(With a response in RED - by Brandon Bridgman – 1/19/13 - California).
By TXBlue08 | Posted January 14, 2013 | Texas
CNN PRODUCER NOTE TXBlue08, a mother of two teenagers in Texas, blogs about raising her children without religion. She said she shared this essay on CNN iReport because 'I just felt there is not a voice out there for women/moms like me. I think people misunderstand or are fearful of people who don't believe in God.' What are your thoughts on this iReport? Share your written response via our Sound Off assignment.
Update: CNN hasn't flagged this iReport as inappropriate, but some community members have. This is a divisive topic, however it does not violate our Community Guidelines, so we ask people to please stop flagging it. We will continue to review the story as often as possible.
- dsashin, CNN iReport producer
First of all, I want to say that I completely sympathize with the thoughts of this woman who originally wrote this blog. When my (now 4yr. old) daughter began to ask the same types of questions as her 3 yr. old son did, I answered according to my Christian convictions… and all along thought: "This better be true, because this sweet girl believes everything I say." – I am still convinced that I told her the truth about God and Heaven's existence… and below are some of my responses to the questions and statements raised by TXBlue08.
Secondly, I wrote this response in one sitting, as I read through the blog – I am not trying to write an all-inclusive essay, but rather am trying to respond honestly, in the moment, with no resources, so that my response might be as genuine as the blog to which it is referred.
When my son was around 3 years old, he used to ask me a lot of questions about heaven. Where is it? How do people walk without a body? How will I find you? You know the questions that kids ask.
For over a year, I lied to him and made up stories that I didn't believe about heaven. Like most parents, I love my child so much that I didn't want him to be scared. I wanted him to feel safe and loved and full of hope. But the trade-off was that I would have to make stuff up, and I would have to brainwash him into believing stories that didn't make sense, stories that I didn't believe either.
One question I would ask this woman is: "why do you want your child to be full of hope?"
I'm reminded of a quote by the famous British philosopher and atheist, Bertrand Russell when he said: "No one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God." The point of Russell's statement is much like the content of this blog: 'How can a loving God exist if children suffer?"
Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig responds to this quote by asking: "What is Bertrand Russell going to say when he is kneeling at the bed of a dying child?" Tough luck? Too bad? That's the way it goes? That's all that's left for him."
Atheists have literally no hope to offer in this situation. If there is no God, then all the suffering that exists is senseless, there is no justice, there is no reckoning for evil, and life ends in the grave. If the God of the Bible does exist, then 'hope' is real and has meaning, justice is real, and there is life beyond the grave.
One day he would know this, and he would not trust my judgment. He would know that I built an elaborate tale—not unlike the one we tell children about Santa—to explain the inconsistent and illogical legend of God.
And so I thought it was only right to be honest with my children. I am a non-believer, and for years I've been on the fringe in my community. As a blogger, though, I've found that there are many other parents out there like me. We are creating the next generation of kids, and there is a wave of young agnostics, atheists, free thinkers and humanists rising up through the ranks who will, hopefully, lower our nation's religious fever.
"It was only right…" How does TXBlue08, or anyone for that matter, know what is right? After reading this blog a few times, I kept thinking: "This must have been exactly how C.S. Lewis felt while an Atheist."
After wrestling with these types of thoughts, Lewis was struck with an epiphany; he writes :
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too – for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies… Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…" – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Here are a few of the reasons why I am raising my children without God.
God is a bad parent and role model.
If God is our father, then he is not a good parent. Good parents don't allow their children to inflict harm on others. Good people don't stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children. They don't condone violence and abuse. "He has given us free will," you say? Our children have free will, but we still step in and guide them.
First of all, we can only "step in and guide" our children for so long, to a certain point – when they become adults, they do as they please – whether that means accepting guidance or not. The same is true with us – we have free will to accept or reject the moral convictions of God.
Secondly, God does not "condone" violence and abuse; the only sense in which one may argue that He does, is by allowing it to exist. To this I say two things:
1.) It will only be allowed to exist for a time, and there is a coming judgment and reckoning.
2.) It is precisely because of man's free will that "violence and abuse" do exist. The atheist would agree here. And free will is a good thing. The atheist would also agree here.
The heart of the argument is in TXBlue08's remark: "but we still step in…"
To this I would say that I understand the idea; but sadly, we don't always step in. I can think of countless real life situations that are happening around the world right now that we choose to ignore because it would conflict with our personal lifestyle too much to 'step in'.
Also, there is no necessary conflict with the Goodness of God and the existence of evil.
For one thing, if God did prevent evil from happening, how would you ever know it was prevented? Couldn't it be that there are thousands of instances each day where evil has been prevented from happening?
For another thing, if He did step in, and stop evil from happening, He would have to get rid of sin; and the only way to do that is to get rid of sinners, or to force sinners to be perfect against their will. Having free will and the ability to choose how one will think and act not only makes sin possible, but it makes genuine love possible.
The Bible teaches that God is patient and longsuffering towards us, but that He is also just – and will judge the world justly.
Finally, there has been no greater moral 'role model' than Jesus Christ – God incarnate.
God is not logical.
How many times have you heard, "Why did God allow this to happen?" And this: "It's not for us to understand." Translate: We don't understand, so we will not think about it or deal with the issue. Take for example the senseless tragedy in Newtown. Rather than address the problem of guns in America, we defer responsibility to God. He had a reason. He wanted more angels. Only he knows why. We write poems saying that we told God to leave our schools. Now he's making us pay the price. If there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who loves his children, does it make sense that he would allow murders, child abuse, wars, brutal beatings, torture and millions of heinous acts to be committed throughout the history of mankind? Doesn't this go against everything Christ taught us in the New Testament?
In response to the tragedy in Newtown, Conneticut: There is no reason for anyone calling themselves a Christian to defer responsibility to God, to say He had a reason, to say He wanted more angels, to say that He's making us pay the price, etc. These ideas do not reflect the God of the Bible, and have no logical grounding. So TXBlue08 and I would agree that those responses are ridiculous.
In response to the section I have highlighted: This idea echos the thoughts of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus when he wrote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
The idea is that since evil exists, God is either not all-powerful (or else He could stop it), not all-loving (or else He would stop it), or both.
Evil is a problem. In short, athiests use this to argue that God does not exist. Christians affirm God exists, that God is all-powerful, that God is all-loving, and that evil is a problem; and for the Christian (and the logician) there is no necessary contradiction between these four premises, mainly because the evil being done is not caused by God.
The question we should be asking is this: "Why did we allow this to happen?" How can we fix this? No imaginary person is going to give us the answers or tell us why. Only we have the ability to be logical and to problem solve, and we should not abdicate these responsibilities to "God" just because a topic is tough or uncomfortable to address.
Speaking of "logic" – the reality of the existence of logic only makes sense in a worldview that includes an Absolute Standard, outside of materialism, to which the rules of logic can be based in, and reflect Truth.
Because we as humans are finite, there may be things about God that are alogical (beyond logic, or beyond understanding), but there is no instance in which God is illogical.
I borrow from the thoughts of St. Agustine of Hippo when I say "if I could understand everything about God, then He would not be God, I would be", because it would take an infinite, omniscient mind to know a mind like God's.
God is not fair.
If God is fair, then why does he answer the silly prayers of some while allowing other, serious requests, to go unanswered? I have known people who pray that they can find money to buy new furniture. (Answered.) I have known people who pray to God to help them win a soccer match. (Answered.) Why are the prayers of parents with dying children not answered?
If God is fair, then why are some babies born with heart defects, autism, missing limbs or conjoined to another baby? Clearly, all men are not created equally. Why is a good man beaten senseless on the street while an evil man finds great wealth taking advantage of others? This is not fair. A game maker who allows luck to rule mankind's existence has not created a fair game.
We cannot assume to know what prayers God answers, nor can we answer all the 'why' questions – I too, as a Christian, have struggles and theological questions, but I will not trade what I know for the things I do not know, or understand.
I agree, God is not fair.
The Bible never says 'God is fair' –but He is just. The Bible teaches that we live in a fallen world of sin – therefore, all the problems listed above are real, and are in need of redemption.
I think the greater question is "why would anyone lay down his own life to save the life of another?" The idea of selflessness, and love for one's neighbor and enemies, does not make sense in the worldview of materialism, or Darwinian evolution; but Christianity teaches the value of humility, and love for others in light of eternity.
God does not protect the innocent.
He does not keep our children safe. As a society, we stand up and speak for those who cannot. We protect our little ones as much as possible. When a child is kidnapped, we work together to find the child. We do not tolerate abuse and neglect. Why can't God, with all his powers of omnipotence, protect the innocent?
It is true that God does not directly intervene to keep all children safe, here and now. That is, of course, with our definition of "safe"; which is limited, and can be skewed. However, one could argue that God does keep at least some, and maybe even most, children safe according to our definition.
What "society" is TXBlue08 referring to? American society? Surely this statement: "as a society, we stand up and speak for those who cannot" cannot be applied to every society in the world. Thus, she would have to admit that many do not protect the innocent.
So again, the heart of the problem is that God has powers, and he does not always protect.
I could get philosophical, and theological, with the term "innocent", and ask: "who is considered innocent here? " Surely all have sinned. But if we're talking about children, then consider this:
The only truly innocent human persons I can think of are those who are in the womb, and those who are babies. As a society, do we make efforts to always protect them? The fact is: we have legislation which allows the killing of innocent human persons through abortion and partial-birth abortions – so I don't think we should use society as a right standard for how the innocent should be treated.
God is not present.
He is not here. Telling our children to love a person they cannot see, smell, touch or hear does not make sense. It means that we teach children to love an image, an image that lives only in their imaginations. What we teach them, in effect, is to love an idea that we have created, one that is based in our fears and our hopes.
If materialism were true (the only thing that exists is physical matter), then the content of the above paragraph would also be true.
But can we be certain that the supernatural does not exist? In short, "no", we cannot be certain.
Ironically, it turns out to be a 'faith claim' (for lack of a better term) – that is, a 'blind faith, best guess' that the supernatural realm does not exist. To claim with certainty that the supernatural realm does not exist, one would have to be omniscient, which is a supernatural attribute.
One may argue, "it cannot be proven scientifically" whether or not the supernatural realm exists. I would agree, science is limited to the physical realm, therefore, it cannot be proven scientifically.
However, there are many things that we accept as being true that cannot be proven scientifically either. Moral values are real laws that exist in humanity, such as love, justice, the idea that we ought to behave a certain way, etc. Or what about the concept of a motive – in fact, a motive can be used in a court of law; but one can't "see, smell, touch, or hear" a motive. Yet, we know these things exist – how?
Whether it be by personal experience, or by the historic life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the convicting work of the Holy Spirit – one can make a good case that God is, in fact, present.
God Does Not Teach Children to Be Good
A child should make moral choices for the right reasons. Telling him that he must behave because God is watching means that his morality will beexternally focused rather than internally structured. It's like telling a child to behave or Santa won't bring presents. When we take God out of the picture, we place responsibility of doing the right thing onto the shoulders of our children. No, they won't go to heaven or rule their own planets when they die, but they can sleep better at night. They will make their family proud. They will feel better about who they are. They will be decent people.
Going off of C.S. Lewis' thoughts on morality, and 'right and wrong', I do not feel like TXBlue08 has any ground to use morality in an argument, without accepting the fact that God, as the Moral Lawgiver exists.
Morality should at least be both "externally focused" and "internally structured" – this does not have to be an either/or scenario.
In response to "No, they won't go to heaven… when they die" – this is the reality for the atheistic mindset. The soul of a person is not real. We came from nothing, and will go to nothing. How could anyone 'sleep better at night' if this were the true state of mankind?
In response to "rule their own planets…" – this is a reference to Mormonism, which is contrary to Biblical Christianity (by their own admission), and only brings confusion into the discussion. I do not believe, nor does the Bible teach that anyone will rule their own planets one day.
Finally on this point, what is meant by 'decent people'? Decent compared to what, or who? This is an empty statement that really begs the question of a deeper meaning – ultimately, rooted in God.
God Teaches Narcissism
"God has a plan for you." Telling kids there is a big guy in the sky who has a special path for them makes children narcissistic; it makes them think the world is at their disposal and that, no matter what happens, it doesn't really matter because God is in control. That gives kids a sense of false security and creates selfishness. "No matter what I do, God loves me and forgives me. He knows my purpose. I am special." The irony is that, while we tell this story to our kids, other children are abused and murdered, starved and neglected. All part of God's plan, right?
Actually, it is precisely because God is in control, that it does matter what happens. I just don't think this is a good argument.
No, it is not a part of God's plan that children are "abused and murdered, starved and neglected." Jesus, more than anyone in history, taught us to love and respect children.
It is man's plan to sin, abuse, murder, and neglect; it is God's plan to redeem and save fallen mankind.
When we raise kids without God, we tell them the truth—we are no more special than the next creature. We are just a very, very small part of a big, big machine–whether that machine is nature or society–the influence we have is minuscule. The realization of our insignificance gives us a true sense of humbleness.
Is it really true that we are no more special than the next creature?
What creature besides a human can write a blog of how they feel, in order to connect with others, and promote what they believe to be the truth for the betterment of its society? What other creature can understand the message, think about it, and respond to it with an alternative view? Again, without the recognition of the human soul, the atheist will be forced to place the human race on par with 'the next creature.'
The Bible teaches that man was made unique, in the image of God (having the communicable attributes of God) – able to think, reason, love, connect, having a will, etc; and that mankind has dominion over the rest of creation – not to dominate it ruthlessly, but to harvest it, protect it, and use it for sustenance and the furtherance of society.
History and common sense observations are in agreement with the latter.
In response to "humbleness" – why is humility a virtue? Does the "next creature" care about being humble? The 'ought' nature of humility reflects the Moral Law, which implies God's existence.
I understand why people need God. I understand why people need heaven.It is terrifying to think that we are all alone in this universe, that one day we—along with the children we love so much—will cease to exist. The idea of God and an afterlife gives many of us structure, community and hope.
Maybe there's a real reason why the thought of ceasing to exist is terrifying. C.S. Lewis also wrote: "If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world." – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I do not want religion to go away. I only want religion to be kept at home or in church where it belongs. It's a personal effect, like a toothbrush or a pair of shoes. It's not something to be used or worn by strangers. I want my children to be free not to believe and to know that our schools and our government will make decisions based on what is logical, just and fair—not on what they believe an imaginary God wants.
"I do not want religion to go away." I think there is a lot of depth to this quote.
If TXBlue08 really believes that God does not exist, then surely religion would be damaging, because it would promote a false belief system. But if all is relative on TXBlue08's view, then God and religion are just flavors that she does not prefer, but may be good for others. Now if this is the case, then why the push to raise her children without God? Shouldn't they have the option of both flavors?
She may argue that her kids will have a free choice, and that religion should be 'kept at home or in a church where it belongs.' Surely she did not meanher home, for the title of the blog is "Why I Raise My Children Without God." – so I think this closing paragraph is just confusing.
Finally – I think I have made fair points on the topics of 'logic, justice, and fairness' – I doubt that our government is the best source of those values – but either way, I won't address those words specifically here – but I will point out that the logic of the bigger issue should be taken seriously; namely this:
Logically, there are only (4) possible views for how the existence of the universe came to be:
- The physical universe came from nothing, then, life came from non-life.
- The universe is eternal, it has always existed.
- The universe is a personal illusion.
- Someone who has existed eternally outside of the universe, purposely created the universe.
So in response to Premise 1: I don't feel comfortable (logically or scientifically) telling my children that something can explode from nothing, that the life can come from non-life, and that morality can evolve in a purely materialistic existence.
It makes much more sense to me to put my trust in the Person of Jesus Christ and the historically-reliable written record of the Bible; and to recognize through the finely-tuned creation, the human conscience, the authority of Scripture, and personal experience that God does exist; He created the universe, and He created human beings, including my children, with intrinsic value.
TAGS: parenting, worldpulse, change, religion, christianity, free-thinkers, women, atheism
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete