Skip to main content

THE ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY: Blowing up cars and raising kids

By dswrites ~

True story: When I was 15 years old, I bought my first car. I bought it with my own money - every cent of it. I mowed laws, played rock band gigs, babysat—anything to earn money for my car. I had a car before I had a driver's license. It was a 1975 Mustang II. I spent $99 to have a car shop paint it red and spent $19 buying leather dye and changed the half-leather top to black. I loved that car. I still had it as I went to college.

During the winter break, my dad generously said he would pay to get the engine tuned up so I would have it in great working order for my second semester. My college was in a small town 13 hours north of our home, so it was not only a long drive, but without a running car I would have no life at school. So it was important.

Dad had a Spanish-speaking friend of his from church do the repairs, and I stood there as the mechanic explained to Dad (in Spanish) what he did and how what it cost, etc. Probably some other stuff, but my grasp of Spanish at that age was minimal, so I didn't really know what they said. Dad paid the guy, gave me the keys and we drove home. The next day I left for school and Dad tells me as we hug goodbye, "Don't drive over 55 or 60, okay?" I said okay, and left.

You see where this is going. I am eighteen years old, I have a Mustang, and I have a 13-hour stretch of straight highway from Texas to Missouri to traverse.

I exceeded 55 or 60 miles an hour for the majority of Kansas.

In my defense, I obeyed my Dad through all of Texas and Oklahoma. But c'mon. There were no cops, I was the only one on the road. There was no one I was endangering, and 70 miles an hour on a straight stretch on dry pavement was not dangerous. Whatever his concern was, it did not apply here, so I was not really violating the spirit of the reason behind the law, which was to keep me safe. So I did what I did knowing it would be fine.

By car blew up 15 minutes into Missouri.

In January. In deep snow. At 11:30 at night. In the middle of nowhere as far as buildings were concerned. In 1987. In an era will no cellphones. I am stranded. And, I might add, freezing.

I waited an hour for someone to pass and stop and help. They took me to a truck stop where I made the shameful call to my father to ask his advice of what to do. He was livid.

"I TOLD you not to drive over 55 or 60!" he said. (I use the word 'said' out of kindness)

"I thought you just didn't want me speeding and getting a ticket!" I said. "You didn't tell me the car was going to blow up!"

"We spent $400 on the pistons!" he replied. "You have to break them in gently! Brother Bernal told you that!"

"He did not! He told YOU that! And he told you in Spanish. You never said anything to me about the car. You just said not to drive fast. You never said WHY."

We were at an impasse of blame. I felt like I had been under-informed and that led to me not having the chance to make good decisions. He was angry I didn't take him at his word. In his view, it didn't matter what the reason for not driving over 60 was, I had been told not to do it, and therefore this was my fault, and the cost of my disobedience was that I would now have no car for the whole second semester, including Spring Break. That's exactly what happened. It was the most miserable semester of my whole life.

I had a lot of time to think about what happened that semester. I looked at it from all different angles. And do you know what I came up with?

I was totally right and he was totally wrong.

*pause while you laugh*

At an age where I should be learning about the world and how it works, I was given what is commonly called an Argument From Authority. It's the "Because I told you so" method of convincing. "I am the Pope, and I say this is true, therefore this is true."

This is a flawed way to instill a chance for a healthy life in another person.

Example: Your young child reaches up to a hot stove for the first time. You tell them:

1) Don't do that.
2) Don't do that. You will burn your hand.

I hear Arguments From Authority constantly in religion. The problem I have with it is that is leads to situations where a person can be harmed. If the child is not told the stove will burn him, the curiosity of "what will happen if I touch the stove anyway" has not gone away. There is every likelihood that at some point he will see an opportunity to discover the answer for himself, and will be injured.

It is our nature to want to discover answers for ourselves through personal experience.

Why should a teenager not have unprotected premarital sex? If the answer is only "because the Bible and/or my parents say so," that may not be a strong enough reason to prevent an emotional decision in the moment. Despite my parents' teachings, my younger sister became pregnant her senior year of high school in just such a circumstance.

If the answer is, "because I risk having a baby at 19 and all the harsh life-changes that go with that" or "I risk contracting a disease I may never get rid of and possibly even die from," then maybe that factors much more into healthy decision-making, even in the moment at hand and the emotions that are flooding.

When people ask questions of religion and religious commands for living, those questions should be answered for the sake of the health of the person asking. There should be no shame in answering. On the contrary, if the answer is at hand and totally valid, the person in authority should be thrilled to answer—knowing they have doubly addressed the issue. Moreover, when the real reason proves to be true, their status as a person who provides correct and useful information about surviving in the world had increased. Think of a jungle guide. He tells me not to eat a plant because it is poisonous and will make me throw up. Unfortunately, I had stupidly put one in my mouth a minute before. When I throw up as predicted, I have now elevated my opinion of my guide as a man who knows this world and is qualified to help me define it and survive in it in a real way. I can ask him any question and the likelihood that I will get a real answer is high. He is, by definition, a true guide.

To be told, "Don't ask questions" or "Just stay on the path I am defining for you" is not being a true guide and I am likely to come to harm, since my nature is to want to experience the world for myself.

This, I believe, is my innate problem with religion both as a solution for explaining the world and being a proper guide to follow. It is not an intolerance of a differing viewpoint, it is that it does not provide me with what I need to be healthy and enjoy the world I was born into.

I would love to have a great guidebook to life.

But it needs to be a good one.

Or it may lead me more astray than not having one at all.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two