Normally, when I write these posts, I like to start off with a brief introduction but, today, I just want to get down to brass tacks.
1. "Parent" is, and should be, an honored title
I'm a fairly independent person and I enjoy my freedom immensely. I cannot imagine what kind of stress and dedication it takes to be a parent. From the instant they're born, children are demanding. Babies cry in the middle of the night and need constant attention. Children are a little more independent but, ultimately, they still need to watched constantly to ensure they don't hurt themselves or others. Teenagers, in so many cases, revolt against their parents before seeking their own way in life. And, if you're lucky, they don't move back in after you send them out to college.
Yet, I hear from parents time and time again, that there's nothing in the world like being a parent. Yes, there are hard times but, in the end, it's worth it to have someone you love and care about so deeply. Being a parent presents one with a perspective on love that is difficult to find anywhere else in life. To truly know what it means to joyfully sacrifice yourself for someone else is a concept that parents come to realize in time and, for that, the title of "parent" is an honored title, and rightfully so.
2. The success of a marriage and a woman's self-worth should not be defined by having or raising children
As a married man, I find this increasingly irritating.
I would think that, as a society, we would have come to a place in time in which choosing to not have children would be socially acceptable. While it most definitely is not the case that my wife or myself will be publicly rebuked or shamed for actively pursuing lives outside of reproduction but we get the not-so-subtle hints about how we are living life wrong. Of course, no one would ever admit to doing such a thing. It would be uncouth to make such implications but this happens all the time.
The success of a marriage (if this is even somehow quantifiable) is not dependent upon having or raising children. Don't get me wrong. I am certain that there are marriages out there that would never have survived or thrived were it not for the hardships endured through raising children. I am certain that a successful marriage for certain people includes having children and/or raising children. All that I'm saying is that it is not a necessity to a successful marriage. My wife and I are quite content to live out our lives together without the pitter patter of little feet. I know of a handful of couples who, for medical reasons, cannot reproduce. To say that "they don't deserve each other because they can't have children of their own" is abhorrent. I fail to the see how making a conscious choice to not have children is much different.
A woman's self-worth is not defined by having or raising children. I understand that in times past, there was this stereotype of a woman being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen (that somehow has become working, pregnant, and in the kitchen) but, call me crazy, I think my wife is worth quite a bit more than that. Again, don't get me wrong on this. I'm not saying that being a stay-at-home mom (or dad) is a bad thing. I think having a wise and loving body at home is a wonderful thing for a developing young mind. I'm not saying that a woman shouldn't find worth in having children because, as I said before, it's an blessing and an honor. All I wish to say is that it should not necessarily be part of what defines a woman's self-worth.
I love my wife. I love her deeply. When I see or hear about people making implications about her self-worth because of our (not just "her" or "my" but "our") choice to not have children, it makes me quite angry. Now, I'm not a violent person and, in fact, if someone tried to take me on in a fight, I probably wouldn't stand a chance but I will defend my wife with every fiber of my being and every breath in my lungs. I'm not trying to threaten anyone, just raising awareness of the issue at hand.
3. Consider adoption
This is somewhat of a left turn but this has been something on my mind when thinking about having or raising children. If you're thinking about having children, I would urge you to give prayerful thought to adoption. It's estimated that there are 143 - 210 million orphans worldwide, over 14 million age-out of adoption systems. That's about 1 sixteen-year-old, someone who grew up without a loving mother or father, going into the world alone about every 2 seconds. To me, statistics like that are just mind-boggling and heart-breaking.
Again, don't take this as a criticism of those who want to have children of their own. With so many children already out there who need someone to love them, I would just ask that you consider the alternative thoroughly before proceeding.
If my wife and I ever felt that having a child was right for us, this would most likely be the route we would pursue. I don't say that out of self-righteousness but out of lacking the ability to turn a blind-eye.
Who knows though. Maybe someday through some miraculous accident, I'll be a father. For those of you taking bets, though, I wouldn't count on it.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
On Rationality and Spirituality
As the title of this blog post might lead you to believe, I have been thinking about rationality and spirituality lately. Between the ridiculous show piece that was the Ham vs Nye debate, listening to an audio book version of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking I got from the library (curiously enough, you can find the exact version of the audio book I'm listening to on YouTube as well though I'm not sure if it is a legal version), reading an assortment of essays on the Einstein's Theories of Relativity and Gravitation by James Malcolm Bird, and a discussion I had with my small group about the topic, it's easy to see why science and religion has been on the forefront of my mind.
I've debated whether or not to talk about this on my blog. I think there are certain subjects that must be carefully treaded when discussing them and I don't want anyone to lose faith because of the manner in which I discuss them. So, if you are reading this, please read through to the very end before drawing conclusions, either positive or negative, about the implications of this post. With that being said, I feel like I can freely say the following fact about myself:
Were it not for my personal experiences, I would be agnostic.
That's a packed statement so let me unload a few of the pieces.
I cannot conceive of a world in which I would ever be an atheist.
Earlier today, I read an article entitled Is Atheism Irrational?. The mere title of the article was clearly meant to invoke a response (at the time this post was written, the number of comments on the article was reaching 1000) and I don't agree with all of the arguments the interviewee put forth but the general argument against atheism in favor of agnosticism I agree with. If you don't feel like reading the article (or potentially read the arguments in a different way than I did), the argument between atheism and agnosticism is argument between whether or not there is sufficient evidence suggesting that no God exists or, rather, that the leap of faith from agnosticism to atheism relies on believing (a) the absence of evidence of the existence of God is conclusive enough to point to evidence of God's absence and (b) there is enough evidence of God's absence to conclusively point to His non-existence. From an intellectual standpoint and were I agnostic, I cannot conceive of a world in which someone could argue well-enough to convince me of point (a) let alone point (b). I'm sure plenty of my atheist friends will gladly point me in the right direction though.
Intellectually, I can conceive of a world in which the governing laws of nature produced our physical universe without supernatural help.
Quite obviously based on my reading of recent days you can see where this is could be coming from. However, I have long held this belief. There have been many times in my life when I struggled to acknowledge this fact to myself but, in the end, I feel like I cannot abandon my intellect to blind faith. Did God create the world in 7 days? Did He use evolution to do it? Was He there at all? Where does morality come from? Why is there evil in the world? Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes when he had the chance? Silliness aside, there are a lot of deep metaphysical, philosophical, and theological questions that I have wrestled with and heard arguments on and I must say that, from a purely intellectual standpoint, I find the arguments for and against the existence of God as made evident in the world around us to be just as convincing.
From an experiential standpoint, I cannot deny the existence of God.
Recently, I was listening to a set of lectures on Kierkegaard's Relevance to the Contemporary Church by Stephen Evans and there was a particular point of Kierkegaard's works that Dr. Evans brought to my attention that I think is of relevance here: Kierkegaard viewed most modern men as being emotionally underdeveloped.
What does that mean? When hearing the term "emotion," I think most people think of a fleeting feeling or some other transient state of being. However, according to Dr. Evans, the claim that Kierkegaard is making in his works is speaking to deeper emotions like Love (not infatuation), Hope (not wishful-thinking) or even, if I may be so bold, Forgiveness (not willful-ignorance) in an almost incommunicable way, a way that can only be fully understood when experienced. Kierkegaard is of the opinion that modern man has placed too much effort on the advancement of the intellect to the subjugation of personal identity and humanity.
This analysis speaks volumes to me. As much as my mind may like to separate from my soul, it lives its existence intertwined with it (and, I believe, it is all the better for it). Time and time again, I know that God has touched my life. Now, you may call me crazy for saying that or you may try to explain it away with something about neurological impulses triggering responses in my brain and, were I purely an intellectual being, I might believe either explanation. However, there is something there that I cannot fully explain in words that makes me believe that it cannot just be my physical brain playing tricks on me.
It's these personal moments that drives my belief in something greater than myself, in God Himself. It's not something that can be proved or argued but I something I just know to be.
So, for all of you who sit on the fence of agnosticism, I'll pray for you, for God to touch your life the way He's touched mine and for you to be truly open to experiencing Him. For all of you who truly believe that there is no God to pray to, I'll pray even more for you to experience what God can offer and I truly hope your soul can be as open as your mind.
I've debated whether or not to talk about this on my blog. I think there are certain subjects that must be carefully treaded when discussing them and I don't want anyone to lose faith because of the manner in which I discuss them. So, if you are reading this, please read through to the very end before drawing conclusions, either positive or negative, about the implications of this post. With that being said, I feel like I can freely say the following fact about myself:
Were it not for my personal experiences, I would be agnostic.
That's a packed statement so let me unload a few of the pieces.
I cannot conceive of a world in which I would ever be an atheist.
Earlier today, I read an article entitled Is Atheism Irrational?. The mere title of the article was clearly meant to invoke a response (at the time this post was written, the number of comments on the article was reaching 1000) and I don't agree with all of the arguments the interviewee put forth but the general argument against atheism in favor of agnosticism I agree with. If you don't feel like reading the article (or potentially read the arguments in a different way than I did), the argument between atheism and agnosticism is argument between whether or not there is sufficient evidence suggesting that no God exists or, rather, that the leap of faith from agnosticism to atheism relies on believing (a) the absence of evidence of the existence of God is conclusive enough to point to evidence of God's absence and (b) there is enough evidence of God's absence to conclusively point to His non-existence. From an intellectual standpoint and were I agnostic, I cannot conceive of a world in which someone could argue well-enough to convince me of point (a) let alone point (b). I'm sure plenty of my atheist friends will gladly point me in the right direction though.
Intellectually, I can conceive of a world in which the governing laws of nature produced our physical universe without supernatural help.
Quite obviously based on my reading of recent days you can see where this is could be coming from. However, I have long held this belief. There have been many times in my life when I struggled to acknowledge this fact to myself but, in the end, I feel like I cannot abandon my intellect to blind faith. Did God create the world in 7 days? Did He use evolution to do it? Was He there at all? Where does morality come from? Why is there evil in the world? Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes when he had the chance? Silliness aside, there are a lot of deep metaphysical, philosophical, and theological questions that I have wrestled with and heard arguments on and I must say that, from a purely intellectual standpoint, I find the arguments for and against the existence of God as made evident in the world around us to be just as convincing.
From an experiential standpoint, I cannot deny the existence of God.
Recently, I was listening to a set of lectures on Kierkegaard's Relevance to the Contemporary Church by Stephen Evans and there was a particular point of Kierkegaard's works that Dr. Evans brought to my attention that I think is of relevance here: Kierkegaard viewed most modern men as being emotionally underdeveloped.
What does that mean? When hearing the term "emotion," I think most people think of a fleeting feeling or some other transient state of being. However, according to Dr. Evans, the claim that Kierkegaard is making in his works is speaking to deeper emotions like Love (not infatuation), Hope (not wishful-thinking) or even, if I may be so bold, Forgiveness (not willful-ignorance) in an almost incommunicable way, a way that can only be fully understood when experienced. Kierkegaard is of the opinion that modern man has placed too much effort on the advancement of the intellect to the subjugation of personal identity and humanity.
This analysis speaks volumes to me. As much as my mind may like to separate from my soul, it lives its existence intertwined with it (and, I believe, it is all the better for it). Time and time again, I know that God has touched my life. Now, you may call me crazy for saying that or you may try to explain it away with something about neurological impulses triggering responses in my brain and, were I purely an intellectual being, I might believe either explanation. However, there is something there that I cannot fully explain in words that makes me believe that it cannot just be my physical brain playing tricks on me.
It's these personal moments that drives my belief in something greater than myself, in God Himself. It's not something that can be proved or argued but I something I just know to be.
So, for all of you who sit on the fence of agnosticism, I'll pray for you, for God to touch your life the way He's touched mine and for you to be truly open to experiencing Him. For all of you who truly believe that there is no God to pray to, I'll pray even more for you to experience what God can offer and I truly hope your soul can be as open as your mind.