsistencies are misinterpretations on the part of the reader and that the creation story is historical fact.

The theistic evolutionist's argument regarding the interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis seems quite reasonable, but the position runs into conflict with two important beliefs tantamount to Christian theology; humanity is made in the image of God and the world is in a fallen state due to man's sin.

While many theistic evolutionists haven't concerned themselves with these issues, a good number have done so with varying conclusions. Some take a deistic approach to Christianity and throw all semblances of biblical authority out the window. Others have argued that these issues have several reasonable answers that bridge the conflict.

The idea that man is unique and has some sort of spiritual or physical similarity with the creator is important because it makes man worth saving. It's instinctual to know that parents protect their children and that children share a resemblance to their parent. The idea that God placed something of himself in our existence is the part of the Christian story that gives us a sense of meaning. When a man believes that he is merely part of one species in a line of hominids, it becomes difficult for him to see himself as being made in God's image.

The idea of sentience is often brought up in this conversation. I must qualify that by sentience I am not speaking of its literal meaning, but rather the general idea of the human characteristics of consciousness not normally attributed to other members of the animal kingdom.  There is no way right now for the fields of biology or evolutionary psychology to come to any sort of conclusive consensus on when exactly humans and their close ancestors achieved sentience. This allows the theistic evolutionist to have his cake and eat it too by allowing him to believe in the fossil record while attributing his developed mind as a gift from God that separates him from the rest of the animal kingdom. If it were to come to light that other members of the animal kingdom were more emotionally and mentally developed than previously thought, I believe it would be a hard blow struck against theistic evolution.

It should be noted that some theistic evolutionists believe in a literal creation of humanity. They subscribe to the attitude that while the rest of the animal kingdom slithered and climbed its way up the evolutionary ladder, God intervened some 20,000 years ago and created us in our current form. While this solves the problem of uniqueness and conflicts less with the biblical account, it's a minority view not held by prestigious members of the theistic evolution camp such as the previously mentioned Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins.

The idea of the fall has classically held a great deal of importance in Christian belief. Paul, who wrote the majority of the new testament, especially stresses the idea in the book of Romans. In recent history though, its importance has been downplayed by mainstream and evangelical denominations. This is due in large part to a growing amount of biblical illiteracy within America (simply put, American Christians don't even know what they believe anymore). The fall is an important concept in Christianity because it explains the current "flawed" state of the world, it explains the source of human depravity, and it provides the reason that humanity must be saved by Jesus Christ.

The theory of evolution depends on the current state of the world. The descriptions of the Earth before the fall as described in the bible, a world without death or competition, would have Darwin rolling in his grave. Theistic evolutionists try to account for the discrepancy by downplaying the importance of the fall. They do this by maintaining that the flawed state of the world as described in the bible is a metaphor for the flawed state of the human soul. The idea of original sin is outright denied or attributed to the first sentient beings being placed in an Adam and Eve type situation.

These views downplay the importance of biblical authority in favor of finding resolution to intellectual conflict. While this compromise may help solve existential anxiety at the moment, I wonder if the future will show this to be a viable position or merely a flawed example of creative intellectual gymnastics.

I'd like to do a series on religion and it's relation to scientific findings/reasoning. I know that many consider this topic long dead, but I feel that there's some new perspectives and questions I can bring to the discussion.

There's questions that I've wanted to ask for a long time, but have been afraid to ask. I want to explore these questions head on. I have so many great resources available from both sides of the theistic spectrum and I hope to use those to come to a better understanding of this issue.

This is a topic I'm very passionate about. Ever since I first encountered this site (warning: this site may be disturbing to your beliefs) during my junior year of high school, I've come to realize that this issue is not as simple as I was led to believe by Sunday school teachers or my parents.

I have an inclination towards religious belief and that's a good part why I've continue to identify myself as a Christian. However, I've found that my ability to participate in religious activities such as prayer and the reading of scripture has begun to decay over the years. There's been several periods where I've gained some respite and been able to participate in religious disciplines with some amount of fervor (just look at some of my earliest posts on this blog). However, at this point in my life I feel that if I must stop an make a careful examination of my beliefs, the beliefs of the people around me, and ask the questions that have been buried in the back of my mind.

I hope this discussion will be enlightening and constructive for everyone who reads this as well.

I've written on Authenticity before.

I feel that the church is missing that a lot of times. This isn't a pointing of fingers either, I'm part of the problem as well. There's something about Church and being around other religious people that makes me afraid to open up. It's as if my salvation depends on the validation of the people around me rather than on God.

My Dad was talking to me recently about how he had visited one of the older people's Sunday morning classes. I guess he was expecting little drops of wisdom from them. His thinking was that they'd lived life longer, had more experience, so they must be wiser. Unfortunately, all he heard throughout the whole class was canned responses. There may have been correct doctrine, but it was separated from feeling and experience.

Many of my friends from high school don't come from religious families or have separated themselves from their parent's religious beliefs. A portion of these friends are transgendered or homosexuals. This has been a challenge to me. It's been challenging because these lifestyles are condemned in scripture. When you put a face upon homosexuality or trans-sexuality it's harder to view it as sinful. Much of this has to do with our skewed vision of  what exactly sin is and what sinful people are like.

It's also hard because of the way many Christians talk about transgendered and homosexual people. They speak of them with contempt and derision. They talk about them as if they were an enemy that we must irradicate or as if they were monsters who we must fear and protect our children from. I've heard Christians make jokes about gays going to hell and I even heard a girl laughingly blame Katrina on the homosexuals living in New Orleans. They don't even think about how terrible Christians are at following their own sexual ideals (e.g. There's an 11% increase in porn consumption in states that have passed anti-gay legislation).

I have a great amount of respect for the homosexuals and transsexuals I know. They are open and honest. They are more likely to stand up for what they believe in the face of opposition. Maybe this is just coming from my disenchanted viewpoint, but I feel that many of them are even more compassionate. Why is that I'm more likely to receive a hug from a lesbian who I've only met a few times than from someone else who I've known at church for years. Why does there seem to be a wall in one place that does not seem to exist elsewhere? Is the problem mine?

I think there's some stuff we could learn from them about authenticity.

One of my favorite directors, Andrei Tarkovsky, understood the power of water. It constantly changes it's form, never the same. Film can capture it's essence in a way that no other medium can.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXyKlqS07tc]

I love the rain. There's something innately divine about it. Almost all religions give water some sort of significance. It's the force that gives us life. We are dust and water, but more so water.

Jesus describes himself as the living water. Whenever I think of Christ in terms of water, I think of a raging river or a downpour of rain amidst a thunderstorm. It's forceful, carrying you along with it. I was baptized at the age of 16, almost 17. In my denomination it's generally considered that 12 is about the proper age to commit oneself to Christ. I put it off. I'm not sure why.

My baptism was largely uneventful. It was on a Wednesday night. A handful of people were sitting out in the pews. My dad baptized me in the baptistery. The water in the baptistery is stagnant and unmoving. That's not to say it isn't clean, but that it's lacking in force. It's a just a big bathtub filled with the blood of Jesus. I went in and came out. Several people came up and hugged me while I was still wet. I didn't feel a whole lot different, just a little more grown up maybe. If anything I became a worse sinner right after my baptism. A couple of months down the road and I came across ideas I didn't know how to explain away. I got into situations I didn't know how to handle. All along my pride was pulled behind me, obscured from view.We're all constantly being washed clean again. We need it.

Whenever it's raining I feel like God is close by. Sometimes I like to go out and let the rain pour over me. It soaks into my clothes and into my skin. It drips from my hair onto my nose and cheeks. The sound of thunder seems to be the voice of God. Somehow rain can assuage all the doubts that seem to keep my faith in a constant state of tension. I stop thinking and I just stay there in the moment. Nothing but me and water.

"We love those who know the worst of us and don't turn their faces away."

- Walker Percy

I'm currently reading Augustine's Confessions (link). It's basically a book where Augustine describes his life of sin before he became committed to God and the way that he was saved from sin by God's grace.

In the forward of my Oxford Press copy it talks about how the work was intended as a way to shut up a lot of those who were critical of him in the Church. He put his whole life and all his shortcomings out there for all to see.

In the college class on Sunday at church we wrote down on note cards the sins that we struggle with , the places where we find ourselves struggling the most, the people we find cause us to struggle the most, etc. I was sitting fairly closely to the guy next to me. I wrote down single word descriptions that might not mean much to a wayward glance but still conveyed a lot of meaning to myself. I angled the card on my leg so that it was facing away from the guy sitting next to me. I really didn't want him to see anything.

Maybe there's something to all those churches that have people go confess to their priests (though there's definitely problems in that model as well).

I remember one evening on Trek. We had made it to our base camp and were going to camp there for 2-3 days. One of the nights there our guide had all the guys sit down in a circle and told us to confess our sins to each other and then pray for the person who confessed after us. I remember being a little shocked at his request. That's not something you do in Sunday school; that kind of thing makes people uncomfortable. Nonetheless we all sat down in a circle and confessed sins and prayed for each other.

I got prayed for by my good friend Zane. I don't see him that often anymore. I saw him recently while waiting in line for communion at my church at home. We hugged each other. Even though distance and time has diminished our relationship, I'd still do anything for him. I don't remember his prayer well, but I remember he prayed for me.

The man I prayed for was named Mark. I don't keep in touch with him at all really. He's an older guy and we don't really have much in common. However, every time I see him I make sure to take the time to go talk to him and tell him how I'm doing. It may be just me, but I feel spiritually connected to him because of that prayer I said for him. I remember him being sincerely grateful for my prayer for him.

There's something wonderful about opening up yourself to someone, overcoming a psychological wall of fear, and realizing that you're in the good hands of a friend who understands your brokenness and desires for you to live up to your potential. That last part is crucial. I have some friends who don't share the same values I do, who when learning about some area of darkness could care less. They're indifferent to my sin. The relationship, though still valued, is on a shallower plain.

This kind of relates to my post earlier in the year on authenticity. When I refuse to become vulnerable to those I claim to love, I'm displaying a complete lack of love and respect. Basically, I'm stating that I don't trust that person enough to show who I honestly am. I don't want to be that way. I want to be a man of integrity.