Atheists and their Fathers: Who really needs Sky Daddy?

There is a common complaint, that is at least a hundred years old, the Christians like myself believe in Sky Daddy. Specifically, the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and –above all- all-loving God is a projection of childish desires for protection from the scary world. “God” is just an exalted projection of an earthly father. While there is some truth to this, I think it is an argument that can just as well easily be leveled against an atheism. Paul Vitz, a psychologist, summed it up in his book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism.

Now, there is some qualified truth to the Sky Daddy idea. I think that many Christians use God as a security blanket even into adulthood. There is a tendency to dump every decision in life to what God is telling you. Thing is, there comes a point when God wants you to do things on your own a bit. But this does not mean that this is all Christianity and theism are motivated by.

Many atheists assert that people’s belief in God is a subconscious result of their good fathers. Why not instead assert that people subconsciously reject God because of their lousy, abusive, or absent fathers? This is called “the defective father” hypothesis. Vitz, in his book, lists many famous atheists from history –such as Sartre, Voltaire, and Netizche and shows that all of these men had either dead fathers, weak fathers, or abusive fathers. For instance, H.G. Wells’ father spent time playing cricket, drinking, and gambling instead of looking after his family’s businesses.

In contrast, Christians like Pascal, Wilberforce, and G.K. Chesterton, all had positive fathers or surrogate fathers. Pascal was “home-schooled” and accompanied his father to the philosophical lectures of his day. Wilberforce’s father died at a young age, but was looked after by his uncle, who introduced his nephew to Methodism.

Now, there is of course not a “proof” of God here anymore than there is a “proof” against God in the Sky Daddy case. It does however show a connection between our fathers and our beliefs about God. More importantly, it shows that atheism can be just as ‘pathological’ as they sometimes claim theists are.

So maybe next time you talk to an atheist, who thinks he has the finest intellectual reasons to reject Christianity, you should forget about your personal testimony or apologetics or whatever. Instead, just ask, “So how’s your relationship with your Dad?”

My, what a day! My voice has pretty much gone...! Good 10am service today... well attended and some people becoming regular faces... Roll on half term... tired and need a break! Good to see Pat Kibble there too though...

Here is a version of this morning's sermon, but I have to say that it came out slightly differently to this... often do!

As I write this, I have two songs in conflict in my head. One is “All you need is love’ by the Beatles and the other is ‘WHat’s love gotta do with it?’ Musically, if you know them you will know, they are very different, and their sentiment is also different - one is the hippy era’s all encompassing mantra and the other is about someone who has been hurt by someone they have loved finding love again. If pop songs, films or soap operas are to be believed then love is just a random emotion, something that you can neither create nor control. A bit like the wind, it comes or goes...

When the scriptures speak of love, they don’t do so as a command. The scriptures speak of love either directly or indirectly of the love of God and as an action - something God does and we are called to do. As someone once said, the whole of the Bible is effectively a love story - God loving people over many years, sometimes that love is accepted, sometimes rejected - God passionately loving men and women.

Yet in a way, the Beatles were right. We hear this morning of Jesus being asked which of he 10 Commandments was the greatest, and he replied, all you need is love. Unlike the Beatles, Jesus went on to clarify what he meant. There are over 613 laws that the Jews are to observe, but Jesus chose to sum them up using the Shema - Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. This verse from Deuteronomy lies at the heart of Jewish daily prayer still. To the Shema, Jesus adds ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself.’ Love is not a feeling, but an action towards God and others.

This is easily said. But many of us are not much good at loving God. We are not sure how to go about it. Indeed, we are not entirely clear what the idea of loving God means.

Loving God is not such a simple thing when we consider that to Love God is to love others. It means being a loving person. If we are to fulfill the Law of Christ, we need to become a loving person.
This can only happen when God's loved poured out on us is received, fills us up and poured out on others. How do we know we are becoming loving people?

Learning how to drive in the beginning was difficult. There was so much to remember like looking at mirrors, speed limits, watching out for pedestrians, etc. As he practiced, he started putting it all together. He could focus more on where he was going rather than how to get there. Driving had become second nature to him.

Jesus teaches us to love our neighbor as we love our self. How many of us love ourselves? I don't mean that we look in the mirror and somehow convince our selves that we are lovely. But none of us would normally let ourselves grow hungry. We clothe ourselves. We try to better ourselves through education or other means. We don't think too much about taking care of ourselves. It too is our nature to love ourselves.

And so it should be with love for others. We know we are becoming loving people when we love like we drive or take care of ourselves. We should learn and practice love in a way that it becomes second nature to us.

Have you ever looked at a baby and said, "That is a face only a mother could love?" In a way that is a funny statement. But it also reflects a bit of reality. There are certain people in our lives who are more lovable than others for whatever reason.

A loving person does not put condition on their love. It does not first check out the beloved, the object of love, then determine if one will love him or not. A Godly love does not place conditions on the beloved. We will love whomever. We are called to love.

This is still an impossible task. Perhaps we need the help of those who have fallen in love - and who have stayed in love - with God, to guide us. St Bernard of Clairvaux was one such. Bernard taught that loving God, like everything else we try to do that is difficult, is a step-by-step process. According to Bernard, there are "four steps of love". The first step, he says, is to love ourselves for ourselves. Then we must learn to love God.
We love God - this is the second step - initially for what he gives us. But, if we are true to this path, we shall come to love God for himself, the third step. Finally, we love ourselves for God's sake. For some, that last step is the hardest of all.

These four steps are not rungs of a ladder that I set up inside my head, shutting out the rest of the world. For those who are single-minded in their search for God, other people are not a distraction - far from it. The journey from self-love to the love of God never by-passes my neighbour.

To love God and to love one's neighbour in God is the only way to break free from the hamster-wheel character of the lives so many of us lead. Such lives - however frenetically busy they are - are ultimately futile.

Friends, our loving needs to be not just a thought, but also an action. Jesus demonstrated his love for his disciples in many ways. But before his Crucifixion there was an act of love recorded in John 13 of washing the disciples feet.

God could have told us he loved us, without ever sending his Son. Jesus could have said that He loved us without dying on the Cross. But God did send His Son, and Jesus did die on the Cross for us. What will we do for our brothers and sisters? For our Neighbors and Enemies?

John 13:34-35 - A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. Amen

Soulforce Epilogue: Why I Love to Hate Prop 8

Much of Mel White’s article talks of civil liberties. Prop 8, the prop to ban Gay marriage (again) in California, is on the next ballot here in California. I can kill two birds with one blog, as well as hammer the Gay-issue done for now, at least for purposes of this blog. When I go vote, I am not voting “no” on prop 8. I am not voting “yes” either. If I do anything with that section of the ballot, it will be to take a black pen and scrawl “category confusion” across it. The best thing I can do is abstain on Prop 8.

Let me frame it in some context and background. There are two competing groups with two competing, but not necessarily mutually exclusively agendas. On one side of the ring, we have the homosexual couples that would like all relevant economic, medical visitation, and other legal benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples. On the other side, are religious conservatives who believe that their definition of marriage should protected against secular encroachment. What I think, along with a few others, is that both groups should be reconciled according to a certain principle of liberty –“one group may believe, speak, and practice whatever it wants to, as long as it does not intrude on what another group wishes to believe, speak, or practice.”

Additionally, I also think that definition of marriage is the proper domain of religion, not government. I have never like this scenario: when at a wedding the pastor is obligated to say “by the authority of the State of California” in the same breath as he says “by the authority of God.” Am I really the only Christian who thinks this is strange? Whenever I get married, I don’t really care for the “authority of the State of California” since I think marriage is a sacrament from God, administered to Christians, for the life of the Church. It is not a driver’s license or passport. The state has no authority in this matter anymore than it does to legally define a Baptism.

This is part of the reason why I refuse to vote on 8. Either way I choose, I imply that I believe the government has the right to do something it doesn’t. When people ask the government whether or not gays should marry, (or whether or not only heterosexuals should marry), the government should scratch its head and reply, “Why are you asking us? Go to a church.” This places the religious sacrament where it belongs. Churches/Denominations can then decide the gay-marriage issue according to their own polity, ecclesiology, and leadership.

Now of course, there are several legal aspects attached to marriage as it understood right now. If a couple is married, they file their taxes differently. They also have hospital visitation rights. There are plenty of other aspects that need not be expressed here. For all these, I support the parallel concept of a civil union. I believe that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples should have to get these civil unions for whatever legal benefits need be. I think that the rights in question should be the same for both. There is no reason to deny a homosexuals hospital visitation rights or force them to still file as “single.”

In the end, this model is simple. Do you wish to be married? Find a church for your wedding. Do you need legal benefits? Go to the courthouse for your civil union. This reflects the principle of liberty I mentioned earlier in this blog. Both groups do as they please so long as they do not intrude on other’s toes.
Some may object to this because it still reflects anti-gay bigotry. After all, I have not allowed gays to get married. This is a misunderstanding, as I want gays to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. Yes, I think they should be legally barred from marriage, but that is because I think that marriage is not legal concept. If homosexuals want to be married, there are plenty of churches that will do it. But even if homosexuals can’t find one, they will have to accept that they are not accepted. Legislation cannot change the beliefs of religion. But I think that most of the homosexual lobby is concerned with getting the legal rights. I don’t think they really want to “change marriage” or trespass on someone’s religious beliefs.

Others may say that even though I don’t like it, I should still vote “yes” on Prop 8 to “protect marriage.” There are many reasons for this: the proper rearing of children is a common argument. Another is that marriage will simply lose its meaning if homosexuals get married.

To this I reply that I don’t think gays getting married could harm marriage any worse than heterosexuals already have -especially evangelical heterosexuals. Even though there are plenty of great Christian marriages out there, the divorce rate among evangelicals is actually higher than it is in the general populace. I have not even hit thirty yet, and I have had to see half a dozen divorces in between Christian couples younger than me. Furthermore, simply because a marriage gets the genders right, doesn’t mean it is everything a marriage ought to be. Does anyone out there doubt the occasional sham of a Christian marriage does less harm than two gay people? I think not. Maybe instead of blaming the judicial branch or the “gay others”, Christians should look at their own community and figure out what it is that we are doing so wrong that it causes these problems.

So there is my explanation. Neither a “yes” nor a “no” vote on prop 8 truly reflect my views. Both of them imply something I disagree with. I believe that people should have the legal rights conferred to them regardless of their orientation. Above all, I think the definition and defense or marriage is the role of the church.

---

With this blog, I mark the end of the homosexuality discussion. Feel I’m completely wrong? Totally full of it? A bigoted religious blowhard? A spineless liberal Christian? Then feel free to email me at uberbeanmail@gmail.com I plan to post responses in a later blog.