An Open Letter To Millennials

[Part Three in my recent series skewering the latest generation of young adults in the U.S. Millennials are no exception to the rule that every generation thinks way too much of itself, and as such, need to be talked down off the ledge before they hurt themselves.]

Millennials, you scare me. You have taken self-aggrandizing to heights never before seen in history.

Over the course of the past few years, reports have been rolling in from college professors across America that they can no longer challenge the ideas of their students without endangering their jobs. College campuses, once a place where you as a young student wanted to go in order to learn more about the world now go to college with the expectation that any and all of your beliefs will be confirmed because they are true and not because a college simply wants your money. Meanwhile, professional companies are reporting that when you enter the workforce, you as entry level employees, are expecting exorbitant salaries, corner offices and to come and go as you please simply because you bothered to show up for work in the first place. Granted, you fight for social justice will the zeal common to all young ideologues, but you only do so as long as you don’t actually risk anything such as bodily harm, your source of income or alienating your friends. This last point is most disturbing of all.

Certainly, you have raised your voice and won some important battles such as the right for gays and lesbians to marry. But as I said, you haven’t risked a whole lot in doing so, not unless you yourself are gay or lesbian. While I believe you are right that such an issue is an important one to fight for, there are other issues – non-social, global issues – that need attention that you have not unexpectedly turned a blind eye to such as climate change and the alarming and rise of militant Islam. With that in mind, imagine if you will that your generation has been transported back in time to 1939 to the onset of World War II; how well would you handle a fascist bent on talking over Europe while an Emperor stalked Asia and the Pacific? How well would you handle the entire world being on the brink of war? Would you tweet Hitler out of power or share on Facebook “epic responses” to Japanese propagandists? Or would you dare enter the trenches and provide the enemy with the largest and easiest targets they’ve ever seen? (And would you complain to your commander about the amount of aggression levied at you by the enemy? Your generation cannot even seem to handle even the most innocuous insult much less be asked to physically exert themselves.) I could forgive you for abstaining from violence, electing to stay home and protest a lion killer from the comfort of a café with free wi-fi because like me you have given basically up on humanity, but your tenacity regarding social issues indicates you are not as misanthropic as I am. Maybe you would simply turn over the world to Germany and Japan, alleging that all cultures are equally worthwhile. Maybe then it will dawn on you that these ‘equal’ cultures have no respect for your opinions about social justice when you are incarcerated for dissent (if not summarily executed by your new overseers).

[*Name here withheld because I hurt this poor, young man's feelings], a Millennial who writes for the Millennialist website Mic.com, defends you by writing, “Young people these days are pigeonholed with all kinds of negative stereotypes: They're lazy. They're unskilled. They're entitled and narcissistic. None of these labels are actually true but they remain conventional wisdom the country over nonetheless.” Leave it to someone who was hand-held throughout their ‘education’ to miss why stereotypes become stereotypes in the first place. Much like any given person anywhere in the world, you tend not to take responsibility for your shortcomings. Or, like any given person anywhere in the world, when you do admit to any shortcomings, you feel as though this admission absolves you of any criticism or worse, you drum up the nerve to play the victim card as if you had endured ten years as a child prostitute in Thailand. I realize this is tough to hear, that you are typical of any given person anywhere in the world, but it’s true. Your Gen X parents may have told you you’re special, possibly due to their own lack of education that allowed for the misinterpretation of the word ‘special,’ but I assure you that your parents are kicking themselves now because they can’t get five minutes of your time before you turn away to coddle a device that you are so dependent on, you literally cannot function without it. Driven to dismiss these nagging faults about yourself you band together and communicating as one, at least when you can tear yourself away from news about a socialite who contributes nothing worthwhile to society other than her very presence.

Maybe someone, possibly a Millennial but more likely a comedian, said that you’re special because you grew up to survive the Great Recession. Do you think this is anything like growing up during WWII, the Vietnam conflict or even the Cold War? If you’re going to complain about, say, the Silent Generation (ask Siri) for feeling entitled to a program such as Social Security, think for a moment the degree to which that generation worked for it. Men went to war and women took over physically demanding factory jobs. Today, you seem to think that perfecting the art of the latte deserves more respect than it is given. As with any generation, you are bound to contribute the occasional genius or two, but I have heard of no genius arising from the slums of Starbucks. Yet you as a generation expect so much while contributing so little. While I agree in part with your overriding principle that life is better spent having fun instead of working, this doesn’t mean that when you are asked to work, you should put as little effort or skill into working as you can. One day your parents might die and leave you with nothing (since Gen X’ers were the first generation to stop saving money), meaning you might have to – gasp! – get a job you don’t like for a little while and be expected to be good at it in order to pay for that little rectangle piece of plastic and metal that serves as your brain. You might also want to consider the necessity of buying food before paying for a tattoo.

If you still think you are at all special, you may be right, but in the negative sense of the word. A special person (that is, intelligent person) would never come to the conclusion that the beliefs they hold are beyond reproach simply because they hold the belief. A ‘special’ person would, perhaps because your parents didn’t give you the tools to prevent mere words from causing you lasting psychological harm. You, as a ‘special’ person, supports socialism and sometimes Communism, though you are usually unable to describe socialism (without the use of a smart phone) or understand that Communism doesn’t work in real life. You, as a ‘special’ person also seem to think that being socially liberal means you are liberal, period, despite data that indicates the more money you make, the more fiscally conservative you become. And although you are rejecting the notion of God en masse, you are also rejecting science. Unfortunately we cannot vaccinate against stupidity.

Lastly, if you’ll notice, no self-respecting minority who doesn’t have a lot of white friends dares to identify themselves as a Millennial. (This should serve as a red flag and make you reconsider some of the things you believe about yourselves.) No minorities identify themselves as Millennials because while you as a white person can talk about injustice ad nauseam, minorities have to actually suffer it. Of course, this is the part where you bemoan the fact that you are white and call for the extermination of Caucasians, so long as it’s not yourself because you’re on the side of the disenfranchised. You don’t seem to realize that it was Renaissance ideals, brought to you by a few boat loads of white people, that allowed for social justice in the U.S. to ever take place. Do not think for a second that if the shoe were on the other foot, any other foot, that another ethnicity in power would think to build into their country’s constitution the idea of social equality. Today, the U.S. Constitution, written by a bunch of old dudes in funny hats – some of whom owned slaves – is what many foreign progressive wish their own countries would model their governments upon. Understandably, you dare not acknowledge this as it would undermine your belief in cultural relativism.

I’m sorry, Millennials, but you’re not quite as special as you think. IOW, omg ur not spcl rofl. You do have the opportunity to prove otherwise, but as a generation unique to the U.S. you come with all the trappings particular to Americans, meaning, you’re not number one in a whole slew of categories. One of those areas is reading comprehension: “Special - Better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.” So, are you special? And if all of you are special, wouldn’t that mean none of you are special? No, no, don’t ponder that for a moment. I don’t want to end up in jail for making you feel a little bit bad about yourself.

And Dog Created Man

One of the most troubling questions brought before pastors, priests or any other apologist for God is this: Why did God create mankind? While I would argue some things just are the case, to say God did create man with no further explanation would be disturbing to any believer who wishes to assume there is a perfect being that at the same time has reasons for its actions. (It seems odd to me a perfect being would have reasons for its actions, that is to say, has desires.) Apologists hate this question primarily because the faithful hate being challenged on their beliefs and secondarily because they simply don’t know. But asking why God created mankind is important if we’re to be inclined to follow the dictates of any creator of ours. The answer to such a question would give human life direction, a direction we would be able to say we might be compelled to follow if we also hold the belief that we should listen to our parents for no other reason than they created us.

The fact that apologists don’t know the answer to this question is evidenced by pages and pages of Google searches that turn out the same few unsatisfactory explanations or dodge the question entirely, as if you had put the question to a nearly deaf lunatic. Here are some of the explanations:

Christianitytoday.com is of the opinion that mankind was created to play a rule in some ultimate plan God has for the universe. However, prior to this revelation, the author of the article, Dawson McAllister, acknowledges that God has no need of us per se, but decided to make us out of His love for us, a love which preceded our very existence. (How is McAllister sure our creation wasn’t done out of malice? This would seem more consistent with the world we actually live in.) BUT since God did make mankind, we might as well serve some purpose for Him. While we don’t know this purpose, we can help fulfil this purpose by worshipping God, first of all. Nevermind that McAllister states earlier that God did not make us out of some vain need to be worshipped. The explanation ends with the unfounded assertion that we need God, not the other way around. Please note that this decrepit reasoning doesn’t necessarily make McAllister a bad person, just a poor thinker.

Goodnewsaboutgod.com’s explanation, given by an M.D. (allegedly) is that our existence is necessary for the redemption of our spirits from sin by dying. Feel free to read that again. Apparently God cannot stop or redeem the sins of eternal beings – such as, say, a fallen angel – so God had to make mankind so that someone could be saved from sinning by choosing to follow God. "Thus humanity is made the vehicle through which the reconciling of the universe is to be effected, even though all efforts of humanity itself are in vain and come to nothing, and it is left to God to provide, in the person of His Son, the one effectual means by which this reconciliation is to be accomplished." So it seems God is not omnipotent after all. God isn’t much of an architect either, if He’s relying on mankind to redeem the entire universe. Should of just created the universe right the first time, God. Just sayin.’

 John D. Morris of the Institute of Creation Research is a bit more humble and is inclined to say, in part, that this is a sufficiently difficult question to fully answer. But Morris tries anyway, saying that God is love and (for some reason) showers love upon things that deserve punishment. (I know, I know.) Morris continues: “But in His love He desired reciprocal love, so He created man in His own image. Man was given the ability to respond to God's love or reject it. In the beginning man enjoyed full fellowship with God, but soon rejected Him, bringing the ruination of all creation. This wasn't God's intention, so He implemented His plan for creation to fulfill its intended purpose.” Morris begins his piece by saying we don’t know why we were created, then says he does know why. But if what Morris is saying is right, God is fallible. Moreover, Morris’ claims conflicts with other apologists who insist that God did not create us in order to be worshipped. But, in being consistent with other apologists, Morris claims our existence is part of some greater plan though whatever this plan is is never fleshed out. Morris claims to be a PhD, but his institution’s website will not say of what. No surprise there.

One of the more (?) baffling answers is given to us by gotquestions.org. Their short answer is that God desires worship even though God doesn’t need it because God is perfect. Question: As I hinted at earlier, wouldn’t a perfect being be free of desire, of the need to please itself? And, for no apparent reason speaking on God’s perfection, the anonymous author goes on to illogically conclude that in God’s perfection, He cannot make anything greater or even equal to himself because than God would not be the One true God. That’s the equivalent of saying I could not have a son who is better than me because then I would not be the one true Theory Parker. The answer provided eventually concludes that we were created to have the pleasure of knowing God, which surely does not speak to the vanity of God which so many other apologists avoid saying. 

Lastly, for now, Biblestudy.org claims “The culmination of God's creation was to create US, man, which is what Genesis clearly states (see Genesis 1, especially 1:26),” in effect saying that mankind is the equivalent of the star you put on top of the Christmas tree, that last little touch that really makes the tree come alive. Basically, mankind is a decoration. But God also made this pinnacle of God’s creation incomplete – only a physical being – and only worshipping God makes the physical creation complete by adding its spiritual dimension. Deeper into Bilblestudy’s explanation, things get stranger and further from any rational explanation by asserting we are basically copies of God who can become equal to God if we follow God’s dictates.

Now, it can’t be the case that all of these viewpoints are correct, so one or more of them are wrong. (Likely, all of them.) If any one of them were correct it should be obvious and that would be the default answer. The plethora of answers indicates apologists are simply guessing. But we must reiterate why this question is important: We should know why we are created if we are to fulfill any purpose our creator (or creators) may have laid out for us. But would that purpose even be necessary to follow?

Imagine if you will a deep sea robot sent to record data from the ocean depths. If the robot were able to reflect upon it’s own existence, it might ask why it is doing the job laid out before it, that is, collecting data. Should the robot say to itself, “Well, this is what my creator wants me to do, so I’m going to do it”? The robot is under no obligation – simply because it was created by someone – to do the job it was programmed to do, and if it doesn’t do its job or fails in its job, it creator doesn’t condemn it to hell. If anything, the creator of the robot will say, “That’s unfortunate. I should build a better robot next time.” The creator doesn’t hold the failure of the creation against the creation, he or she holds it against themselves. [While it can be granted that the robot needn’t know why it is collecting data for the creator, a self-aware robot may not choose to follow its programming for any number of reasons. It may not like the job laid out before it or may not like the creator’s ultimate reason for creating it. Or it may not do its job due to a glitch.]

To draw the analogy closer to home, imagine you have a child and the child grows into a rebellious teenager, or heaven forbid, a ‘moral’ vegan. Is the child you created obligated to follow your rules such as eating meat simply because you created them? What if your intended purpose in having a child was to create a pro football player? If they don’t make the cut, do you hold it against the child? Surely too many people hold the acts of the child against the child, at least over the short term, but this is simply the avoidance of responsibility by their creator. Or is it? When there is a conflict between the creator and the created, who is at fault?

The only possible answer is no one. There is no reason for a creation to follow the dictates of a creator simply for the act of being created. After all, the creation usually has no say in the matter of it being created. At the same time, the creator cannot account for every action the creation might take, not unless they were omniscient. Theologically, the problem in God’s creations not following the dictates of God are God’s fault because God should have known better if God is omniscient.

Back to how this relates to the purpose of mankind from the apologist’s perspective. People ask apologists why mankind was created, but for the most part, the answers are unsatisfactory or at best, partial guesses. If God at all requires or desires worship, God is vain. This is unacceptable to most fair-minded theists, or they will at least try to avoid saying this outright. If instead mankind is part of a plan, which plan is it? If the purpose of mankind is to follow God in hopes of redemption from original sin, this is both redundant and cannot be mankind’s original purpose since there was no sin until Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. If mankind is part of some greater plan we are not privy to, this is not very convincing in trying to get a skeptic to follow God since we can’t know that God’s ultimate plan isn’t evil. Moreover, mankind is under no obligation to follow God’s plan just because God decided to create mankind. To be obliged in such a respect, mankind would have to know the full details of the plan while at the same time universally conclude that the plan was good (insofar as we recognize goodness beyond the dictates of the creator or creators). The only other reason someone might feel obliged to praise and follow God is because their life is so good they want to thank someone. That’s all well and good, but this is not the same as being obliged in the true sense of the word.

If you’ll notice, a man or woman confident in themselves and able to give their own life direction doesn’t ask why mankind was created or what their purpose in life is. It is a person in a moment or moments of weakness (who is also the easily led on occasion) who will ask “Why am I here?” The answer is “Why do you want to be here?” Obviously, by the myriad of answers given by apologists, they have answered the question for themselves. They simply don’t realize that is exactly what they have done.

Why am I here? To tell you that you can tell yourself why you are here. If you believe God gave you free will for a reason, then use it.