For the sake of meaning?

May 24, 2007

This is my response to a discussion taking place on one of my posts. It was just going to be a comment, however I think I ended up going on a tangent and writing too much, so I thought I’d make it a post too.

I’ll let Sydspace discuss this with escapedmentalpatient, but as always, I’d like to add my two glorious cents.

I think in some ways you’re definitely on to something. I know a lot of people that are “very religious,” and although they deny it, have blind faith (they argue against the “blind” part) in their religion and in their particular scripture. And as you have said, they often automatically reject any possibilities outside of their very narrow frame. Some try and consider what may exist outside of their religious view, however, they look at it with jaded eyes that aren’t really considering other ideas, or input - people question without really considering that something else may indeed [also] be correct. I am generalising, and stating the obvious in some cases, but please, anyone, stand up and say something if you think differently. I can only talk with regards to my personal experience, and from my reading about fundamentalist thought.

As I was saying, instead of actually considering other ideas, I have seen people just look for why such ideas are wrong and then argue that it is wrong by forming some sort of defense based on scripture and a logic derived from it. How else are they meant to argue? The argument concludes with the feeling of “this makes the most sense to me, therefore, it is the only correct thing to ever consider,” and I found this to be the case in many chapters of The Case for Faith. Nonetheless, how is that different to any belief? Unfortunately people are different.  You could say that this is “belief for beliefs sake” and I’ll admit that it is incredibly frustrating talking to anyone who is a fundamentalist, but it’s not that different to your beliefs or mine. You have a strong belief that you are free to do as will, enjoy yourself and hopefully be a good person in your own eyes – and that’s fantastic. On the other hand, I believe that there is a God or a higher power, but I do not believe that any religion is the only way. I believe in Grace, that for each individual may be different however, if they look for it, they will find an understanding (based on this Grace) that life is worth living, and that it is worth living just to even experience this Grace. For example, some of my friends think that this Grace might be love and thus, they will try and help others survive long enough with values which they believe are good so that they can one day experience love and in turn receive an understanding or Grace which continues this cycle. For some religious people, this Grace is God or Jesus or Allah and so on, and the love that is present in that “relationship” with the higher power. You seem to think life is worth living because you are free to enjoy yourself and do what you think is right. Each of us has a reason we think life is worth it, or we are looking for one. I honestly don’t care one bit what that reason is, whether your bound by religion, values without religion, ideas about freedom – however what I do hate is when someone tells me that I’m wrong. Excuse me, but I don’t think anyone can tell me that I’m wrong without having a faith in something – God, humans, karma, whatever – that allows them to tell me that I’m wrong, and as such, their view is no more valid than mine.

Escapedmentalpatient, you may have come to the conclusion that God does not exist, and although one cannot really prove that God exists, there is still a possibility of God existing. Even if modern science somehow proves that God does not exist, the powers given to what people call “God” are unlimited in most cases, which could then mean that God may exist but perhaps we cannot comprehend how this entity exists and perhaps God works in ways that we cannot comprehend. I know it’s a vague argument that really has no strong backbone, however, there is a possibility. If you look at this link you can see some notes regarding some famous scientists that believed in God and were part of a faith. Perhaps religion could be right, and perhaps God is so specific that we must live our lives in a certain way, and that if we do not accept him, we go to Hell (think of Hell as a place where there is no God).

I personally cannot accept it, and like Einstein, I cannot believe in a “personal God,” nor can I limit God to certain characteristics which in turn limit how we act to just things in a scripture. People who have blind faith follow their scriptures because they believe that such scripture is extremely accurate – “God would not make it so difficult for us to understand his Will” – something I cannot accept as an only way to live one’s life; and I believe that I am not going to be punished for living it another way.

At the same time, I can understand why people follow scripture – they believe in a God and have been raised to, or have been in situations that have cemented a certain faith as fact. Personally, I know that I have no argument stronger than someone throwing Biblical quotes at me. What I can say however, is that I have faith that God, or some sort of higher power, gave us, me – everyone – a body, a mind, a conscience an so on, and I have faith that these are not simply abilities that allow us to sin, to give into temptation and “evil.” Perhaps we can question and think, so that we can achieve a greater understanding of things – to build our own values within the confusion of what is around us. I can’t accept that being a fundamentalist in any religion is any more correct than using our abilities to question, analyse and subsequently form our own understanding and values based on something that doesn’t set people apart.

I know that some people think that without religion, values cannot exist, but I think that’s a bunch of garbage. Apparently, because I do not say I’m from a certain faith, my values and my ideas have no “objective” grounding in scripture – give me a break. There are so many religions as it is, and there are so many views that are based on a scripture, why is that any more correct than values created by questioning what is right and wrong; by questioning our upbringings; by questioning our thinking processes; by evaluating existing values present inside and outside of organised religion.

Most religions ask you to have faith, and according to that faith, one should have certain beliefs, and thus do things a certain way. That’s obvious, and within that frame it makes a lot of sense. Buddhism is a little different – it does suggest you to live your life in a certain way, however it is not giving the individual definite instructions, and, the definition of seeing reality as it really is and not how it seems to be, is quite ambiguous. Hinduism in some ways is similar – by saying we are God, or part of God, and that we hence have God inside of us, there is more trust in the abilities that we possess as humans. Other faiths may inadvertently ask people to live a certain way, however in the end it’s down to the person, isn’t it? You can be told do “this” because you believe “this,” and that you should believe “this” because that’s what believing in God is all about, however one can choose to look at it another way; a person can choose to question it all. 

So, when you say, “if i make you believe in something and then i make you believe that the harder you believe the better it is, then i have effectively shut your mind to any external influence.
You will automatically reject any notion question or comment in relation to your beliefs” I agree with you, but even when we’re not talking about religion, that is the case. How is it any difference to your own beliefs about there being no God?

When you say, “I do not see how this is outlandish? and where does it say that religious values are moral? In fact what in any mainstream religion is moral? and where is the proof that these morals wouldn’t exist without superstition,”I agree with the haziness of how values can be judged as “moral” or ”immoral,” yet I think morality would exist independent of religion and superstition because I feel that humans are built to question what is right and what is wrong. If we did not care for other people, then perhaps morality as we think of it now, would not exist because we would just do what helps us survive. However, the fact of the matter is, we do care about others, and once this care is not just for ourselves we are forced to decide, or at least consider, what is good and bad – what can we do that we think is good for this thing we care for - you wouldn’t hurt something you care for physically or emotionally because you would eventually think that is wrong; you might stand up for the thing you care for because you believe that is right over something else you do not care for as much.

When you say, “In fact all religions ask you to blindly follow whatever the holy book says without any proof at all, if this isn’t belief for beliefs sake i don’t know,” I would rather say that people follow religion and have beliefs not for “beliefs sake,” but for the sake of meaning – the meaning to live life and so on - which can’t be a bad thing. Whatever meaning people find – whatever reason they have found to live life – I personally think it’s fine, but the problem with some of the meanings or answers, is that they become exclusive (e.g. to state the obvious: religion) and then, people start calling other people wrong, and acceptance and unity is thrown out the window.