Religion
When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things.I Corinthians 13:11
Background
I was raised Episcopalian in a household where religion was not a priority. Overtime, my personal beliefs gradually drifted away from the theology of the Bible, and I would say I considered myself an “official” atheist around the age of 22 or 23. (I still don’t carry a card, though.)
My first issue with Christianity was that the god discussed in the Bible was not a very consistent view of a loving, father-like, creator god who loves his children and has a great plan for them. In fact, the Yawweh of the Old Testament is quite vindictive, unjust (at least by modern standards), vengeful and jealous (it says so right in the book), and an altogether unpleasant fellow. To hear the apostles tell it in the New Testament, he seemed to have undergone a personality makeover- and all it took was for him to set things into motion so that his “only begotten son” could be crucified on our behalf. Nevertheless, certain passages in the New Testament still belie the old wrathful god of the Old Testament- providing enough material to fill all sorts of wet dreams of Jonathan Edwards.
In order to reconcile my own personal feelings of what a beneficent, loving god would be like with the terror that is revealed in the Bible, I found myself discounting more and more of scripture under the acknowledgment that- divinely inspired or not- the Bible was written and translated by the hands of flawed men and therefore should be subject to scrutiny. Once accepting this position, I came inevitably to the conclusion that if the scriptures of the Bible are suspect in part, then beliefs based on these scriptures are suspect too, and soon the whole house of cards came crashing down.
My Beliefs in a Nutshell
The major issue I have with belief in a supreme being is simply that there is no evidence for one. The fact of our existence is not evidence of a supreme being, it is simply evidence that we exist. Were that the criteria, any plausible (or implausible) explanation for our existence would be just good of an explanation. Further, explanations that require the fewer number of presupposed agents should be preferred over others, following the logic of Occam’s Razor.
If I told you that I heard God’s voice and held conversations with him, you would say I’m schizophrenic and the voices are a product of mental disease. Yet the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) would have us believe not only that certain persons spoke directly with God, but that they who wrote down the conversations were divinely inspired- literally the hand of God guiding their works. Most other religions make similar claims about the origins of their most sacred texts and beliefs.
I simply don’t find this line of argument compelling. First of course, there is the issue of how does one tell which religious text is the correct one? Without an objective basis with which to judge, you are led either to the mythology that you grew up with or (increasingly in the West) the mythology you find the most comfort from.
More fundamentally, why would one find
Religious persons tend to believe that it is their faith, not reason, in their religious beliefs which informs them and which enriches their spirituality. “Blessed are they that have not seen,” says John 20:29, “and yet have believed.” Why? Why are people blessed if they believe in tales of miraculous persons and events even though their is scant evidence? I consider such people naive and/or gullible. I’ve read Bulfinch’s Mythology. I bet most of us haven’t seen any of the events transcribed there, yet there are not many worshippers today in the Ancient Greek or Roman pantheons. If you are a Christian, why is it that you do not believe in the ancient pantheon? It’s old… really old (it predates Christianity) and you haven’t seen it. Therefore why wouldn’t you be blessed by believing in it? How about Zorastrianism, or ancient Sumerian beliefs? I’m sorry but “it just sounds right” or “I feel it to be right” are not compelling arguments.
Higher Powers
I’ve heard from people who don’t have as strong a belief in specific theological points, but yet believe there is a “higher power” out there, and express the opinion that everyone should believe in a “higher power” of some sort. Of course, when you ask them what that “higher power” is, there is no answer. What constitutes a higher power? I believe in the four fundamental forces of physics… two of which I can witness the effects directly (gravitation and electromagnetism). Can humanity be considered a higher power, or even the totality of organic life, or of all existence? Are these higher powers, or does a higher power necessitate some sort of conscious will, or have to provide some universal purpose to life? Those answers never seem as forthcoming. I hold that the term “higher power”, without any further elaboration, can be taken to mean anything, and therefore is actually meaningless.
I believe that much of the continued clinging to religion in this day and age is a combination of innate human tendencies and upbringing. We humans have developed much from our ancient primate ancestors, yet we still retain brains that exhibit primitive patterns. We are programmed to see agency in things- if something is slithering through the ground, it is likely a snake that might bite you; if something is ruffling through the leaves, it might be a lion ready to eat you. How many times have you walked through a wooded area and hear the wind ruffle leaves, or a branch fall into a bush and instinctually look for the animal which must have made the noise? How many children become frightened at every creak and bump in the night, sure that some night gaunt is out to get them? This is our brain programmed for agency. Often, even when we know such instincts are ill-founded, our systems still react to them. It takes a conscious effort to dispel such reactions.
Another innate fear, but one I would think developed a bit more recently, is fear of death. I think this inevitably comes along with self-awareness. Once we are aware of ourselves, and become aware of the inevitability of biological death, we ask ourselves “what will it be like to us when I die”. The truth is we have no idea, in fact, upon close inspection the question itself may have no meaning. This is not satisfactory for most, though. We have a concept of our stream of consciousness, and while we may accept that the stream can be discontinuous (such as when we fall asleep), we cannot imagine what it would be like for the stream of consciousness to cease altogether, forever. Of course we cannot imagine it- to do so would be a contradiction. As Descartes put it, “I think, therefore I am.” As long as you are imagining yourself thinking or experiencing anything, you are not imagining your own non-existence. It is impossible for you to imagine what it is like to be like nothing at all.
Though we cannot imagine what it will be like to be dead (read: nonexistent), that does not mean that we must therefore be immortal. I cannot imagine what it was like to not exist before I was conceived (in fact, I can’t imagine what it would be like to be a zygote), but nevertheless, I know that there was a time in which I did not exist (and a time in which I was a zygote).
So, does that mean I’m a nihilist who believes that nothing matters and, in the words of Aleister Crowley, “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”? Not at all. I believe that purpose comes not from outside humanity but from within it. It is not something that is preordained for you, your particular religion or humanity as a whole, but something which must be developed as part of a rational and conscious process at each level of social organization.
Some individuals and groups will choose purposes at odds with others, and there are various options available to mitigate the differences. These range from the motto “live and let live” to mutual annihilation. These options exist regardless of faith or lack of faith. Religions are known to forcibly convert those who do not follow them, and slaughter the rest, just as secular states have been known to do. How to navigate these options is not a question of faith- it is a question of humanity. Human societies which resolve their differences in ways that lead to their own or mutual destruction do not last. Societies which develop the means and wherewithal to live peacefully together– perhaps even profit from it– not only survive but thrive; when the conditions permit it.
At a societal level, I believe it is this wherewithal that we ought to develop. Modern society has brought with it great progress as well as great risk, and so the responsibility for our achievements is made all the more necessary. To that end, I believe in a secular society where people are free to develop their individual as well as shared beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not unreasonably infringe upon the rights of others.
As stated above, there are certain human needs which religious faith seems to fulfill even when it is factually unsupported. I look toward the development of atheistic worldviews which can fulfill those needs instead, so that as a society we eventually will not need to rely on mythology to inform our behaviors.
