My Trip in Time Read online

beliefs that they were taught as a child.”

  “Now the last group, ego-atheists,” Aaron continued. “Are individuals who have a form of low self-esteem that results in their ego not accepting that anything can be smarter or more important than themselves. Or, that cannot accept the fact that there are things beyond their ability to understand and control. Therefore they construct a belief system that allows them to feel that they have greater control over their own lives.”

  “Well I have never heard of that argument before,” I retorted. “Atheists don't suffer from low esteem issues. They are simply people who have outgrown the need for God.”

  “So Grandfather with all due respect,” Aaron replied. “Your response is the textbook example of what Dr. Vivian predicts an ego-atheist would give when they are challenged on their beliefs. An ego-atheist might say that they don't need God, but that is in itself an illogical statement. Without God, in theory, your existence ends at death. So unless you sincerely want that, you need God or at least some divine entity. Now you could say…”

  “That's not want I meant,” I interjected, I admit a little heatedly. I swear talking with my multi-millennial grandsons was almost as frustrating as talking with my parents and siblings. “What I meant, is that they have outgrown the need to believe in something to just give them comfort in their lives. They can look our eventual oblivion squarely in the face and not blink.”

  “Well as in everything, these are general classifications,” Aaron replied. “Some people fit neatly into one of them and others do not. The personality that you describe could be an ego-atheist, a religious-skeptic, or even a pure atheist. It just depends on what the primary driver behind their belief is. Your choice of the word – need – is telling though. When you use need in this context you are referring to what you perceive is a weakness. For example, if you say I don't need other people's approval to feel good about myself. You are implying that there are people who do, and that these people have a weakness that you do not. It is not just a statement of fact. A pure-atheist may say something like this, but most likely wouldn't, they tend to be less confrontational of opposing beliefs, because their belief isn't the result of conscious or sub-conscious bias.”

  “Grandfather what type of atheists would you classify yourself as?” Jacob asked, with a grin.

  Yes, Jacob and Aaron were just as annoying as my siblings and parents, I thought. Of course I didn't say that to them. Instead I went on the offensive, “You may have clever names for atheists, but what about the religious? How about the gullible, naïve, uneducated, deluded, fanatical and just plain nuts?”

  To my surprise, Aaron calmly replied, “We do. There is the ego-religious personality which, similar to the ego-atheist, is a person with a form of low self-esteem that results in a close minded – I have to be right attitude. In other words, I am the supreme authority and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong – end of story. Their ego simply cannot accept that they might not be correct. In fact, someone with this disorder may indeed argue with people who even agree with them, because in their mind – they have to be the supreme authority.”

  “There is also the holier-than-thou personality,” Aaron continued. “Which is often driven by a need to cover up their own shortcomings.”

  “Shortcomings?”

  “Yeah,” Aaron replied. “You know, if I point out everyone else’s faults loudly enough, then maybe nobody will notice my own. There are also the agenda-pushers, people who warp their religious beliefs around the social or political agendas that they want to promote. Now while the ego-religious, holier-than-thou personalities and agenda-pushers are the most common negative religious personality types, they only represent a small, though often loud, minority of the religious population. Now for the rest, we can break them into the following three categories: the immature, maturing and mature. The religious immature are people who just believe what they were taught as children and never explore their faith beyond that. So in a sense, they are just children in their faith, they simply believe what they are taught, and never question or explore beyond that.”

  “Yeah,” I said. “That sums up my family.”

  “The maturing,” Aaron continued. “Are individuals who have begun questioning and exploring their faith. And the mature, are those individuals who have reached their theistic views after a thorough exploration of their faith.”

  “What do you mean, questioning their faith?” I asked. “Do you mean they quit being Christian or Muslim for awhile?”

  “No,” Aaron replied. “Though in some cases that is true, but for most it is not. It just means that they make an active effort to explore their faith, not just accept what they were taught by others.”

  Ugh, I thought to myself, as my frustration mounted. “OK, it is great that people in the 41st century have a hundred different ways to classify someone's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, but this isn't going anywhere. And quite frankly, I am still at a loss as to why people in the future could still be gullible enough to believe in God.”

  “I thought people in the future would be more logical,” I continued. “I mean, regardless of any conscious or sub-conscious drivers, or whether or not there is any value to suffering, or anything else, it is still just tap dancing around the obvious question.”

  “Which is?” the Professor prompted.

  “OK,” I replied, rising to the challenge with what I thought was my best argument. “Why would God create the universe, and then leave us with no definite proof that He exists? That just doesn't make any sense. Therefore, how can you not conclude that God is a myth? Why delude yourself?”

  “Well Grandfather you raise a very good point,” Aaron replied.

  “It's a point that everyone must concede is a real possibility,” Jacob agreed. “But it is a little dumbar as well, no offense.”

  “What Jacob means,” Aaron clarified. “Is while you have to concede that it is possible that the universe, regardless of how complex, was created by accident; you also have to concede that if a divine being did create the universe that being would be infinitely smarter and wiser than ourselves, and thus could have a multitude of reasons why He would deliberately make His existence ambiguous to His creation.”

  “Why would God want to make His existence ambiguous?” I retorted.

  “Free will and trust are the two most accepted reasons,” Aaron replied.

  “Free will and trust?”

  “Sure, those arguments have been around forever…” Aaron started to say, then, looking at me, amended it. “Well, maybe not forever.”

  “The free will argument,” Jacob began. “Pretty much states that everyone would behave differently if they knew with 100% certainty that an all knowing, all powerful, all good God exists. Think about it. How different would life be in your time if everyone knew that God was watching and judging their every move?”

  I had to admit that this was an intriguing question. Life would be completely different. You wouldn't have CEO's thinking of their pocketbooks first and the environment second. There would be no wars, no riots, no random acts of violence. “I concede that life would be completely different, it would be nearly perfect,” I replied.

  “Would it be?” the Professor asked. “What is the merit, the value in somebody doing the right thing, because they know they will be punished if they don't? Also, how many people would just wait around for the almighty God to solve their problems for them, as opposed to solving it themselves? That is the free will question. Assuming that God created us for a purpose, a purpose beyond simply existing, then there are a multitude of reasons why God would give us free will.”

  “The Trust argument,” Aaron interjected. “Follows the same line of reasoning as the free will argument. If God created mankind for a purpose, beyond simply to exist, then in this life He must be molding us, teaching us, shaping us for that purpose. C.S. Lewis referred to this as the long, painful process of making us pe
rfect. The Trust argument basically states that God is testing us in this life to make sure that we will do the right things, with limited power and supervision, so that we can be trusted to do more with less supervision in the next. It's kind of like a parent giving their children a small amount of freedom and responsibility. Once they prove they can be trusted with that, the parent gives the child more and more. So that hopefully someday, they will become a responsible, trustworthy adult. Does that make sense?”

  “Yes, I guess it does, but I think it's a major stretch. Look, maybe you are right and there are a multitude of reasons why God would have created the universe and yet decide to keep His presence ambiguous. But come on, Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, and the simplest explanation is that we are only here through a cosmic accident, there is no God – we are on our own.”

  “Actually Grandfather,” Jacob replied. “Occam's razor states that if multiple theories are more or less equal, then the one with the least new assumptions is most likely correct. If you sincerely apply Occam's razor, a Creator of the universe theory actually has less new assumptions than the cosmic accident theory, at least from a human perspective.”

  “I am not following you at all,” I replied. “How can you