"I'm an atheist"

In the novel Catch 22, Yosarian is in bed with his flight instructor's wife, and it plays out something like this:
Yosarian: I don't believe in God.
Woman: Me neither.
Yosarian: I mean, it doesn't make any sense to believe in God.
Woman: I agree.
Yosarian: Who could possibly believe in God with all the pain and suffering and misery in the world?
Woman: [Begins to cry]
Yosarian: What are you blubbering about, you idiot?
Woman: You don't believe in God!
Yosarian: Yeah? So? You just said you don't believe in God, either!
Woman: Yes, but the God I don't believe in is kind and loving. The God you don't believe in is cruel and mean.

>>That said, it's a bit simplistic to say that I leaned on other's understanding... there's still the process of determiningwhose other understanding fits. But yes, my path has been straighter, if no less rocky than R3's.<<

Not intended as an insult, and I'm not diminishing anything. If you're where you need to be, then the best way to get there was how you did it. If you're not where you need to be, then how you got here doesn't matter. My point was simply that methodologies differ. There's a lot right with libraries and tour groups, and nothing wrong with that line of inquiry. I'm just naturally predisposed to a 'cut to the chase' kind of thing, and tend to go off poking around in the wilderness by myself.

It's just the way I'm built. You're built different. 10000 Li is built differenter still.

"The paths are many, but the destination is the same."

You know, the fun part about engaging in philosophical debates, is that while there may never be any "winners," if we have our minds opened up to alternative ways of seeing things, then we come away with a prize more valuable than the honor of saying "Neener, neener, neener! I won!"

As an unexamined life is not worth living, examining just what it is we need to give meaning to our lives has engaged the thoughts of humans for generations. As we have imaginations and can conceive of things which we cannot see, we come up with intricate stories to explain how we think the unseen parts of reality work. From the small child diligently telling her grandmother about the family of monsters living under her bed, to the theologians counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, we're very adept at making up stories to fill in the blanks of our understanding.

(Incidentally, angels have better things to be doing than dancing on pins.)

We can perhaps view religion as storytelling codified into ritual and raised to the sacred. And just as some people don't like reading science fiction, or romances, or philosophical dissertations on cheesemaking in fiftheenth-century France, so too there are bound to be people who feel that religious stories are just simplistic fairytales that have no beraring on their own lives. And they are perfectly correct.

But for the vast majority of people, those fairy stories give shape and meaning to their lives; they inform them of how to live as moral and responsible beings in a complex and morally ambiguous world.

Are they any more right than the people who decide to reject the myths and rituals? It's impossible to say, because any sort of yardstick we could choose to utilize is going to be flawed. If we point out that "religion teaches morality" we must also point out that "millions of people have been tortured and killed in the name of religion." If we say "religion provides a sense of unity and community" we counter with "religion can promote exclusionism and xenophobia resulting in warfare between sects." For every happy marriage that begins at an altar, is a wrecked marriage that died even before the bills from the wedding were paid off.

Priests abuse the power of their office, and spread hatred and dissent. Priests also give great comfort and cousel to people at critical crossroads in their lives. (I use "priest" to mean all religious leaders.) Many have saved lives with timrely interventions.

All of these, though, are human failings. The interpretations of "what God means" are all filtered through human perspectives. And just as humans are individuals, so are their viewpoints.

As a result of this discussion, I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and I'd like to posit the following points:

1) Not all humans require a belief in a Supreme Being, but a belief in some sort of Supreme Being is common to human beings throughout history.

2) The methodology of considering a Supreme Being is unique to every human, within the parameters of the culture to which the human belongs.

3) Promoting a religion is useful to a culture because it promotes solidarity among the members.

4) Promoting a religion is also useful to the ruling class of a culture because it provides a means of disseminating rules and keeping the "lower orders" in line, as well as protecting the interests of the ruling class.

5) The predisposition toward "religious thought" can also be turned toward the "worship" of non-Godly ideas, like sports, science, celebrities, or anything that can attain a "fandom." The word "fan" comes from "fanatic." People who may not consider themselves very religious can go completely nuts over, say, the Baltimore Ravens. Or the Grateful Dead. Or Elvis. Or Star Trek. Or climate change.

6) Human beings, being different than all the rest of the animals on Earth, try to explain this difference by imagining the concept of God. Humans can act in God-like ways, creating and destroying and altering nature. They observe causality and coincidence and think that there might be something or someone controlling their actions the way they control the actions of plants and animals. They do not have a concrete answer, so they make up a theory that accounts for the holes in their knowledge.

7) Human beings can be capable of great things, for both good or evil. Good and evil can be subjective concepts, however, depending upon one's point of view. (I saw a hawk miss a pigeon. Which was good and which was evil?) (One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.) The "problem of evil" is that humans have a choice about how they are going to conduct themselves. They can obey the culture's laws and be "good" or they can defy them and be "bad." But if the laws themselves are corrupt, then what is "good" and what is "bad?" "Evil" then can be considered to be whatever is against the comfort and well-being of the greatest number of people. It doesn't even have to be intentional--a tornado or an earthquake can be "evil" because they destroy homes and lives, but neither is inherently bad or intentionally evil. They're just natural forces, same as disease and death. Humans who choose to put themselves in harm's way tend to bring "evil" down upon themselves.

@ 10000li: I hope you have enjoyed this discussion. I know I have, even if I've gotten a little upset by it at times. I'm well aware that no positions were changed, because as Ben Franklin observed, "A man convinced against his will remains a doubter still."

But by discussing his doubts, he may have his eyes opened a little.

>>R3: God is whatever I want it to be, but there's still a God. But especially I believe in a sophisticated God, well beyond the comprehension of everyday muggles.<<

I can't speak for the others - and I disagree with both of them here and there - but that's not my point at all, and if it comes across like that, I've done a poor job explaining myself.

My point was, is, and evermore shall be that the actual real existence of God is irrelevant to whether or not Faith (And by extension religion) are hard-wired into humanity. I've not actually gone into religious arguments (Though I've stated my own opinions on occasion) but I'm basically giving a scientific argument here, so my own personal beliefs in and about God don't really enter into it.

Whether or not God is doesn't matter in the context of this discussion: *WE* are. The question you keep asking is "Why do we need an imaginary friend" and my answer is that neurologically and psychologically and emotionally, we're programmed for it. Why? Because it is an evolutionary advantage and a survival advantage. Perhaps a modest one, but a .00001% advantage will eventually win out when all else is equal, yes?

I just spotted this headline on the MSN home page this morning (3/7/12)

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10595033-atheist-billboard-...

Apparently somebody heard you, 10000li! ;)