Harry Potter Expecto Patronum Dubstep

Growing up, I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school for eight years. I learned a great deal about the Catholic faith, including how to defend my beliefs to people who doubted the Catholic faith and practices. I began to question these defenses and how plausible they really were at the beginning of high school and I started becoming less and less religious. By my senior year, I no longer considered myself a Catholic, but I never would have called myself an atheist. However, as I reflected more on the idea of God I found that it was harder for me to believe in his existence. Even though I consider myself to be an atheist now, I still value many of the moral teachings of the Church and I respect the beliefs of people who are religious. It is not my intention to try to dissuade those who do believe in God, but rather to try to briefly express some of the reasons I became an atheist.

One of the first problems I had with the idea of God is that he would allow pain and suffering to permeate the world, especially after I found a famous quote by Epicurus that states: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” I just couldn’t see how a benevolent, omnipresent and all-powerful being could allow all of the injustices in the world today. The book The Reason for God by Timothy Keller seeks to offer a rebuttal to Epicurus’ quote by saying “Tucked away within the assertion that the world is filled with pointless evil is a hidden premise, namely, that if evil appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless.” (Keller, 23) Keller goes on to argue that if anything, the existence of evil in the world is proof that God exists. Keller takes a quote from C.S. Lewis, which reads, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of ‘just’ and ‘unjust’?…What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?…Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies…Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.” (Keller, 26) C.S. Lewis claims that we must have gotten our notion of right and wrong from a higher power that is perfectly just, or else we would have nothing to compare the injustices to. He recognizes that this could be false, but argues that if it is, then the argument against God collapses.

I think that our idea of justice comes from our cultural upbringing, not a higher power. If did get our sense of morality from God, then wouldn’t that mean that what we consider unjust would have always been considered unjust? But history shows us that this is simply not true. For example, in modern society we believe that slavery is completely and totally evil. But in ancient Rome, slaves were commonplace and viewed as their master’s property. If he chose to, he could kill his slave for no other reason than he felt like doing it. In ancient Greece, a master could demand sexual favors from a slave at will. And yet there are no records of abolitionists in ancient Greece. This is because that was the cultural norm at the time and nobody would have thought that they were committing a great wrong by keeping a slave. In fact, cultures continued to use slaves for close to two thousand years. Even Thomas More, a saint in the Catholic Church, included slaves in his idea of a perfect society when he published Utopia. How can there be an absolute truth, an absolute sense of right and wrong if our beliefs about right and wrong differ so radically from the beliefs that humans held in the past? Wouldn’t claiming that there is an absolute truth fall under arrogance since it makes you guilty of assuming that we as a modern day society are better than societies of the past because we have corrected their mistakes and now know what is truly right and wrong? This assumes that future societies will not have a different interpretation of right and wrong, and will not look back on our moral beliefs as we look back on past societies’ moral beliefs.

C.S. Lewis argues in his quote that if our perception of good and evil really is cultural and not absolute, then the argument against God collapses since it is dependent on the world actually being unjust. C.S. Lewis is wrong though, since the argument hinges on unhappiness rather than injustice. The question is not “Why does God permit injustice?” but rather “Why does God permit unhappiness?” Many people have lost their faith because of a tragic event that happened in their lives, such as losing a loved one. Of course they may feel that it is unjust that their loved one was taken from them, but the real pain comes from missing that person, not a sense of injustice. In fact it does not even matter if what we perceive as injustice comes from an absolute sense of justice or from a learned, cultural sense of justice. It causes us pain regardless.

It seems cruel that God would make us endure this suffering when he could easily take it away. The standard religious argument against this is “God works in mysterious ways.” God allows evil in the world so that good can come out of it. This would be great if it was true, but sadly it is not. There are many tragedies throughout history where pain and suffering occurred and nothing good came out of it. The massacres in Rwanda, Darfur, Haiti and so many other parts of the world throughout history cause immeasurable amounts of pain. What good could possibly come out of these situations that would be worth hundreds of thousands of people being butchered? Even if something miraculous like world peace came about as a result, it doesn’t do much good for the person who was hacked to death by a machete wielding sociopath. Why would God, who is supposed to love us, require so many people to die so that something beneficial could be brought about when he has the power to make literally anything possible? It seems like it would be a lot more beneficial to everyone involved if God simply snapped his fingers to bring about world peace instead of working in mysterious ways and bringing it about as a result of genocide.

Another argument that I often heard while I was in Catholic school was that God gave us our free will and does not interfere when it comes to free will. So that means he respects the free will of the people, even if they are committing atrocities such as genocide and will not interfere. Again, it seems like God is just playing a mean joke on us. If God does exist, then there should be an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Why wouldn’t God give us knowledge of that right and that wrong so we could make more informed decisions? There is no sense in giving us free will, but not the knowledge of how to properly use that free will when he could have easily given us both.

So it seems to me that there many ways God could make us instantly happier that he either will not or cannot do. If he is either not willing or not able to do these things then he is not truly God. I don’t believe that someone with the power to create life and the universe would be unable to perform these things. And if he chooses not to, then he is not the benevolent being that someone who selflessly created existence would have to be. For these reasons, I do not believe that our typical personified idea of God actually exists. I do not claim to know why or how the universe was created, but because of these reasons I am relatively sure that it is not because there is a personified deity. There have been hundreds of ancient religions that sought to explain natural phenomena as being the result of deities simply because they did not have the scientific knowledge to yet understand the world around them. As we continue to grow and learn as a species, I am confident that we will one day find the real reasons for existence that we currently attribute to God.

Levi Ames and his accomplice, Joseph Atwood, were arrested for breaking into and stealing sixty pounds from the house of Martin Bicker, the local auctioneer. The authorities were able to trace the burglary back to Ames and arrested him at his house. After questioning Ames, it was discovered that Atwood was also involved in the robbery and Bicker was able to track him down to his hiding spot in Portsmouth, Rhode Island.

Atwood was first to be tried and told the court that Ames had recruited him earlier that day. After buying Atwood dinner and some drinks, Ames suggested breaking into Bicker’s house since he had seen him hide a large sum of money there earlier that day. He eventually convinced Atwood to stand lookout for him while he broke into the house. When he came out he handed Atwood half the money for standing lookout and they parted. Based on this testimony, the court found Atwood guilty of robbery and Ames guilty of both robbery and burglary.

Ames was never given the chance to tell his side of the story to a court, but his version is the opposite of Atwood’s. Ames claimed that Atwood approached him and suggested breaking into the house the day after Ames bought him dinner. Ames agreed to the plan and after stealing some chisels from a joiner’s shop, the two broke into the house together and broke open the drawers containing the money.

McDonough opens her poem with a quote from Levi Ames recounting the first things he has stolen in his life, a short list of petty thefts. “A couple of eggs, and then a jack-knife.  After that some chalk. A fair piece of broadcloth, a silver spoon and ten or eleven dollars from Mr. Symond. A pair of silver buckles, twelve tea-spoons, silk mitts.” The italics signify that the text is Ames speaking to the reader in the first person. By opening her poem like this, McDonough draws the reader’s attention in to the poem. Listing such a short list of petty thefts that would incur only a small punishment in the present day makes the reader reflect on the injustice of Ames’ case as well as the over severity of the punishment that Ames was given. This is the only portion of the poem that has a solid rhyme scheme at the end of each line, but the timing of the lines does not encourage readers to notice this. The subtle rhyming helps to give Levi Ames a soft voice and lead the reader to feel compassion for him.

The rest of the poem focuses on the impact that Levi Ames’ death had on the society around him. Levi Ames’ execution was one of the most publicized and most talked about executions in the history of colonial America. Ames became the subject for many preachers’ sermons, which is reflected by the next two stanzas, which are focused on Biblical excerpts that depict what Ames was suffering through. The first Bible passage, “My heart is smitten, and withered like grass, so I forget to eat my bread, &c. My time is so short,” is reflecting on the despair that Ames feels as his execution draws closer and closer and on how he feels sadness because of the amount of time he has left to live is short. McDonough does not separate her stanzas evenly and the brevity of this one adds to the sense of Ames running out of time. The lack of anything but half-rhymes at the end of each line results in the reader reading this stanza at a quicker pace than the previous one, further supporting the illusion that time is running short.

The next stanza is taken from the book of Ezekiel and carries on the imagery of the heart that was begun in the previous stanza. “A new heart will I give you, &c.  For my heart was bad, bad indeed. At the gallows he asked if the souls of the wicked, at death, would appear before our God or immediately pass to Hell, and wait their doom.” While in the previous stanza Ames’ heart was smitten, this stanza talks of him receiving a new heart, which would be better than the old heart which is bad since it has been stained with the sins Ames has committed. While he is standing at the gallows, Ames wonders if he will be able to meet God after he dies since is heart is bad. He fears going to hell and what awaits him there.

The last line of the poem, separated from the previous stanza, relates the feeling a resignation and acceptance that Ames feels right before his death. “Soon, dear sir, I shall know more than you.” He stops worrying about the time left that he has on Earth and instead looks forward to where he will go after his death. He accepts that he does not know what will happen, that it is out of his control and that he will know soon enough what happens. McDonough’s choice to keep this line in its own separate stanza conveys a sense of finality to the poem and makes the impact of Ames’ statement just that much stronger.

For my cultural event, I camped out for the Clemson vs. Duke basketball game two weeks ago. My friends and I showed up a couple days before the game to set up our tent outside the stadium. There were already a lot of people camping out, so we ended up being towards the middle of the line. Camping out is a great experience, and I would recommend that every student camps out for at least one Clemson basketball game before they graduate. My friends and I mostly just talked to each other while we were camping out, but we met a couple really cool people too. We ended up talking to the students who were camped out one spot in front of us and they had quite a few interesting stories to tell us. One of them, a junior named Mike, said that he has camped out for every single Clemson basketball game since he has been here. Since he grew up in Seneca, he has been a Clemson basketball fan since he was very little and was really excited when he found out that he had been accepted here.

Since we could not all camp out for the entire five days because we had to go to class and eat, we took shifts. During my shifts, I spent most of my time trying to keep myself and my friends entertained. We watched a fair share of movies, played card games and told jokes to each other. All the campers were allowed to go back to our dorms at 9:00 each night to sleep as long as we were back in line by 9:00 in the morning. This is a new policy that they just implemented this year, and although it does take some of the excitement out of camping out, it was nice to be able to sleep in my own bed each night.

I had high hopes for the game since we had beaten Duke so soundly last year. Walking into Little John Coliseum, I could feel how excited the crowd was for the upcoming game. Although I have only been to a couple of Clemson basketball games, I would have to assume that the Clemson crowd was at its loudest. Later, my friends who did not go to the game told me that they could hear the crowd from halfway across campus. The game started off really slow and neither team was scoring often. However, the game was still very close and was tied by the time that halftime came around.

The second half, however, was entirely different. Almost right away, the Duke team gained momentum and the Clemson crowd realized for the first time that Duke was likely to win the game. Of course, as is the case with any Clemson game that generates high hopes, Clemson ended up losing the game rather badly considering their performance in the first half. Even though the game ended up being a disappointment I still had fun with the whole experience and I cannot wait for the next Clemson game.

Name: James Patrick Gaughan

Major (Minor): English (Unknown).

Hometown: Reston, VA.

Favorite Book: Orson Scott Card, Ender’s Game.

Favorite Movie: V for Vendetta.

Favorite Band/Musician: Reel Big Fish.