Oxford University researchers will carry out a £2 million ($4.3 million) study into why people believe in God. The three-year study by anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and other academics will consider whether belief in a divine being is an inherent part of human nature.

Project director Roger Trigg, acting head of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion, says anthropological and philosophical research suggests that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world. “One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation.”

The news of this study was seemingly associated with another observation:

Recently I also came across New York University emeritus professor of psychology Paul Vitz’s arguments that – contra Freud – it may not be religious belief that is a neurosis but atheism.

Barney goes on to write…

Vitz says there is good reason to give only limited acceptance to Freud’s Oedipal theory. Instead, he works out a psychology of atheism based on the malign influence of the defective father.

Anyway, the post managed to spark yet another large collision of rants from atheists and the religious alike trying to talk “sense” into each other. I’m surprised Barney actually took time to reply to many of the 1000+ comments on his post, but I guess that’s his job.

Here’s the one that I accidentally stumbled upon by a Vicky K, it was after a whole bunch of other comments:

I am compelled to respond to some of your questions Barney as this is a topic that interests me greatly, mostly because of how much people attach their own ego to the question of whether or not God exists.

There is nothing that fascinates me more than the arrogance that convinces people of the omniscience of their own perspective.

I think I am equally as appalled by the atheist who clings to his/ her concept of “reality” and incorruptible and infallible reason, as I am by the fundamentalist religious right who cling to their “faith” and accept no argument.

Both tend to display a, shall we call it almost adolescent, need to be “right”. And both will quite often paint people of different persuasions in unflattering lights by creating straw men for themselves to knock down.

How much easy it is to knock down an immature, irrational person clinging desperately to an oedipal desire for a god-being, than one in which spirituality has evolved in a complex and carefully considered way. Or a person in whom spirituality and reason reside comfortably side-by-side.

And so we get these false discourses of irrationality versus rationality; of immaturity versus maturity and discussions of neuroses and wish-fullfilments.

Its all nonsense of course. The human psyche is far more complicated than that and it shows a remarkable lack of scientific curiosity to want to paint things so black and white.

I predict that the Oxford study might reveal that people, whether atheist or spiritual, may experience the world in different ways, but use much the same mechanical workings when it comes to how the brain works and the ins and outs of the human mind. I think this idea of one group of people having ownership over maturity of thought and another being simply the sum of their neuroses is a ridiculous fallacy, created only to serve those whom it flatters.

Having not read Vitz’s entire position, I cannot speak to it directly, but I will say that I have often noted with amusement the emotional foundation of the arguments of my most self-professed “rational” friends. The fact that they do not see this in themselves, or somehow believe that like the Vulcans of Star Trek, they have risen above their own natures, always strikes me as surprising. Is it a lack of introspection? Something else?

I choose to move through the world in an experiential rather than rational way. The difference between my position and that of the atheist is simply the lense through which I view the world. You will never hear me say, however, that an alternative lense is invalid. Nor do I waste my time trying to figure out what failure of their natures would send them on such a path. It seems to me as simple as saying we are different people, and the things that connect us far overwhelm these silly barriers we create between ourselves. I’m not arrogant enough to believe that my truth needs to be true for anyone but myself.

Sorry for the rambling post.

Here’s to that.

For me, I don’t particularly have time for Vitz’s comments. Perhaps I’m stating the obvious but I always thought that neurotic psychological barriers are a factor in everyone’s lives including their belief system and their behavior in and interpretation of the boundaries that they set for themselves, religious or not. Who cares what the mind “needs” and why does it matter if someone somewhere claims that the default position is being a turkey or a dolphin? Isn’t psychological neurosis present in everyone in some form? I’m sure this theory would somehow apply to some, maybe many people; but I don’t think it will help people become transparent to themselves in an attempt to find answers.

Barney says:

I am disposed to like Vitz’s theory to the extent that I have always felt there are subconscious and not strictly rational reasons (alongside rational ones) why people do or don’t believe. There’s some merit to the argument that if we confine ourselves to purely rational considerations, eliminating all others, the only acceptable position is agnosticism. But it’s a very human phenomenon to rationalise what we want to believe, one way or another.

I don’t disagree with Barney. At the same time I don’t feel that Vitz and/or suggestions regarding this study talk about anything truly new, apart from creating another (perhaps new) unhealthy polarized generalization about a default position in human nature and beliefs. I don’t see much usefulness in this intersection of psychology and religion or atheism. Honest introspection is something that’s been talked about so much over the years that it’s become very cliched – a sort of psychoanalysis of oneself – and it’s something that many people strive for but fail. It would be amazing and fascinating to be able to know why someone really believes in God and why another doesn’t, but I’m not even sure if it’s possible to understand why someone believes anything beyond a superficial level entrenched in many assumptions. I’d be interested to see how they find people to participate in their 2 million pound study.

At ground level, as I traveled around in different kinds of groups – with different friend, with family, with strangers, by myself – seeing a variety of places, I saw numerous ways in which nations and communities have been shaped by their long histories. Ideas have been emphasised differently between societies as occurrences in the past have dictated it. It is quite fascinating to experience how differently people view even simple things because of the way they were brought up and because of the place in which they have grown up.

Firstly, as mentioned, there is contrast in what I’ve seen between places, whilst there remains an intense underlying sameness. Just as the differences keep everyone divided and distracted, the sameness shows promise for peace in the distant future despite the challenges that obviously exist. Secondly but definitely not independent of the first point, there is a type unity in the pervasive dissatisfaction existing in the world today. Identity is getting obscured as people strive to claw uncertainly for an identity, or at least something, anything, to matter enough. Perhaps I’m talking only about myself but I do not think that I am. And perhaps this only exists outside the dogmatic religious frame. In any case, the first phenomenon impedes the second; the first phenomenon distracts us from the difficulty of merely addressing the second let alone overcoming it. Living in that distraction might be necessary, but beneath that distraction is one thing that can cause unity… but does that matter?

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

The author of this blog, Krista posted the above link to her blog in a comment here regarding my reference to Zacharias and the four basic questions of life. On her post, this explains the gist of the four basic questions of life:

“Ravi Zacharias spoke about the requirements of a coherent worldview. He said there are 4 questions a worldview must answer: the questions of origins, meanings, morality and destiny. The question of origins deals with how life came about. The question of meanings deals with the question of why life came about. The question of morality deals with questions of what is right and wrong and how we know the difference. The question of destiny deals with the question of the ultimate destinations of life.”

Four very valid questions. It’s quite obvious that many people think about these four questions and not get any answers, and subsequently try and find the answers. Krista continues, and says:

“Everyone has a worldview. The question is, is your worldview coherent? Does it answer the above questions? If you chose to believe in a certain system, be it religious or non-religious, it must answer these questions in order to be relevant, and it must be relevant in order to be correct. You may have an answer to the question of destiny, but if you do not have an answer to the question of morality then your worldview has a hole in it; there is then something about the way you look at the world that doesn’t make sense, because you have not provided an answer for one of the basic questions of life.

“What is your worldview? Is it coherent? And does it satisfactorily answer these questions in a way that makes sense and reflects reality? If not, it may be time to look for a new way to look at the world that is logical and realistic.”

Yes, everyone has a way they see life, however does their “worldview” need to be coherent? Life is confusing. Why does a worldview need to answer those four questions? Perhaps we are here to get a better understanding of those questions, and the answers aren’t merely found in a scripture. Your faith tells you the answers you have are correct. Why MUST a worldview answer those questions? I am asking anyone, not just the author of the particular blog. How does having an answer, which may be correct for all four of those questions make the answers defintely correct? Why must a view answer those immensely difficult questions to have relevance? Relevance to what? A worldview with logical, or relevant answer to those questions does not mean it is correct.

I could say we came into existence because an alien race far, far away (really far away), created the life on our planet including the human race; then we exist because it was an experiment to see how various species especially those with two legs, who can be conditioned, with an ability to think somewhat logically, but with no idea of their origin, will progress; we know what is right and wrong because we have been given the ability to use our brains, conscience and the analysis of experience (ours and others’) if we can merely break away from some of our conditioned ideas in our minds; and we will ultimately die when our heart stops and our brains stops functioning, and then, there will be nothing but silence. Now, I must admit, it’s not from an old scripture, and it’s flawed, but I’m sure, given the time, I could twist it enough so that it makes enough logical sense to oppose other answers to the four questions. To use your terms, it reflects reality as much as the heaven and hell idea where our actions and good lives really mean nothing if we don’t accept THE single doctrine. And it’s as coherent as the idea that some almighty entity – God – created us. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s correct.

I can’t see how answering those questions validate a worldview any more than a worldview that is searching for those answers, or even a worldview that disregards those questions. Having answers that may or may not be correct does not validate anything. It’s your faith that allows it to be relevant and correct for you, and then your faith that suggests to you that the answers you have are absolutely correct for everyone. These ideas are definitely interesting to explore.

Now, I don’t want to argue about your Zacharias quote, “Jesus Christ didn’t come into this world to make bad people good, he came into this world to make dead people live,” but please note I wasn’t referring to the intention of a religion but just the possible impact or consequence of it, which could be leading a good life and so on. Nonetheless, I just want to make it as clear as possible, why this argument about relative truth is quite irrelevant to me and others who share a similar line of thinking. To suggest another idea of truth, this is a little but great quote I found on the Tamilnation website within the immensity of the “From Matter to Life to Mind… an Unfolding Consciousness” section, which is a substantial compilation of unwavering wisdom:

“…I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised… The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth…No man from outside can make you free… No one holds the Key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity…” Jiddu Krishnamurthy

So, considering that my view on attaining an understanding of truth (my understanding is relatively undefined) is quite different to Krista’s and that I do not believe any religions are perfect, let me try and make it as clear as I can why the argument regarding absolute and relative truth is something I think is irrelevant, and something I do not care much about. In the Mind 2 Mentes post about relative and absolute truth, Krista had said and quoted this:

I was listening to a Josh McDowell message on the radio talking about the way this generation views truth. He told about how when he speaks to crowds of people about the subject, he picks somebody out to ask them a couple questions. He would hold up a Bible and the conversation would go something like:

“Do you believe this is the Word of God?”
“Yes”
“Do you believe it is inerrant?”
“Yes”
“Do you believe it’s completely reliable?”
“Yes”
“Why?”

And then there was usually silence. And if the person did have an answer, the conversation would continue like:

“Because I have faith and believe it to be true”
“So if the person across the aisle from you believes the Qur’an to be true, does that make it true to them, just because they believe in it?”
“Yes”

And this is where the debate begins. So, straight away, in my line of thinking, and apparently Gandhi’s as well, I would simply say “no” to the second question, “Do you believe it is inerrant?” and thus the line of questioning will stop, or it will change and perhaps I would be asked “why?” and I could once again quote Gandhi because he sums up my view extremely well, and so on. When I referred to meaning in the For the sake of Meaning? post, I was not referring to relative truth but rather, differing beliefs, motivation, because I feel that finding truth, whatever that may be, is the journey of the individual.

I really cringe when I hear things like:

“Living a good life will not save you. Jesus Christ alone provides salvation for the soul so that we can be with God forever.”

And i really to start think - how are certain people  so sure about such things? For Christians, or anyone, who believe that their way is the only right way, this discussion about absolute truth would be interesting and probably necessary to “properly” affirm their faith – a discussion which ends up referring to the bible, quote after quote of theology and quotes referring to passages in the bible. Nonetheless, it is useless to me, since I cannot say that the bible is inerrant or the only word of God. Therefore, I find the discussion tiring also because it is formed on a foundation of assumptions that a certain scripture is 100% correct.

Intense (and rather lengthy) read. People are entitled to their views, yet, so many people seem so certain about everything. How and why is this the case? People are so certain that there is a God. Others are so certain there isn’t a God. I guess, this division isn’t all that unbelievable, but it’s when people have beliefs that are oh so specific that my mind starts to shut down. Alright, so there’s a God? Let’s assume that. Now there are rules and a single path? How are people so absolutely sure of “God’s Will” and the means of reaching salvation? After reading so many blog posts, and books about this, so many people have their opinions, and so many people are so certain that they are in fact correct, and the other poor fellow reading another dusty old book is incorrect - this observation leaves me amazed and terrified.

The writer of the linked blog-post attacks atheists, but my question is, what’s so bad about only believing in this life, “carpe diem” and so on? Who’s to say that’s wrong. I wouldn’t live my life that way, but that’s me and the meaning I have found for myself at present. Furthermore, the relationship between atheism and Epicureanism is a massive generalisation. I’ve read blogs of atheists who seem to care overtly for themselves, the people they hold close; they have an urge to awakenthe “foolish,” and they care a whole lot for pleasure and materialism. Traditionally that may be thought of as bad, selfish, arrogant and inconsiderate. However, at the same time I have atheist friends who don’t have to believe in a God to do good things - they don’t really care about material items and pleasure (and a balance to maintain pleasure) as suggested by Epicurus. I’m not convinced, but Christians say, being a good person isn’t what it’s all about; and doing good things isn’t what it’s all about – It’s about dead people becoming alive? How is anyone so sure of such things? What about other religions? People try their best to understand and follow the will of “God” yet they are still condemned to Hell because they chose wrong? Clearly if someone chose wrong, it was on purpose. Understanding of these “certain” things are derived from a text that is perfect and inerrant? How in the world can anyone be certain about matters that talk about things we can’t see and close their mind to everything else? The writer can say that one only can see the effects of the wind but not the wind itself, and similarly one can see the effects of the Holy Spirit but not the holy spirit itself; am I stating the obvious when I say that the effects of wind can be recorded and studied accurately; whilst the effects of the Holy Spirit you speak of are far more personal? What suddenly gave the Holy Spirit such definite characteristics and the basic questions regarding life such certainty? What makes you right and me or some other person wrong? Is it just the fact that if you’re right it has to mean that I’m wrong? It has to be that black and white, does it? 

I’m glad that so many people are so sure what life is about. And more perplexing: I’m amazed that people are so sure what eternity is about.

What’s with all my questions?

Thank you for giving me the link to your blog, and the post above which was in response to this post which talked about religion for the sake of meaning, as opposed to escapedmentalpatient’s thought where religion is belief for belief’s sake.

I’ve only briefly glanced over some of the posts on your blog but I did read the post that I have linked above, about relative truth, but I’ll be sure to have a more closer read of other posts when time allows it.

Regarding relative truth, I’ve previously had some conversations about the very same idea, with a Christian friend of mine. She couldn’t understand how I could believe that more than one path can lead to God (or a higher power) and still think Christianity can be one of these paths, because, in the Bible, Jesus said that the only way to God is through him. I also read the Case For Faith, and the chapter with the Ravi Zacharias interview, where he talked about relative truth and how Christianity is the only true way, and thus there could be no other. The section of that chapter regarding Mahatma Gandhi and whether or not he’d go to Heaven was also quite interesting, but unfortunately I am not really that impressed by any arguments made by Zacharias, although I’m sure he must be an expert on these matters. Furthermore, his representation of a kind of pop-culture-Buddhism was offensive even if it was just discussing the popularity of the “Buddhist” way of life in the United States today. His views are very absolute, and that’s where my issues start.

I’m sure Ravi Zacharias has had some amazing experiences in his younger years, however I can never appreciate absoluteness in any argument with regards to the four questions that he said need answering: that of origin, meaning, morality and destiny. It must be wonderful that he has it all worked out and that he has the faith to believe that the bible is inerrant and the absolute word of God. To me, this argument about relative truth and absolute truth is useless. You are correct in saying that if one believes that the bible is the absolutely 100% correct and that it all is the word of God, they cannot also believe that another way to God or salvation can be possible or correct. I do not believe any religion is perfect, and I also believe it is down to the individual to determine a path based on their learning, questioning and their understanding of why they exist. I would be referring to a relative truth or truths, only if I say that each religion is devoid of error or inaccuracies, or if I said that a belief in the religion makes it true merely because it is a true belief of that person. Yet, I do feel however that most, if not all, the aims of various religions are similar in nature; and obviously that can be criticised as a very superficial comparison. As I’ve written, I only respect religion because people can find themselves meaning, a reason to live and help others, through it and the direction and guidelines it can give - and in my opinion, and absoluteness is harmful. There is no way that I believe a Christian, Hindu, Islam or any view, to be true - perhaps an essence of truth, but not “truth” in it’s absoluteness. I do not believe that every way is wholly correct, and I do not say any way is wholly wrong. I have no right, or credentials to say as such.  I cannot talk in absolutes because I don’t know what these absolutes are; and let me quote Gandhi, who according to Zacharias, might be in Hell right now. From The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writing on His Life, Work, and Ideas, edited by Louis Fischer:

“[Gandhi liked the sweet Christian hymns and many of the Christians he met. But he could not regard Christianity as the perfect religion or the greatest religion.] …It was impossible for me to believe that I could go to heaven or attain salvation only by becoming a Christian… I could accept Jesus as a martyr, and embodiment of sacrifice and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born… The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives the same reformation that I had heard among Christians. Philosophically there was nothing extraordinary in Christian principles… Thus, if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism’s being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be part of Hinduism, it could be but a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the [reason for] a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas [Hindu scripture] were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran?”

So, when a Christian says to me, that he or she believes that Christianity is the only way to God, I understand that that person has that belief, but in no way do I believe that it is wholly truth. I am not saying Christianity is true because that person believes it, just as I am not saying that Hinduism is true because another person completely beleives that. I find the argument of relative and absolute truths a waste of my time.

How about a spherical truth? Why not! Perhaps all religions aim to reach the centre of the sphere where truth may reside - they represent a hopeful interpretation of what this truth might actually be. Maybe religion is a misunderstanding of a truth that is amazingly difficult to define without an absolute understanding which needs to be achieved in a way that also is difficult or impossible to define without experiencing it. Who knows, but the spherical truth, or that a sphere existing around the truth is how I see religions and their instructions on how to live life.

Nonetheless, It’s a very interesting post regarding relative truth and absolute truth and the paradox therein. I can also understand Zacharias’ distaste for the statement “truth is relative,” however, with as many flaws as each religion has, I don’t think anyone can talk in absolutes especially when they are referring to a religion. So, as long as religion is one of the reasons some people have for a  meaning to live, to help, and so on, I’m happy for them, because it gives those people and the people who’s lives they effect, more time to find truth whilst facilitating the truth, until we reach it in the end.

Again, this is a response to another comment that became a post. 

“I think terming one’s religion ‘progressive’ is more an act of seeking acceptance than anything else. Today’s society loves anything that is ‘progressive’ or ‘open minded’…but what about when these values dilute the truth because it is just easier to handle it that way?”

As much as progressive religions get accepted by people like me, I feel there would be more dismay (and anger) from the “pure” religions they were derived from. This could be a Christian fundamentalist calling another Christian not a “true Christian.” Half the Christians that come up with rubbish like “true Christian” and associated terms, are Protestant Christians and the Protestant Church exists because of a reformation; and at that time, I’m sure it would have been thought of as what people know consider “progressive.” So, instead of wine and bread being Jesus’ blood and flesh, they became a symbol for his blood and flesh. Like Shannon said, in that context, it was progressive and frowned upon by those outside of the movement, but not by those within it.

Why would people who are pushing for progressive religions actually try and do it because they are merely seeking acceptance? Wouldn’t they just pack up and have their own beliefs at home and tell their friends about it? Maybe some are looking for acceptance, but I think more are looking for harmony.

And using words like “truth” as one would use toilet paper, just makes me feel like throwing up. If someone actually believed it was truth, they wouldn’t attempt to dilute it. They must possess some doubt, otherwise they would not challenge it and they would not change it. If we are talking about absolutes, how can something you believe to be truth be easier to handle if it is “diluted” since it becomes something that is no longer the truth?

When talking about religion, relative truth only becomes false when one talks in absolutes. I really applaud those people who give anything such significant certainty about “truth” because they must have had some damn amazing experiences.

Regarding the second paragraph of James’ comment:

“This seems to tie in with an idea raised in another post of yours – loving God. “Fundamentalist’s Christians” have an idea of what is pleasing to God, and as an act of love, they want to fulfill that. They don’t think that they are earning God’s love, but are just showing him their returning love. It seems like that idea is wrong and close minded, but isn’t this just a reflection of the way love is played out in the physical world?” 

Perhaps I was implying that people are earning God’s love but didn’t say it, and it was intentional. Let’s use your reference to “fundamentalist Christians” to start. I was trying to say that when a person chooses to accept God through Jesus Christ, they thus love God and Jesus Christ and thus they believe that they receive the unconditional love from God. I also said that, it would be a fantastic feeling to have. I also said that such people follow scripture since they have the faith to believe the scripture is 100% accurate, and if they did not follow it as best as they could, they would indeed be contradicting the love they have for God. I was also implying that because you love God, he loves you back. Perhaps, in this line of Christian thinking, he loves you back anyway. That’d be great. Yet regardless of that love, if you don’t accept God and thus the Bible and Jesus Christ, he condemns you to a place where he does not reside – a place called Hell.

As much as you say that is how love is played out in real life, for some reason I think you’re wrong. Yes you try and do what you can to please someone you love and who loves you back. However even if I hate someone, I do not punish them so harshly and send them to a place like Hell which is apparently devoid of God but rather, full of evil. If I was watching someone who I loved, and they were trying their best to do what they thought was right, I would eventually help them – I would not send them to Hell. I wouldn’t turn my back on someone who doesn’t please me in the ways that I wanted but tries their best in whatever capacity they can - I would still be pleased. If I loved someone I wouldn’t turn my back on them when that person tries to do their best when my will is unclear in the midst of so many instructions on how to live life. Even if I hated a person, if I was indeed their creator, I wouldn’t be so harsh. So, these non-progressive but “pure” ideas can’t be compared to how love is played out in real life. I’m not cheating on God by thinking there is another way.

To stand up for Shannon a third time, I’d like to understand what James’ last comment actually means. Yes Shannon stated the obvious, but in a very concise way – he talks about the Protestant reformation without having to mention it. How can anyone really determine the desires of God, when they are being interpreted from a scripture? You can only answer that question after making a whole lot of assumptions which then makes your answer useless outside of that frame you began in.

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.