OMG

The three great unknowns for humanity are: where did we come from, why are we here, and what is to become of us? Religion has all the answers; we are here because God put us here, so we could revere Him, and end up in heaven or hell depending on our degree of commitment to Him.

Religious faithful have no problems with these answers.  Others doubt some or all that religion has to offer … the agnostic to the atheist.  I don’t consider myself an atheist, because I don’t deny the existence of God.  However, I certainly don’t feel the need to believe in someone else’s ideas of a God where that belief is not only unsupported by any concrete evidence, but defies logic as well.

I like God, the Creator.  It’s nice to have someone to talk to, beseech, and ask for advice. I do all these things with my God.  But the one thing I’m not going to do is to believe that my God is better than anyone else’s, and I see no reason to believe that any other belief is better than mine. In short, I find all formal religious dogma lacking.  I won’t believe that God is going to favor me just because of something I do like attending a church service. There's certainly no evidence that he favors those who do.  Oh ya, the favors come in the after life, and isn't that a convenient sales tool.

So if I’m not an atheist and not religious, then what am I.  An agnostic yes, but the title I like best is scientist.  I don’t believe without some logical justification.  Give me evidence or at least a reasonable hypothesis, before expecting me to follow. In other words, I guess I’m willing to risk eternal damnation for independence of thought. Which is not to say my God won’t hold me responsible for my actions. It’s just that He doesn’t demand unquestioning allegiance and is willing to respect my self determination to do what’s right.

I know the term scientist is not popular with many religious faithful.  Scientist are often denigrated as a class of intellectual elites.  I respect scientists for the same reason.  Scientist are the ones that have put forth the effort to demystify nature.  They have rules and procedures and systems of review that question their ideas.  On the other hand, religions have elite, spiritually intellectual spokesmen who promote supernatural events to justify their ideas all the while discouraging inquiry.

In addition to being easier to understand (because you’re not expected to) religion has capabilities that transcend being just an explanation of nature. First off religions promote the comfort of community. That pleasure of being around like minded people with a common purpose: that purpose being the promotion of a common belief in their special relationship with God.  I’d call that a self-perpetuating purpose. Those wacky scientist have discovered the  how the faithful can enter emotional states that can be exceedingly pleasurable, and not surprisingly, addictive. Obviously there are degrees of pleasure among the believers, but even as a non-believer, I've experienced awe from the grandeur, pomp, and ceremony of the many churches I've visited.  Yet I think religions wrongly use these emotional highs to convince their followers that they are being rewarded for their unquestioning faith.  It’s also easy to look at some religions and say there must be something really special going on because of the sacrifices of their faithful: fasting of Ramadan, snake handling oops, denying self of modern medicine. But these sacrifices actually just demonstrate the communal goal of exceptional-ism for the group with the added promise of redemption for the individual's efforts. Religion is self perpetuating.

I’m not saying that religion hasn’t helped anyone.  Many people have used religion to turn otherwise misdirected lives around.  However no one could question that science hasn’t also been beneficial. What should be obvious is that both have been used by evil doers to accomplish evil deeds and good people to accomplish good. To me it seems that the questioning aspect of science permits less manipulation than the unquestioning obedience of religion.

Equally obvious is why science has a difficult time competing with religion.  For many people science is just too hard and unrewarding a way to find meaning in life.   I don’t really wonder why religion feels so compelled to deny a scientific discovery like evolution.  Religion teaches that Mankind is God’s perfect product.   And while religion could embrace the logic and evidence of evolution as the method of creation, it won’t.  That would just be another concession to science that maybe humanity isn’t all that special because science has shown that evolution is ongoing and, how can that be? Religion has argued that God is perfect, and so should His greatest creation, us, is perfect, and needn’t … wouldn’t change? 

Denial of the science of evolution, is one of my most basic disagreement with the fundamental Christian who believe natural abilities like eyesight are too complex to have developed through the trial and error inherent in evolution. Yet they do this without answering, if the Creator designed eyes, who created the Creator? Wouldn't He have to be infinitely more complex than any of His creations? Apparently, faith renders those answer unnecessary -- for the faithful.

 I believe that religion will someday have to concede evolution as the tool of creation, just like it eventually gave up on the belief of Earth as a center of the Universe. Maybe that will be when life is discovered elsewhere in the Universe, although even that discovery might be faithfully answered with a dismissive “God works in mysterious ways” argument.

“So, oh my God, what should I do?”

            Sincerely, Bob

 “Not much My son.  Just keep doing what you’re doing, and hope the misguided don’t screw things up in My name, too much longer.

            Your Buddy, G