Chapter Four; SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE GOD DELUSION part eleven

Observation and thoughts derived from the book The God Delusion: Chapter 10, Dawkins wrote the statement that 96 percent of the population of the United States thinks that they will survive their own death. If one was to say that should I jump off this 12 story building unaided, after I hit the bottom of the pavement, I will survive that fall. Any reasonable person would have no other recourse but to find the nearest phone and call 911 for emergency services. Because my statement would surely reflect a total disconnect to the reality of the Universe. But, if one has a belief in a dogma that tells them that no matter what death they face, they will survive their death, based upon a religious dogma. The general population in the United States will think that they are a person of deeply held religious beliefs.
To even believe to survive after one ’s own death when no known physical reality, experiment or study can support or attest to that possibility, is surely the zenith of a person with a grand delusion. Even marginalized concepts, such as ghosts, trolls, spirits, angels and so forth, boarder on the absurd when one is dealing with the reality of their own life. I tried to come up with some sort of comparison, which would be a simile with that concept. The closest one I could come up with was, if someone believed that Alice in Wonderland was based upon eyewitness evidence instead of Lewis Carroll's imagination. Even this is a poor example to show the level of self deception and blind faith one must go through in order to accept such an absurd premise. I really cannot imagine a more bizarre and unbelievable concept. But as Douglas Adams once wrote, [to paraphrase] The more unbelievable the idea is, the more virtuous the person is that believes it or as Richard Dawkins wrote, “Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief.” I assume that must have been the idea behind The Electric Monk idea in Adams' writings.
Other observations and views from The God Delusion. The premise that life originated on Earth, is one that is abiogenisis. While no one can for sure know the way life began on Earth, the evidence that there is life on Earth leads one to investigate with scientific means, as to what life is and how long it has been on the planet. These areas are supported by many areas of scientific research including: Biology, Physics, Chemistry, paleontology, Plate tectonics, Molecular Biology, archeology, genetics, climatology, astronomy, cosmology and many other disciplines of scientific research.
One question that I have not seen addressed or answered was on a multi-genesis of life on Earth. When dealing with the probability of life and the processes that are needed to be in place for it to occur through chemical and physical forces, one must conclude that the possibility for more than one origin of life on Earth is as likely as a single source of life on Earth.
I bring this point up not as a scientist but as a layman that finds this question interesting. Is it possible that the origins of, say, plants and animals and fungus , all began with different points of origins and that the most convenient way to transfer molecular information is in the form of DNA nucleotides? I don't know and I have not heard this addressed. Could DNA simply be the “Lego blocks” of the biological universe and on our planet it makes for the most convenient way to have life.
I did attend a lecture of Richard Dawkins in Norman, OK and asked him this very question. I have looked for the video on line , and as of the date of this writing, it is not available. I do know that it was recorded.

He made the allegory that when you lose your keys you look under the lamp post because that is where the light is. (This relates that there is the possibility that other life may have evolved and died out prior to it taking foothold. We can only find something in the areas where we are able to examine.) But, there is still a possibility that non DNA based life is on Earth. A chance but very remote. There isn't any chemical or physical reason why it cannot happen.

He mentioned the work of two scientists, but I do not recall their names. The result of the research touched upon the view that DNA research had determined once DNA was established, the four chain nucleotides were "'frozen in place." This indicates that since all life known on Earth is based upon the four series that the conclusion is that all known life had a common origin. [xvii]
Dawkins mentioned that it is possible that life could be based upon some other set of building blocks, even here on Earth. This was toward the end of his answer. But this really points to discovery of life extra-terrestrial. As of right now, we only have life on Earth to compare life to.
He didn't give a "yes" or "no" answer, as a good scientist should avoid, but the conclusion I gather is: Yes there could have been multi-origins of life, but if they did, they were evolutionary dead ends or those organisms became food for the current set of DNA based life. As far as Biology and other science “know”, only DNA based life is known to exist in The Universe.
The point went something like this. Regardless of how common or rare life is, it has happened at least one time. (this got a chuckle from the audience) "We know this because we are here." But depending on the yet to be discovered million and millions of stars and yet undiscovered planets to find life on, this will lead to an answer to this type of question.
In another part of the lecture, Dawkins said there are also countless questions that we do not have answers to. This seems to be one that we can ask but not answer from our limited place in space and time. Thankfully, science looks like it will have plenty of work ahead of it for many years to come.

What is the evidence that life is formed from a single source? Isn't it DNA itself? I know about the mapping of genome and the matching of similar genes in different species. But isn't that also the most convenient way for life to exist? Again to refer to Douglas Adams, Isn't this hole nicely suited to me, so “says” the water held in said puddle.
Simply put, DNA may be the most convenient way for life to sustain itself regardless of what form it took in basic form. Plants, animals and fungus all could be part of a cosmic factory that made several attempts at life and only two or three were sustained with the natural forces of the planet working both for and against life. As far as the planet Earth goes, there is no reason to have life on it than any other planet. There were millions of years with no life on Earth and there will be millions of years in the future that no life will be on Earth. We just got lucky that our time is now. Imagine the cosmic queue for life yet to come. There is no divine plan for creation of anything that is alive. There is life because there is life. We beat the odds.
So what drives the forces of life on Earth. It could be the basic idea that life itself is an oddity and that life seeks to sustain itself because it “knows” it has no right to exist. The truth of the matter is rocks , water, metals and other non-living things on Earth have the “right” to be here well before any bacteria, fish, bird, shrub or tree do. For the inorganic and non living are what most of the known universe is made up of. They are the majority.
Now the exclusivity of life is based upon all the known places we know life exists, namely Earth. There has been recent evidence that life may have existed on ancient Mars and even the possibility that it could currently exist subsurface on the Mars. But in view of the inability to analyze any samples of what life may be on Mars, the comparison to life on Earth must remain , at best, a subject of conjecture and preliminary data. There has even been hypothesis put forth for life on other places in our solar system. One of the more bizarre ones is for floating life in the clouds of Venus. That indeed would be a most usual life form. I feel that one is at best a wish.
Why is this question relevant? I would like to try to address this since the idea seems to be among homo sapiens that we somehow have a privileged or special place among the life on this planet. What is the chance that life would happen on Earth? There were indeed many overwhelming factors that had to be overcome for just the change of life to occur. Based upon calculations from Drake's Equation, [xviii] one could figure that the chance of life to occur starts in the billion to one or even trillion to one. This, of course, is a high hurdle for life to overcome. But with each step life did indeed make the next step and we are here, alive on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this universe. So regardless of the unlikelihood, we are here to prove that life did, indeed, on at least one planet, on Earth. This equation doesn't require any outside influence of a supernatural for life to occur. The signs of life through out the universe seem to support the Drake equation, but as we only have one source planet of life, that is a bit disingenuous. But in The Milky way we are looking now with the Kepler Space observatory to find other planets that could support life.
But it is not beyond reason or even probability. It is somewhat amazing to me how the critics of evolution will point out the “impossibility” of DNA or RNA from forming in the hostile environments of ancient Earth but have no problem with saying that man was scooped up from the ground, like so much kitty litter, and then a god blew on it and it magically came alive. Science can offer such evidence of life making processes as the experiment to show how these building blocks may have formed.
Creationists counter with, “because the Bible says so,” and “Scientific experiments that point the way to origins using natural processes are wrong and miss the fundamentals. God made life by speaking it into existence.”
The hurdle , that the nucleic acid had to over come to use amino acids and proteins to carry genetic information, is low compared to the “Supernatural to Natural Transference Device” hurdle that is “required” for immaterial things to become material. If I was to gamble on these two outcomes, even bet my life on it, I would take the long term evolution train every time.
I have heard an Intelligent Design advocate ask a question. [Isn't it true that the basic amino acids required to form DNA are not able to form in the primitive Earth?] This is an area of ongoing research . And while an answer is yet to be gained, there is an understanding of the process that these elements could come together using several possible models. The Miller-Urey experiment, in 1952, is well known for using the gases present in the young Earth, based upon conditions determined at that time, forming basic amino acids under laboratory conditions that are needed for life.
One of the best things about science is that not knowing an answer doesn't end the process. It encourages it. So science and the Theory of Evolution do not have all the answers. That isn't the purpose of science. The idea is , that with reason and study, a more plausible idea of The Universe develops out of factual information than from fictional stories that try to match the dots in the sky with exotic sounding stories.
There is a concept that I use often with people that try to exert their fictional (religious) view of reality as the right one. It can not be conclusively proven that the world of the movie "The Matrix" is not the reality in which we live in. As far as evidence, it is as unfalsifiable as almost every other religion. Any proof that would be offered to counter that view of that reality is in itself the proof that it is part of The Matrix, and thus supports the dogma of one who might believe such a story. The same is true with most other religious dogma.
This whole idea of faith and belief is something that helps support the prejudice of human beings , that we are special and life is unique. As I stated before, the mass of material in The Universe is not in support of life at all. The largest mass of known elements in The Universe are hydrogen and helium. These make up the fuel of the stars. Then when reducing down to planets, we can take an example for our own solar neighborhood that most of the planets are gas giants, made up of the same two elements and other trace elements including metallic hydrogen. However, life, which is made up of some of the more rare elements has most say in how The Universe is viewed on Earth. Life views itself as special and the rest of The Universe as worthless or of little value.
This relates to the seminar that Dawkins gave on "The Purpose of Purpose" which I attended in Norman, Oklahoma. What is the purpose of a bird's wing or a cave or a green field? Dawkins used the terms, archeo-purpose and neo-purpose. Archeo-purpose relates to what an item is for that is naturally occurring. Such as mentioned a birds wing or a certain color or sent of a flower. Evolutionarily, a birds wing has no purpose it serves a function of flight that was the path that natural selection took for the class of animals aves. As we well know not all aves, have the capacity of flight. [thanks to Morgan Freeman] But the wing of an aircraft is created for a specific purpose. That purpose can be to transport people from one location to another location through the air. This human created wing would be called a neo-purpose item.
So humans determine what is the purpose of items we make and because we have the capacity to reason and associate form and function of items and cause and effect of events, we make assumptions of the purpose of the things that natural has in it. This assigned purpose from humans mixed with faith would lead people to have a prejudiced view of the purpose of a naturally occurring event. Such as earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural events. This complemented with man's ability to make up stories and manipulate people and nature makes events seem as if they have a purpose and even a divine one some would say.
Having such a view would tend to minimize nature, which is the dominate force in The Universe, in favor for a supernatural perspective, which is a totally make believe view of The Universe. The steps that would follow with this view, are ones that logic and reason wouldn't be compatible.
If one believes that cows, chickens and pigs are here by a divine purpose that serves man, one would act according to the belief and not see them as co-evolutionary partners but their meat to serve the nutritional needs of mankind. If one overlooks nature and decides that a place exists in the sky were everyone can go to live after they die. [what does that mean?] Then instead of having a purely natural point of view, this will diminish fact based concepts for imagination based concepts of The Universe. Understanding the concepts of archeo-purpose and neo-purpose can greatly work to clarify our place in The Universe.
To ask such questions as, “What is God's purpose for your life? What Would Jesus Do? Why are we here? And other questions that look to a divine for answers, fail to recognize the basic reality of life. This reality is regardless it is for any life period to occur anywhere it has happened. As unlikely as this makes life to occur naturally, the unlikelihood increases even more so, and with increased improbability, if one supposes a god did it. This concept doesn't disprove a god but the evidence for the known nature of how The Universe works versus the addition of the unknown supernatural, while highly improbable, is still the most likely and more probable answer for life , the universe and everything. [xix]
To explain, As an atheist, my view on origins is based upon the ideas presented by astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and other science disciplines. I will be early to admit my limited understanding of advance concepts of science but I do have a healthy overview of the concepts and I can reasonably listen to lectures and seminars by professionals in the fields and generally understand their ideas. With this in mind, I find the evidence that is presented in science and nature to be the most reasonable and reliable answers for how nature works.
The answers rely upon observations, testing, and established scientific method to come up with the steps of how The Universe is formed. Are all the answers there? No. Do I understand all the answers that are there? No. But I understand enough to have a clear picture. Like a mosaic picture of ancient times, if your are too close you can miss the big picture. So I have a big picture understanding of nature. I would charge that anyone that claims to have all the answers is surely a person to be avoided.
Then there is the view of the supernatural, that it has all the answers. [This in itself should make everyone suspect. After all, no one likes a know it all, or a smart ass.] Divine answers to natural questions not only dismiss actual knowledge but but provide answers to question that science may not have answers to yet. Not to mention those adherents that profess to tell their followers the location of an actual Heaven or Hell, Garden of Eden, Nirvana, Shangri-La, Shamballa and so forth. After all if you want people to trust you enough to place their supernatural life in your hands then you better have all the answers to their tough questions. Plus if you are trusted, they are more likely to hand over their hard earned money.
So is science hard to understand? You bet it is. But it is even more difficult to understand why people will believe an answer that only proof of concept is that a person has faith that it is true. Take all the science in the world and a devout adherent can replace it all with faith. Faith and no proof whatsoever. I believe it was James Randi that said that you take the technology of Today back 50 years and it looks like magic. As of this writing that would 1959. Just on the dawn of the space race with the Soviet Union. The idea that you could take a picture with a devise as small as a credit card, call virtually anyone around the world directly, hold millions of songs on a small metal box and play them through tiny ear pieces, To be able to find answers to questions to just about anything in seconds without having to look it up in an encyclopedia or go to a research library is a thing of science fiction 50 years ago.
But there were people then that were not willing to rely upon the best the world had to offer and worked to turn science fiction into reality. Today, the James Bond tracking system seems quite quaint and antiquated for today. Granted the space age laser weapons have not become a hand held commodity but the non-lethal force shock guns certainly have come a long way and are an object that would have been viewed as magic or out of this world at the time. Other such common place items now such as music and TV from space on our home and personal entertainment devices, The ability to record and playback video on a card no bigger then a postage stamp. Physical letters becoming almost extinct as a means of communication, being replace by digital communication with both live and delayed messages.
As humans, we can accept advances in things we do not understand as long as there is a socialize reason to accept such things. Better house cleaners, more entertainment, faster food, more information, cleaner hands, longer lasting tires and more as long as these things improve the quality of life and do not touch upon the reasons for life. For that area doesn't belong in the area of technology but in the area of the lack of technology. Faith needs no upgrading, there is no need to have a “New and improved” faith, of a even “longer lasting” faith as faith just wants to be accepted as simply as it can. Once faith has found a nice home it will grow and grow into other areas like an ivy vine that will cover a yard and wall. Where nothing can be see without it being seen through the ivy vines.
Areas of live that prior to faith were unrelated such as working and sexuality are now joined in the ever entwining vines of faith. Faith consumes reason. As it does it dulls the senses and makes reasonable people reject facts and act upon superstition.
This is to say that the no matter how amazing science proves the facts of The Universe, the idea that a god created The Universe makes the concept of that creator even more complex than the natural solution. In the future the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] and the remaining function of the Hubble Space Telescope and the other space research devices and the thousand of hard working researchers and scientists will shine more light on the origins of The Universe. But there will not be a purpose found in any of this.
To this end I would even assert further that the God delusion is a soft name for the hysteria that the religious suffer. Religion reminds me of Douglas Adams' Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal [xx]. If you do not know what that is, feel free to read his book or any other the other mediums which are "rarely done well."

[xvii] http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/dna_double_helix/readmore.html
[xviii] http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm
[xix] Thank you, Douglas Adams
[xx] http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Ravenous_Bugblatter_Beast_of_Traal


Coming in the next posting: God in Chaos: LARRY KING AND THE GHOSTS HUNTERS part twelve

Chapter One; TWO WORLDS CONVERGE part three

In both of science and religions areas of my life, I have many more experiences that added to both my understanding of the natural world and understanding about Christianity and religion. In high school, I was fortunate to take almost every science class that was offered. I even became a science proctor, [that is a teacher's aide or assistant]. The classes I took included: General Science, Biology,(two years) Chemistry, Astronomy, Physics, and Zoology. The only two classes I didn't take that I could have were Geology and Botany. During my time of taking all that science never was the concept that science was incompatible with religion come up. Of course there was the part in Biology about the disproving of spontaneous generations using the concepts of frogs being “made” from mud and that rotten meat produced maggots. But through careful study and experimentation these concepts which were in support of creation soon were proven incorrect. Frogs hibernate in the lake and stream beds and come out n the warmer weather and if you keep meat covered and flies away from it, it will rot but no maggots will be produced since the flies cannot lay their eggs in it.




It was during this time, Easter of 1982, when I became what some call “born again” or “saved”. A person I met invited me to their church and I decided I wouldn't mind going. The pastor’s sermon stirred me deeply. I felt that while Jesus was hanging on his cross he was thinking of me personally and gave his life for my actual specific sins. It was the emotional appeal of the message that moved me more than the logical presentation of the evidence. I mean, after all, there really wasn't a logical appeal to the sacrifice of Jesus. It did really strike me as reasonable plus I did have a motivating desire to posses the “insight” that my other friends from church had. It was about time I got me some Jesus in my life to.

It was truly a euphoric feeling. I felt that a sacrifice like that from Jesus was enough to make me believe in Him and accept Him as my personal savior. While it was by no means a straight path forward in my religious education, I was certainly on the way. No hard proof was offered for my conversion. I accepted the anecdotal story as sufficient proof for me to accept this story as totally factual and reliable as any other fact in the world. After all, these people couldn't all be wrong, could they? There were so many of them.

I was in high school at the time I was saved. As I said before, I took most of the science classes that were offered. For 13 consecutive weeks, while studying physics, our class would go to the library every Friday and watch the most amazing science show I had seen: Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Journey. Until this point, none of these concepts had been presented in such a clear and understandable format. In addition to science in the classroom, I attended field trips to the Kansas Cosomosphere, Wichita Omnisphere, Lake Afton Planetarium, Kirkpatrick Planetarium and other museums. This all comprising a strong background of the natural and physical world.

It was during my junior year in high school that I helped to start the science club. All my friends were either science or math geeks. We spent much of our free time talking about science and matters of logic and reason. I even bought and read the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 62nd Edition, for leisure. Those familiar with the book should have seen me lugging that book around. But, reading that book, I learned about some of the similarity of the chemical structures and the process of naming molecules. Also , I learned about some of the characteristics of the elements and so many more concepts.

A humorous view of the world was disguised as a science-fiction radio play, in The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams. That made for some great thinking while listening to the radio, alone late at night, at the age of 13. Adams had the knack for making the reasonable seem curious and the unusual seem common in his stories.

It was a story that remained with me. I purchased various versions as I came upon them, including the books, the audio books, the TV show and movie. I seriously doubt that if it hadn't been for his tangential humor, I may not now look at things as oddly as I tend to do now.

Unbeknownst to me, these two world views would not agree with each other. I felt at the time, like I am sure many do, that these two world views were totally compatible with each other. Nothing in my religious education was clearly stated as being at odds with the world of science. The same can be said about my science education. We live in the physical world. What could be incompatible with the ideas of the God that made The Universe and the science that explains it?

In college I didn't study too well, on my first attempt. After three semesters, I found myself out of school and needing a job. This opportunity lead me to the Air Force. I did my job skills test and scored high. I decided I wanted a vocation that would provide me with a skill after I got out of the service. So, I selected a plumbing job. It was actually the job that had the highest score requirement and would allow me to start right away without a college degree or spending months in training.

After going through basic and advance training, I was stationed at Tinker AFB, near Oklahoma City. This is where my intense Christian training began, with a Christian group called The Navigators.

Being a typical 19 year old airman, away from home, with plenty of money, I had enough free time to do other things. I had a few girlfriends; went out with the guys; went to concerts, and did my job. One Monday in the summer of 1985, there was a knock on my door. Two young men stood in my doorway and asked me about my relationship with Jesus. The first question they asked, was, “If you were die Today, do you know for sure that you are going to heaven?” [Where was my knowledge of logical fallacies then?] I said yes. I did know and that I would go. So began my association with The Navigators. From then, on every Tuesday at the base religious education building anywhere from two to twenty people would gather to sing some songs, have a Bible study, and then go out to eat. [I think it is vital that an organization have food at their gatherings in order to get followers.]

During this period, I learned much about Christianity and memorized many scriptures. I must have gone to at least a dozen conferences and retreats, in a three year period. Some were as far as 600 miles away. My primary church at that time was the Air Force Base Chapel. Most of us, in The Navigators group, attended the Chapel, too. Even though the group was made up of enlisted and officers, we had the overall connection with Christianity, and the fraternization policy was largely overlooked. There were even enlisted and officers dating in the group. After a year or so, our Navigator leaders advised us to go to our home churches off base. The reason, for this, was to be an influence in our home churches. I guess it seemed that we were becoming too much of a click. But, looking back, it seems that they were trying to spread their influence to more denominations and infiltrate, looking for people that might be willing to take a leadership role in the various denomination. The main slogan is, “To know Christ and to make him known.” So, each man or woman was asked to work with three other men. One would be his mentor; one would be his peer and one would be his student. This involved an elaborate structure of different areas; each under a higher leader until reaching the district level, to the head of The Navigators, who at that time was Lorne Sanny.

I met several Christians who referred to The Navigators as a cult. Their term, for what they called what they did, was “sheppardship.” To be quite honest, decisions usually quite personal, such as: who to date, where to work and what to buy would often come under the discussion of The peer or mentor, if not a small group of fellow Navigators. Just like Jeff Sharlet describes in his book, The Family, these discussions were about how to make Jesus more real in your life and to pray without ceasing. The purpose was to bring more men into the group. Women were welcome, but not that common. The nickname for the group of guys I ran with was The Neverdaters, as a play on the name of the group The Navigators. Few of us ever had girlfriends or dates. The mere logistics of getting a girlfriend in the group was a wrenching process. You couldn't go out as a single, one-to-one, male-to- female, for the first few dates. Outings had to be group dates. Keep in mind, we are referring to adult men and women, in their early to mid-twenties. Yet the restrictions we placed upon ourselves were worse than what most parents do to their Junior High and High School children. Man what a happy group.

While the men involved in The Family are usually older, I could definitely see parallels between the two groups. I do wonder how much time these men in The Family actually spent trying to study the Bible, as opposed to just “knowing Jesus.” It can be a very scary thing, following the Bible to get your beliefs, but to leave the Bible behind and become a “follower” of what you think Jesus is, only to become disconnected from reality. Could also be their goal? Nothing a person can say or reveal to the “followers” of Jesus , that would have any weight with how these groups perceive the reality of the world, are able to change their beliefs, though they will say, every step of the way, is all part of the will of Jesus. That is to say that their beliefs will overcome the facts of reality.

My “home” church was the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I began going to that church in Midwest City, OK. However, it didn't seem to fit in with my view of how I now understood scriptures. The dogma of that church seemed to misinterpret the Bible, according to my beliefs about what the “facts” of scripture taught. I spoke to the Pastor. He confirmed my perception and soon was looking elsewhere. I felt there was a clear case for salvation, to be assured, but the Lutheran Pastor told me that a person was able to loose their salvation. I felt this was in error and used my scriptures to support my side; just as he used his scriptures to support his view. In the end, I chose a different Church to attend.

While I was going through my issue with the LCMS, most of my Air Force friends began attending the Covenant Community Church, located about 21 miles away from the base. I attended that church a few times, but didn’t feel like I fit in. On the other hand, I liked the local Christian Rock radio station, KOKF. Their songs and programs captured my attention and personal perspective. This was part of my self-imposed, separation from the secular world.

One time, KOKF had a contest. I called in with the correct answer and won the prize. When I went to pick up my prize, (I do not recall what it was), the General Manager, Greg Griffin, said I had a good voice. I asked him if I could volunteer, should they need help. He agreed. I began the next weekend as a prayer counselor and assisted the on-air DJ. This radio station was affiliated with a pentecostal church and I started attending that church's singles group. Soon I was attending the church's regular Sunday services that hosted the singles group. One could say at that point I was deeply involved with religion and moving up fast.

I was soon engaged with my full duties in the Air Force and going to the far side of the city to do my radio shift, on the weekend. During this time, my “home” church became the pentecostal mega church, Cathedral of Praise World Outreach Center. The pastor, Ron Dryden, owned the radio station. It made sense to make it my weekly spiritual home. I really enjoyed the people at the Cathedral of Praise World Outreach Center and quickly got involved, where I was growing in standing and respect. I am certain, if circumstances would have been different, I might be writing a Christian book instead of an atheist to me Today. I am quite pleased to be writing what I am.

The church encouraged speaking in tongues, or a prayer language [a biblical loophole for speaking in tongues], as well as spiritual and physical healing and all manner of expressive worship to display the power God really manifested in the actions of the people. Dancing in the isles was as common as getting a hamburger at McDonald's. It was not the Holy Spirit that moved the people though; it was their desire to be a follower of Jesus and express what they felt was his power in their life. Each Sunday, the service went through very predictable cycles. After the time passed for the service to start, the “worship leaders” [aka singers] would grab their specifically colored mic and begin to sing. One used a tambourine while the musicians accompanied them. The words of the music would politely be put on the overhead screens for those that didn't yet know the words. Normally, by the second verse, people would begin dancing in their aisle with neighboring congregates. Soon, one or two people would slip out and go up to the front of the auditorium and begin dancing. There seemed to be a hierarchy of dancing. Certain people had an implicit leadership role; they would dance out in the open first, then others would follow. Rarely during this time would anyone bother to speak in tongues, which occurred after the music began to slow down. One of the church leadership would take the stage for announcements or some sort of greeting, “in the Lord,” as they would say.

When I spoke in a “tongue”, it was not under the power of the Holy Spirit. It was to be like the other people in the church whom I associated with. Peer pressure was a powerful thing in this group. The sounds, the colors, the lights and the feeling of being together for the glory of God is a powerful feeling. It is a delusional feeling, but a good one none the less. I remember recalling trying not to sound like the other people that repeat the same sound over and over again.

“Everyone can tell that isn't really a language of any kind,” I would think to myself. I at least made sure my speaking in “tongues” sounded somewhat like a language.