Also, I’d like to point out that many practicing monotheists (Christian and non-Christian alike) believe in Universal Salvation. To believe a loving God could condemn someone to hell for choosing the wrong beliefs is completely illogical, particularly when he has given us no way to know for sure. The Bible doesn’t count, as I could just as easily cite the Vedas or Koran as ultimate truth, with just as much validity. If God wanted us to be blind through life, he wouldn’t have given us the ability to reason through situations and ideas. As he gave us reason, I’d think he expects us to use it to better ourselves and our world, wouldn’t you? And since it’s illogical to think a loving God would condemn us to Hell for the wrong beliefs, I guess he’d think to make it clear which faith we should choose if he required us to make that choice correctly. Since that isn’t the case, and most of us presuppose a loving God, I’d say that leaves the option that God isn’t really looking for us to make the right choice of religion. He’s looking for us to live our lives the right way, which there is also no guide book for, which leaves us to reason out the best way for ourselves. Guess we’d better think for ourselves instead of relying on the Bible, don’t you think? Yes, there is some presumption in this paragraph. I know I don’t know the will of God. But I’m trying to come to a reasoned conclusion here based on premises that are commonly held by many religions, the most prominent being that God loves us, and my own reasoning and thought processes.

So, not only is Pascal’s Wager a poor argument because God can see what’s in your heart anyway, it’s also a poor argument because a loving God wouldn’t condemn anyone to Hell for making the wrong choice of religion without the knowledge to make an informed decision, or using our reason to come to our own conclusions. Stop using Pascal’s Wager to try to convince people. It doesn’t work, and it’s quite possibly one of the most flawed arguments to convert people I’ve ever seen.

It is this contradictory nature and the way people invest so much effort into it that gives the Bible the power it has. That power is to reveal the character of the person interpreting the Bible. Those who think of homosexuals as second-class citizens will harp on the parts that condemn homosexuality. Those who believe that people are evil will focus on the role of original sin. Those who believe in social justice will highlight the way Jesus tended to the downtrodden and the poor. Those who believe in equality will focus on the elements that proclaim everyone to have a right to enter paradise. You can justify just about anything by picking and choosing your Bible verses. What you choose to justify speaks volumes about your character, not God’s.

Consider the large variety of Christian churches. Then consider religions outside of Christianity that still read and interpret the Bible in their own ways. You will find groups who are liberal, centrist, and conservative. Authoritarians and libertarians. Groups that are inclusive and exclusive. Groups that believe in their own superiority, and those that believe in the equality of all people. Groups that believe we’re all evil, that believe we’re all good, and that believe we determine our own morals. They all interpret the Bible in their own way, and how they interpret it tells you a lot about them. It tells you what their organization thinks. And it gives you a good idea what most people in that organization think, though listening to personal interpretations will tell you more.

People full of hate will use the Bible to justify hateful actions they take towards other people, and other groups of people. People full of love will use the Bible to support others. Generous people will use the Bible to promote charitable works and likely donate what they can of their own time and/or money as well. People with a need for control will focus on those elements that let them assert control over others when those others buy into what is said.

Naturally, you’ll learn the most about a person who puts a lot of stock in the Bible. Still, you’ll even learn a lot about people who don’t really care much about the Bible if they’ll play along and put forward their own interpretations, or if they decide to enter into a debate with someone who does believe the Bible is an important book. How they debate this person will give you insight into what even they believe in terms of earthly morals.

The same could probably be said of many holy books. The Bible is what I am most familiar with, so that is what I chose to talk about.

In the end, the Bible isn’t the path that gets you into Heaven. The Bible is a path to explore your own heart. If you are vocal about your interpretation, you tell everyone else what is in your heart as well, whatever that may be. The interpretation you choose exposes what you believe.

I’m a religious person who respects science and thinks it’s important. As such, I try to choose my beliefs in such a way that they won’t interfere with science… or more accurately, so science won’t interfere with them. I view the role of science as dealing with the observable, objective, and physical world, while spirituality and religion deal with the unobservable, subjective, and spiritual world. This makes me pretty unwilling to bend when people say science disproves religion, because what they are really saying is science disproves these common religions and beliefs, and there is no evidence for the other religions out there.

Now, I understand some atheists would respect my stance and leave it at that so long as I respect their stance. There are others who seek to convince religious people of all kinds to abandon their religion and become an atheist. As is their right, so long as it is done respectfully. The vast majority of the time, it is. However, those trying to convince us to abandon our faith are making a mistake. They’re trying to whittle away at all religious beliefs through science.

This won’t work. The reason is simple. Those who respect science are careful to match their beliefs with science to be sure they aren’t in conflict. We freely acknowledge there is nothing scientific about our beliefs, only that we’ve thought about our beliefs and made sure they are not contradictory to scientific understanding. And if science ever does contradict them, we’ll change with the science. On the other hand, those who don’t respect science aren’t going to listen to science anyway. With them, you’re banging your head against a wall.

Instead, the place to engage religious people is in the realm of emotion, subjective experience, and knowledge of their religion and morals. And you need to understand a person’s specific beliefs when engaging them in order to do this properly. Just because someone says they’re a Christian doesn’t mean they have the same beliefs as another person who says they’re a Christian. So, if you want to challenge someone’s beliefs, you need to find out what they are first.

Now, the reason you have to challenge them emotionally and subjectively is because that’s how we live. That’s not to say every decision we make is whimsical and not based on fact. However, we find when we don’t have a clear idea of where to go, relying on intuition and emotion works more often than not, and that shapes us and how we think. The feeling that God exists is there. Our feelings tend to be reliable on some scale, and while the more science oriented of us wouldn’t base decisions effecting other people on this, we would base decisions effecting us and other people who agree to it on this intuition. So, this is what you have to challenge if you want to convince us we’re wrong. Is this unreasonable? From a scientific perspective, sure. From a philosophical perspective, I don’t think so.

On the other hand, religious people need to understand that emotional and subjective arguments don’t really appeal to atheists most of the time. If you feel a need to convince them to join the ranks of the religious, you’re going to have to pull out the science. Which means that right now, you don’t have anything to work with, because there is no positive scientific evidence for religion. Sorry guys, that’s how it is. Just like you’re likely secure in your faith, atheists are secure in their lack of faith. And scientifically speaking, atheists are on more solid ground than us. We may find some solid evidence later on, but for now, we have personal experience, and that means squat in science unless you can replicate it in a manner testable by anyone with appropriate scientific experience. Of course, you may come up with an idea that shows how science could support a religious belief. If you do, check it out first though. We don’t need anymore mangled quantum mechanics floating around. If it does check out as reasonable, awesome, let us know.

So, my main point here? As long as you respect the people you’re debating, even if you don’t respect the ideas, keep on doing what you’re doing. Just consider that you may have better luck trying a different approach if you’ve been hacking away with the approaches I’ve outlined above. Part of persuading people is meeting them on their turf.

Finally, I want to give a special thanks to these sites for inspiring this piece:
Greta Christina’s Blog : Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong for Atheists to Persuade Believers
Ebon Musings : The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists
European Swallow : Reasons to Deconvert to Atheism

It’s quite often that I hear people who have fallen on hard times begin to blame God, or perhaps lose faith in God since a loving God would never let this happen to them. Sometimes, I don’t feel like they fully think through why it might not be God’s fault in the first place. Of course, I can’t say I blame them either, since it tends to be people who’ve fallen on hard times in some fashion. By nature, they’re simply going to be more fixated on their current problem or problems than a bigger picture. However, I think that blaming God or losing faith in God due to falling on hard times isn’t the appropriate response either. This is, of course, deeply personal though, so this shouldn’t be construed as saying it’s wrong to change your beliefs, nor is it intended to say it’s wrong not to believe for any reason. Nor is it intended to claim that belief is the proper path. Rather, it’s intended to convey my reasons for continuing belief, through good times and bad, and to possibly provide another perspective to those who may be considering abandoning their faith or those who have already done so due to hardship. In the end, the choice is still theirs.

My first point is that God promised humanity free will. This means that all people have agency to make their own choices, and God will not interfere with that agency, even though he has the power to do so. This means, should a person wish to inflict harm on another, the person has agency to do so, and the victim has agency to respond in a way they believe appropriate. In a more general sense, God is not responsible for anything that happens to you due to the actions of another human. If your girlfriend breaks up with you, someone robs you of all your money, or frames you for a crime, God didn’t do it, the person who made the decision did it. Now, obviously, I’m not trying to say you wouldn’t feel pain of some kind over one or all of those losses, I’m just saying it doesn’t make a lot of sense to deflect blame to God on this point. Unless you believe in predestination, but I don’t know many religious or spiritual people these days who do believe that. For those who do, very little of this post will likely apply.

Now, I’m sure there are some who are wondering how natural occurrences and coincidences factor in. When natural disasters hit, a tree branch falls and wrecks your car, and so on. Assuming no human tampering (that would fall under free will) , there are a couple ways to look at this while acknowledging the existence of a loving God. The first would be to consider that perhaps God simply doesn’t alter things, even when the laws of physics would allow him to do so unnoticed. In this scenario, it’s simply a matter of God letting the world work as it does. He did create it to work remarkably well and consistently after all.

Another way to look at this, though, is that God could be providing you with these setbacks as challenges to encourage you to grow. In my family, I was raised to believe that God would never provide me with a challenge I can’t overcome, and that this applies to all people. This is a belief I carry to this day, because so far it has been true (and I’ve had some tough challenges in my life, though not the type I wish to share publicly). Of course, I admit that belief could be what has helped me overcome some of those challenges, but it still seems to be true and is an idea I stand by.

A third option would be the combination of the two, in which challenges arise from your circumstances, and God will make sure you have the strength to deal with them as they come up. This is more specifically how I look at it, because I think it a rare occurrence for God to intercede in the physical world. If it weren’t rare (and subtle) then we’d have likely noticed by now.

So, if you accept my premises, then we have a God who loves us and trusts us enough to let us make our own choices. But he also allows bad things to happen due to those choices, since otherwise he’d be taking the gift of free will away from us. So, was this a foolish thing for an all-powerful, all-knowing being to do? I don’t think so. We’ll grow and learn a lot more from the struggles that we face, and while it may be painful sometimes, we’ll come out better for it in the end.

Of course, if you’re in pain now, that isn’t likely what you want to hear. So, what recourse has God left for those who have fallen on hard times? There are a couple things. First, you can work to better your circumstances. While the work may be difficult, it will get you where you’re going. It’s never fun to deal with the painful experiences we have, but it does make the good ones feel a lot better when we get to them.

The other thing you can do is ask God for help. This doesn’t mean that you’ll magically have the money you need, or an old friend will just decide to drop his grudge with you and be friends again. That would violate the laws of reality and the promise of free will that God has already set up. But, he will help you by giving you or helping you to find the strength you need to face your challenges, and the will you need to get the job done. Perhaps some inspiration to start moving in a good direction. In short, he will provide help in preparing you for getting through whatever challenges have come your way, but they won’t just disappear.

Perhaps this will help some people look at this matter in a different light. That doesn’t mean this will be a satisfying explanation to everyone, but it covers a fair bit of my thoughts on the matter. Recognize that God isn’t responsible for the actions of everyone you come across (unless you count his creating us and giving us free will as making him responsible, but that isn’t really constructive). Instead, recognize the cause of your pain in this world, be it person or event, and do what you can to resolve the issue or move on with your life, whichever you feel is the better path for you. And perhaps ask God for a helping hand in doing so.

The group behind this project feels that the Bible has too much of a liberal bias. So, the liberal passages need to be taken out and replaced with ideas about the free market, mention of government needs to be removed, and old wording needs to be replaced with modern conservative buzzwords. Excuse me? Isn’t the far right conservative movement based on the idea that the Bible should be taken literally? Yet here they are, changing the book they believe is the literal word of God to suit their personal political agenda.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the Bible should be taken literally. However, the group of people changing it, up until this point in time, believed it should be. Furthermore, I guarantee you when they finish their editing project, they’ll insist their version is the word of God, even though it will have obviously been written by people with a political agenda.

Basically, you believe in literalism or you don’t. Make up your minds. If you believe in literalism, you don’t get to edit out the parts that support liberal arguments just because we can quote verse as well as you can. If you don’t believe in literalism, you don’t get to quote the Bible as your only source in making an argument, and really shouldn’t be using it as a basis for policy in the first place. Of course, that shouldn’t be done anyway (remember separation of church and state?), but I’ll ignore that point for this argument.

So, in conclusion, far right conservatives claim the Bible, the foundation of their belief structure, has a liberal bias. Perhaps now that they’ve seen the light, we’ll see them changing their beliefs and joining those of us in the center and on the left looking for health care reform, helping the poor, and ending unjustifiable wars. More realistically, they’ll just decide to edit the book their belief system is supposedly based on until it matches their beliefs word for word. Too bad they’ll miss the irony.

What if there were no books detailing these religions though? What if religion simply boiled down to belief in God? For some people, religion simply is a belief in God and a relationship with him, without the baggage of any particular belief system. In this case, there really is no incompatibility. You see what science has to say about the world, and any other beliefs you have can be shaped around our current knowledge and the areas we have yet to learn about in a scientific manner. One thing that is certain is that science in it’s current state can not prove or disprove the existence of God. It can’t even study the possibility. So belief (or disbelief) in God won’t contradict current scientific knowledge. That doesn’t mean such a belief is scientific, it just means that such a belief, if true, wouldn’t necessarily mean science is wrong.

There are other areas in which beliefs aren’t contradicted by science, because science can’t study them yet, and may never be able to do so. The afterlife is a big example. Another example is moral values. It’s hard to study the afterlife when you’re still living, though perhaps it will be possible in the future. And moral values aren’t something you can simply study by cause and effect. While you may be able to observe the moral values people hold, you can’t study what values people “should” hold just by observing reality. They’re constructed by people (or perhaps handed down by God). It seems very unlikely for them to be hard coded into reality like the laws of physics.

So, when it comes to the existence of God, the existence of an afterlife, and determining moral values, scientific knowledge does not currently contradict religion, and there is no evidence to say it will in the future.

As far as religious stories go, yes, science does contradict some of those. However, the stories could be metaphorical, or intended to convey some kind of lesson rather than to be taken literally. Also possible is that the miracles described in various religious stories did actually happen, but for some reason no longer happen so blatantly today. It’s also possible there’s another explanation that we simply can’t see from our human perspective that let’s everything work out, though I find this the most unlikely explanation. My view is that the stories ought to be taken metaphorically and may have something to teach us. In this sense, there is no contradiction, though there certainly is if you take the stories literally.

However, I think that in truth, it’s very easy to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific knowledge. You just have to think a little, be willing to make a few concessions on the end of religion, and understand the limitations of science while understanding that science being limited doesn’t make it wrong, just that it only covers certain aspects of reality, unless an objective, physical world truly is all there is.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit I believe in the paranormal, after all, I recently wrote a guide about how to cast a spell. But, even though I believe that paranormal things exist, and science may not have an explanation for everything, I understand what science is supposed to do. It’s supposed to help us objectively study our world, so we can learn more about it in a way that can be verified by many people so we know it’s as accurate as we can possibly make it.

Here are a couple definitions, from dictionary.com, just to help:

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Now, I want you to pay attention. There are two points of the definition of science that need closer observation. First, the knowledge gained through science is systematic. There’s a system in place, called the scientific method, to make sure we treat all data gained in the same manner in order to accurately prove a hypothesis correct or incorrect. The next point is that we gain this knowledge through observation and experimentation. We don’t take it on faith, we observe and experiment, and don’t call something a fact until we can get repeatable results showing this fact remains consistent. It may still turn out to be wrong later, or need to be modified, but science is open to allowing that to happen when new evidence is found and presented.

Religion, on the other hand, is taken on faith. I know of no religion that experiments to test the truth of the claims it makes. As you can see, religion is a set of beliefs about how we came to be and what our purpose is, usually involving a supernatural creator, moral codes, and a lot of devotion and ritual. However, there are no tests done to verify the claims of a religion, and often times there can be no test, because most religion is based on something intangible and unmeasurable.

If you can’t test it, it’s not science. If you can test it, you can use the scientific method to see if it should be included in the body of knowledge called science. However, it has to be repeatable by anyone who can follow the instructions laid out in the experiment. If the same results can’t be gained by someone doing the same thing, then it’s not certain enough to be true to allow it to become part of the body of scientific knowledge.

Now, a caveat, because I know this is coming. What about evolution? Well, it’s true we can’t test that in the sense that we’re here now, and we aren’t going to reproduce the process that brought us about. However, we can test the principles behind evolution, and the principles hold up under scientific scrutiny. This makes evolution a very likely explanation for how we came about, and the most likely explanation as no alternative theory that holds up to scrutiny has been proposed and tested as such. Since we can’t directly observe it, and can only test the principles behind it, we call it a theory. However, a scientific theory is very strong, and has a lot of testing go into it.

This isn’t like saying “I have a theory on how this machine works, let’s open it up and find out.” Theory as used in this quote is actually much closer to a scientific hypothesis, which will then be tested. A scientific theory is thoroughly tested before being termed a theory, and is very likely to be true, though certainly it’s possible, like anything in science, that we may find a better explanation later. If we do, it will be through observation and experimentation, and not through faith and belief.

Now, this isn’t to say I think religion is bad. It isn’t. In fact, religion has a lot of good points, and while I’m a strong proponent of science, I’m also a religious and spiritual person as well. However, I think it’s important to understand the difference between science and religion, because the difference is there and it’s important.

Science has provided us with a lot of useful things. Modern medicine, the technology that allows me to write this piece and put it up for everyone to read who wishes to do so, convenient and speedy travel to take us nearly anywhere we wish to go on Earth, and many other useful, tangible things. When we decide something should be included in the body of scientific knowledge, it’s because we know it works through repeated testing. It’s reliable knowledge.

Religion has also provided us with some useful things, but they are intangible, and generally rooted in philosophical ideas. It provided a basis for our first moral codes, it can provide strength to pull through difficult times, hope for a better future, motivation to make it happen, a sense of community, and many other things. However, religion can’t be verified, and to my knowledge has never provided us with anything that can be used to create anything tangible. This doesn’t mean it’s not useful, but it’s usefulness is in another area of our society than the usefulness of science is.

In short, science is not religion. It has charactaristics, specifically experimentation and observation, that distinguish it from religion. While science does attempt to describe how reality works, it does so in a way far different than religions do. It uses observation and experimentation. It does not use faith and belief.

Meanwhile, in real life, I’m friends with a number of different people with different beliefs. Devout Christians, not-so-devout Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Pagans, and probably others that I just don’t know. More over, they manage to be friends with each other as well. Looking around on many of the religious sites and forums on the internet, you wouldn’t imagine an atheist could be friends with a devout Christian, but it happens all the time.

The reason for this is pretty simple. Where I’m from, at least among the groups of people I hang out with, we’re tolerant of other people’s religious choices. This includes lack of religion as well, of course. We discuss them sometimes, and disagree on some things, but we’re civil and no one leaves angry.

We also have lots of common ground. Everyone can see how having a social contract is useful. We disagree on some points of said social contract, but we all recognize the value of some form of shared morals.

So, now that I’ve had that spiel, I am going to stereotype a little. I want to say up front that anything I say about a specific group after this paragraph doesn’t apply to everyone in that group. Many people are quite reasonable, regardless of their beliefs.

So, first up, Christians. If you’re trying to convince a non-Christian of something, (and they’ve agreed to listen!), they likely aren’t going to see the Bible as evidence for anything, especially atheists. Use logic, use historical evidence, use science if you can, but don’t bring up the Bible as evidence. It isn’t.

All believers, atheists are big on science and logic. Use these tools in your discussions with them. Mystical experiences generally don’t cut the mustard unless you have very good evidence. We’re talking close to unassailable evidence. Same goes for holy writings.

Atheists, not all religions are trying to push themselves on you. Grow up. Especially when it comes to bashing Christians. The ones bashing you are the minority of believers, not the majority. This is true of other religious groups as well.

This also applies in reverse. Believers, stop bashing atheists for having no faith. Some people don’t want faith, they want logic. Let them have it. They aren’t harming you. They’re finding their way through life just like you’re finding your way through yours.

Atheists, stop assuming all religious people are crazy. They aren’t. Yes, they hold beliefs that are unproven, and some are even untestable. So what? They also understand this, and don’t generally try to force those beliefs on others. The ones who do are, once again, a minority. Also, realize that sometimes faith is reasoned, and not just followed blindly.

Everyone, stop making the fallacy that science and belief in God are incompatible. They are compatible. You can’t take the Bible literally when you understand science, but a belief in God, as well as reading the Bible metaphorically, work perfectly fine with scientific understanding. So does simply believing in God without the organized religion.

Everyone, stop assuming you’re the one who’s right. You don’t know. Let me repeat that in case you didn’t catch that the first time: you do not know if you are right. Furthermore, there is no way to test if you are right that we are aware of. We’re talking about things you can’t know while living, and since we can’t talk to the dead (reliably, at least, depending on whether or not you believe in mediums), we won’t know until we die.

Atheists, science working doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist. Stop claiming it does. It almost certainly invalidates a literal interpretation of most religious stories, but it doesn’t invalidate the possible existence of God or an afterlife of any kind. Feel free to continue not believing, just don’t claim lack of evidence implies lack of God.

Theists, stop saying your holy writings of choice prove God exists. They don’t. They’re stories handed down through the ages, orally, then written down, then translated into different languages and versions. No matter how meticulously they were copied and preserved, over a long enough time, mistranslation, forgetting or omitting parts of a story, and embellishment creep in. It happens. Your holy books aren’t proof that you’re right. Feel free to continue believing, but don’t claim everyone else should just because your book says so.

Okay, so thats the end of my rant, and I’m going to stop the stereotyping now. I want to reiterate, what I said about each group just now doesn’t apply to everyone in the groups I’ve mentioned. Many atheists and religious believers alike are quite reasonable, and I don’t wish to do a disservice to them by claiming they aren’t. However, I wanted to point out some of the things that I see people claiming to be representative of each group doing that simply aren’t helping us all reach a place where we can all be tolerant of other people’s beliefs.

I don’t hold to the idea that choosing the wrong religious beliefs will earn anyone a place in Hell. There are at least two religions I know of that in some way claim this to be true, Christianity and Islam. Now, I know not all followers of these faiths believe that, but some do. I’m not familiar enough with the holy books of either faith to know whether the written teachings support this stance, but I imagine there are some passages to support this idea, and others to discredit it, which seems to be true of religions on many issues. Though I don’t profess to know the mind of God, I can’t imagine a loving God would make us bet on our eternal afterlives without the information to make the right choice. As such, I find myself dismissive of the idea that one must choose the right religion to get into Heaven and avoid Hell.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I haven’t questioned my beliefs many times. I even recently found myself wondering if I was on the wrong path, and if I should choose a specific faith. After all, I don’t know what God truly expects, because I’ve never received a response from him on this issue with which I could definitively determine what I should do. Any response, assuming it is a response and not just me making one up, has been feelings that I am on the right path, and need to keep questioning. Just having a feeling about a belief that could turn out to be so important isn’t always comforting though. To resolve the issue, at least for a time, I decided to pray directly, something I don’t do often since God would know what I’m thinking anyway. I just laid out my concerns, and made clear I’m doing my best to find the right way, and left it at that. Of course, I’ve also questioned about whether or not any God exists, and if there might be more than one. I can’t think of any solid reason either alternative isn’t just as viable, but my current feeling still points me to one God, so that’s what I’m working with for now. There isn’t much else to do, except keep searching.

In terms of moral behavior, my beliefs align much closer to Wiccan and common secular thinking: so long as I’m not harming anyone by my behavior, it’s ok to go forward with it. Harm in this sense can be physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, or any other category I may have missed. The idea is there is freedom to do what you want, so long as you don’t deny anyone else their freedom to do as they wish and be safe. Naturally, it gets more complicated than that, but as a basic outline, I think it works pretty well.

I also think that religion has to make room for science. Religion and spirituality are about trying to explain what we don’t know and can’t prove. If it turns out we can show something to be true or likely to be true scientifically, then generally speaking, religion ought to be revised to make room for this knowledge. I’m not claiming science is always right, but it has done a lot of good for us, and the body of knowledge we have aquired from science has been very reliable for us in it’s use. Religious knowledge has been quite a bit more hit and miss. I definitely think there is religious and spiritual truth to be found, just that we won’t find it all in one place, and we won’t find it if we don’t acknowledge other truths found in our world.