Posted: 03 October 2007 Updated: Whenever
If you like, you can let me know what you think about this. But if you're not willing to have your comments posted on here, along with my response, don't bother me. Otherwise, use cdoswell@earthlink.net
I was born into a family that was decidedly religious; we were Lutherans. At the time, the "synod" (the flavor of Lutheranism) we belonged to was the "Evangelical" one. Times have changed - more on this later. As a result of this family orientation, I was given little to no choice in the matter. I was dressed up and sent off to Sunday School and we also attended services on Sunday as routinely as clockwork. My mother, especially, was very committed to her religion. I can recall being just as enthusiastic about Sunday School as I was about regular school! This was not something I had a choice about - and that was that. Being something of a person opposed to arbitrary authority from an early age, this was the beginnings of my rebellion against this system. Why should I get up early, get dressed up in uncomfortable clothes, and sit through a session involving a lot of boring mumbo-jumbo that didn't seem to have much of anything to do with me?
For those who don't understand this version of religion, shortly after we Lutherans are born, we're supposed to be baptized into the faith. Being dysfunctional human beings at birth, we can't profess faith on our own, so we're assigned "godparents" (my Aunt Fran and Uncle Irving, in my case) who participated in the baptism and swore they would see to it that I was raised a Lutheran if, God forbid, my parents somehow dropped the ball. If I were to die before confirmation ... coming next ... baptism is supposed to punch my ticket for a trip to Heaven, despite my lack of capabilities as an infant. If someone dies before baptism, apparently they're destined to burn in Hell or something since doctrine says we were all "born in sin". This apparently is the "original sin" of Adam, which evidently was a long time ago (even for fundamentalists!). Talk about having the "sins of the fathers" visited upon you! The soul of an unbaptized baby burning in Hell (or whatever) seems like a pretty tough thing to do to an unlucky newborn. Anyway ...
As I matured into my teenage years, a number of things happened. I was packed off to confirmation classes where we were taught the particular doctrine that characterizes our church. We were supposed to study this stuff to the point where we could be "confirmed" into the church. This was already a familiar routine: study a bunch of stuff you couldn't care less about, do whatever was obviously necessary to please the teacher, and you would "pass" the course. With my mother's enthusiastic support, I passed my confirmation examinations and was duly allowed to join the church. Among the perks of being confirmed (I'm a little hazy on the others ...), we became eligible to get a tiny glass of wine, along with a wafer of unleavened something passing for bread once a month on Communion Sunday (once a month). These items are symbols of the blood and body of Christ, in analogy to the Last Supper (before Christ was betrayed by Judas and crucified). At that age, the wine seemed like a big deal. Thus, I was a confirmed member of the Lutheran Church, but not for long.
This was also a time when I was deep in the throes of typical teenage rejection of all authority. No reason to let religion slip through unchallenged. So, shortly thereafter, I repudiated all this and basically refused to play the game any more. Needless to say, this put me into direct conflict with my parents, especially my mother. But she was unable to change my mind and, despite having inherited many of her traits (but not her faith), I turned away from that path. I had seen the hypocrisies of the "faithful"(including a relative who was an ordained Lutheran minister) and refused to accept the tenets of the faith. Over and beyond the hypocrisies, I was fast becoming a fledgling scientist, and could see logical flaws in the whole business that made it impossible for me to accept these teachings. I'll detail these logical issues in the next section. But I've never turned back to this belief system, despite having recognized a spiritual side to myself. More on that later ...
Most of the logical problems associated with formal religions arise from the infinite powers associated with the presumed deity. Infinity is a concept poorly appreciated by most religious zealots. If a being has infinite powers (omnipotent), can s/he create an object s/he can't move? A logical conundrum that defies facile resolution. If the presumed all-knowing (omniscient) being created me, then s/he knows what my choices will be throughout my life, from beginning to end. Thus, it's logically inescapable that s/he created me specifically to make those choices - and to suffer the consequences for them. Where's free will in that? Sorry, but free will is out of the logical window of plausibility when the Creator is omniscient and omnipotent. Those nasty infinities ...
Moreover, what sort of Supreme Being gives a rat's ass about what I believe in? If this deity is capable of creating the vastness and complexity of the Universe (to say nothing of the cosmological possibility of other, neighboring Universes), why does s/he care what some pissant human being on a backwater planet (Earth) believes about him/her? Sounds like a Deity with a serious ego problem. Is this a God that you really want to worship and honor? Believe in him/her - eternal life in Paradise. Don't believe - eternal torment in Hades. Hmmmm ... sounds like some time spent on psychoanalysis could be helpful for this so-called Deity.
Believers always seem to respond to such questions either with the irrational fury of the religious zealot who defends every aspect of the faith with fanatical zeal, or with some form or another of the phrase "God works in mysterious ways." In other words, since we see no easy way to explain away this conundrum, we leave it as one of the great mysteries of the world, as created by our version of the Creator. Take it on faith that God understands this, but apparently has not seen fit to give us an understandable explanation. We may be his/her favorite creations, but apparently s/he designed us (clearly intentionally) without the capacity to understand his/her mysterious ways.
Every religion believes that its vision of the Creator is the correct one, naturally. Faith in this particular Deity is necessary, whereas any other faith, especially in any other Deity, is a fast track to eternal damnation. This creates a pretty stiff penalty if you happen to be born into a family that instills in you a faith in the wrong God, no? Not only do you have to choose to have faith in the correct God, but you have to believe you made the correct choice (see above discussion of free will). Perhaps in the accident of your birth, you had little or no choice about what God to worship - not only your family but everyone around you believed in a specific form of religious dogma. What if this accident dooms you to an infinite afterlife of pain and anguish? Is there any way to be sure if your choice was the right one? But wait! Having faith and asking such questions are mutually exclusive. You're not supposed to ask such questions. Even though your Creator gave you a brain with enough logical capability to confront you with such questions once you find out that other forms of religion exist, your obligation is to suppress the need to get such questions answered. No "doubting Thomas" is allowed. Allah doesn't deign to provide answers to such snotty questions from upstart humans or even permit them to be asked. Believe ... or be damned! Those are your only choices, for most formal religions. Not with us? Then you have to be against us and worthy only of elimination on our path to righteousness.
And of course, every formal religion inevitably fractionates into multiple sects that all have differences in dogma, ranging from nearly trivial to substantial. You have to say your prayers in just this way, or you'll be on your way to infinite agony, and we may be eager to ensure you get there as a penalty for not making what we believe to be the correct choices. The church liturgy has to follow a particular order and say the words in a very specific way, or you might as well be an atheist - no deviations in liturgy are tolerated. Change the words and new sect is born. No swaying from the specific set of beliefs about an invisible Supreme Being. Kill the infidels! Slaughter the unbelievers! Cleanse the world of these abominations ... Sunnis versus Shiites, Protestants versus Catholics, Fundamentalists versus non-Fundamentalists, Baptists against the Episcopalians, Hindus against Muslims, Mormons versus non-Mormons, and so on and on, seemingly ad infinitum. The past, the present, and the future are saturated with the blood of millions killed by believers seeking to rid the world of anyone with different beliefs. Formal religious faith encourages and sometimes even mandates a deadly form of intolerance more vengeful and bitter than racism and tribalism. Or perhaps it's a particularly virulent form of racism/tribalism - us against them for the right to spread our dogma. Holy scriptures of most formal religions are full of calls to purge the world of those opposed to the specific dogma of that particular faith. You can find whatever unspeakable act of vengeance supported by your interpretation of religious scripture.
Formal religions seem to wage their most vicious wars against those of similar, only slightly different versions of otherwise similar versions of that faith. Look at the history of religions - at one time, all Christians were actually Jews, including Christ himself. Yet things evolved (or devolved) into pogroms and anti-Semitism in its most extreme forms - the Holocaust - by the time of Hitler. This of course persists today amidst the Muslim fanatics of the Middle East (despite the majority of Muslims in the Middle East being "Semitic" people racially), as well as such "Christians" as the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads around the world. And the Old Testament justifies comparable acts by the Jews on their opponents, even documenting ethnic cleansing and razing of lands occupied by the enemies of the "Chosen People". All religions believe they are the Chosen Ones! Most of them use that as justification to commit heinous crimes against humanity. God is always on our side - it's the people saying the same thing on the other side that are mistaken. Surely not we.
Formal religions around the planet are united in seeking to glorify God and claiming his/her support, but they inevitably want to restrict the ways to do it. Our way or we'll kill you. Out of all the diverse formal religions, which one is the right one? Like Carl Sagan, it seems to me that the simplest way out of the dilemma of having to choose among them is to reject them all.
So why are formal religions so dogmatic and intolerant? Why this powerful need either to convert the unbelievers or eradicate them? I'm no psychologist, but I have some ideas.
I've argued elsewhere that a need to feel important, to feel that your life has meaning beyond your own self, is such a strong need in humans that it can sometimes trump virtually anything else: food, sex, and even the will to live. This is the force that drives young Muslims (and others) to kill themselves in terrorist acts despite the prohibition for suicide in the Muslim faith (and others). People who give their lives willingly for a cause evidently feel this need. Many people have suffered persecution willingly, just for their beliefs. We in American society often salute them for it when it involves a patriotic cause (Nationalism can be a form of religion that can be compatible with many formal religions, if your nationalist principles support freedom of religion, at least in principle.), for example, so there apparently is widespread social acceptance of those willing to make sacrifices for a cause - up to a point. The problem can be just where to draw the line. Some draw no such line but sacrifice anything and everything for their cause. We refer to such as fanatics, or zealots.
Fanatics wholly and without any reservation give themselves to a cause greater than yourself. Of course, giving your life is basically an unselfish act, whereas taking a life (including your own) is basically a selfish act. When the need to feel important requires you to take lives (perhaps even your own, in the process), then in my view, this is where this human need has become perverted. Cynical leaders take advantage of young believers to carry out acts of barbarity to further the faith (and usually some underlying political agenda).
Most religions ask (and even require) their members to proselytize on behalf of their faith, seeking to convert unbelievers to the "true way". Most "holy" texts call upon the faithful to "enlighten" the unbelievers, and justify eradication of those who refuse to be converted. This is also a way to make yourself feel important, but it serves another, more subtle need. When you have beliefs, it's human to have doubts - if not overtly, then in the back of your consciousness, perhaps even buried so deeply you're unaware of them on a conscious level. If you can convert someone else, this reinforces the correctness of your beliefs. Wow! I convinced someone else to convert! This reinforces your beliefs, and tends to reduce your level of self-doubt. Doubt, of course, is B-A-D. Faith demands the absence of doubt.
What I dislike intensely about religious zealots is there profession of absolute belief in their dogma. They claim to have discovered answers for all the deep mysteries of human existence (except those that Jehovah has seen fit to keep mysterious - see above). Whenever someone claims absolute certainty about something so deep and profound as the mysteries of human existence, I'm instantly repelled by that. The fanatic bothers me because of his/her absolute certainty, which is probably underlain by internal doubts they don't want even to think about. I find very few things in life I'm absolutely certain of - and surely I accept no no dogma so confidently that I would take a life to validate it.
From an early age, once I recognized my lifelong goal was to be a scientist, I accepted the basic tenets of science. Some see those as forming another sort of religious dogma, but there are many reasons why science and religion are very different, in the same way that science differs from mythology. First of all, and perhaps most important for this discussion, is that in science, any argument by authority is completely without validity. You're never asked to believe in something because So-and So said it was that way. It's always possible to dispute anything in science, even the most fundamental principles. If you wish to overturn some existing understanding in science, all you have to do is present your evidence. Of course, changing people's minds is always a challenge, and if it's a thoroughly entrenched part of scientific consensus, it will be necessary to present extraordinarily convincing evidence. But that possibility always remains open. Scientific "dogma" is not holy writ - any and all of is open to doubt and revision, if need be.
And no one has the right to force others to accept their evidence. If you're not convinced by a scientific argument, no one will burn you at the stake or torture you until you deny your own views. Arguments in science are never finalized. but always provisional - there's only the current consensus among scientists (see my essay about how science works). You're allowed to continue to try to convince others, no matter how stubbornly they refuse to accept your ideas. The history of science is full of stories about how someone had an idea that was initially rejected by most other scientists, but then later came to be embraced by the consensus.
Moreover, a supernatural "explanation" for some aspect of science is simply not permitted. Using such an argument is recognized to have no real explanatory value. If you accept it, you're admitting you don't really understand some natural process. See my discussion of "intelligent design". Saying that the explanation for some scientific observation is that God did it gives us absolutely nothing of value in understanding the underlying process behind the observation. Logically, such is not a useful explanation, it's a complete dead end.
Although most religions prohibit "false witness", it's generally not the case that lying is some sort of mortal sin. In science, however, falsehoods are complete anathema. Occasionally, egregious examples of faked data arise, often in response to various pressures put on scientists. Whenever they're discovered, the whole scientific community experiences a collective revulsion. Retribution can be massive and careers of those committing such things are typically ended instantly. Lying in any form is totally unacceptable, and being completely open and forthcoming about what you did to obtain your results is mandatory. From the start, this was a characteristic of being a scientist that I found pleasing. This means that you generally can trust most of your colleagues - unless they've demonstrated otherwise. Trust is fragile - it can be lost forever with a single careless deed - but it's widespread among scientists because it simply has to be. It's not that moral behavior in issues of trust is more valued in science than in religion, but it's one of the pillars without which science must collapse, whereas in religion, it's not so high on the sin meter.
Some people rationalize science and religion by arguing that they're independent of one another - separate worlds that don't ever overlap. In this view, science doesn't consider ultimate causes, but rather seeks explanation of observations. Religion, they say, concerns the spiritual and moral world, about which science has nothing to offer. I see things rather differently. Scriptures provide supernatural "explanations" for events in the natural world. They convey a world view that inevitably comes into conflict with science - witness the clashes between evolutionary biology and fundamentalists. If science doesn't offer ideas that conflict with religious dogma, the faithful have no need to dispute that science. But when these worlds do touch each other and they clash (as they will), then science becomes the vanguard of godless atheism and as such is worthy only of condemnation and perhaps even persecution. Compromises, such as proposing for example that God works through evolution, guiding it according to his/her design, simply don't work. Science can't accept any supernatural explanations. Religious faith rejects any explanation that conflicts with Holy writ. Given the vague language of all the world's scriptures, it's inevitable that science will dispute something in those texts. These worlds must find points of conflict and compromises are not tolerated in either domain.
To be a scientist, you might be able to countenance religious faith in your personal life, but it can have no formal role in your scientific professional life. As a person of faith in some formal religion, you might be able to avoid conflict with some science, but you eventually will have to resolve the contradictions between science and religion in some way if you're going to retain your faith. In a way, I admire fundamentalists, at least in one way: if you really choose to believe in a particular set of dogma, living by your own interpretation of the words in your scriptures is not really much of a commitment to the faith. Was the world created in seven days or did humans evolve from an initially non-living planet over billions of years? You can think of the biblical stories as parables, or allegories, or whatever, but it seems to me that having faith in the dogma written in those scriptures requires you to take them at face value.
Science can indeed be said to begin when people began to develop myths to explain events in the world. But when mythology gives way to empirical testing of hypotheses, a fork in the road has been chosen. You can continue to "explain" the world on the basis of some ancient text and its associated dogma, or you can choose to follow the pragmatic and verifiable world of empirical testing of ideas. Ultimately, scientists and believers follow diverging paths. I can tolerate those who choose to believe, but I dislike their patronizing proselytizing and when they become violently intolerant of other belief systems, I really don't want them around at all.
An interesting aspect of the words contained in those scriptures is their ambiguity. All human communication has ambiguity built in. Words can be interpreted in various ways, and subtle shades of meaning are often difficult to distinguish. Although when words remain fixed in time, their meanings inevitably evolve. What did the original authors of these scriptures really mean when they wrote them? Since those authors are no longer available, we can't ask them. We can only understand those words in the context of our times. If those scriptures are indeed the transcriptions of the word of Jehovah/Allah/God (JAG), then it seems we're going to be unable to get clarifications, short of the End of Days. If they were written by humans under the inspiration of JAG (as opposed to JAG's dictation), then it's at least conceivable that the humans might have screwed up occasionally in their choice of words.
Further, there is a potential evolution of the the actual words during the time when they had to be translated by hand from one language to another. It's obvious that some words and phrases translate poorly from one language to another. Can we be certain that the subtle shifts in meaning associated with translation have not crept into the texts as we now have them? I don't see how. Further, even when copying the texts verbatim, transcription errors might have occurred over the ages. What guarantee is there that the words in the copies of the texts we now have are the same as originally written, or as intended by the author(s)? I don't see any.
There are places in all scriptures that can be interpreted as contradicting other passages, and even offering different versions of the same stories. How are we to resolve such things? In science, there's a premium on being able to repeat experiments that confirm or deny particular hypotheses. Scientific textbooks aren't Holy Writ - they state the existing understanding of the author(s) and represent only a sort of "waypoint" along a path that can never end. You can walk that path only if you're willing to challenge existing understanding and propose new ways to see and understand the physical Universe.
The old saying about the inevitability of death and taxes is at least half right. We observe empirically that all humans die sooner or later. The only exceptions to that are some questionable claims made by some formal religions, and those claims are apparently beyond empirical verification, absent the Second Coming of Christ (often forecast to be imminent, but yet to happen). Once we realize that death is a part of life, we find it hard to imagine the cessation of our consciousness - a world going on without experiencing it through our senses. For most of us, the prospect of death is frightening, in part because our bodies have a will to live, and in part because the experience might be painful. Of course, in some cases, dying is painful and can be associated with extended periods of suffering. Death in such cases might ultimately be a blessing, an end to the agony. But we have powerful inhibitions (and even laws) against suicide or killing someone to end their ordeal. So it seems we're obligated to drink fully from the death cup, whatever it contains and whether we like it or not. But wait! Religions offer an afterlife. Death is an illusion. I'm immortal after all. The appeal of that is hardly can be denied.
A theme common to almost all the major religions, therefore, is the existence of life after death. They differ about the details, perhaps substantially, but that concept is a key one for the faithful. Somehow, the "soul" will live on without a physical body, at least temporarily. This afterlife is seen generally to be a reward for having faith in the particular dogma of your choice. In some religions, even the unfaithful get an afterlife, but it's a very bad one, consisting of eternal torment in some wholly awful place or being reincarnated in some undesirable way. It seems evident to me that this hope for life after death is at the heart of why we have religions in the first place. It's a way to eliminate the fear of death and so will be a powerful attraction to potential converts. Who cares about this mortal body if my soul will live on in Paradise? No worries for the faithful. It's easy to see how this would be a great comfort. And it would also help relieve the pain when people you know die - we'll meet again in the afterlife, and my loss of friends and family is only for so long as I live as a mortal human being. Sounds like it's too good to be true and so, as the old saying goes, it very likely is too good to be true.
Some have argued that it's a bad gamble to be an unbeliever, an atheist. If you choose to believe, either you're right and you go on to eternal bliss, or you're wrong and you will suffer the fate of believers and unbelievers alike. It would seem that the optimum strategy is to believe, just in case it's true. You have nothing to lose and only can gain - unless you picked the wrong dogma to believe in - see above. Then it's off to Hades with you, and good riddance. However, I obviously don't see it this way. I just don't like being forced to make a life choice out of fear. This seems rather like being forced to vote a certain way at the point of a gun. This is the sort of "Supreme Being" I'm supposed to worship and give my life for? Sounds more like some sort of swaggering bully - my way or the highway: the highway to Hell!
An interesting facet of formal religious dogma is the central role that humans play in the Universe. We are JAG's chosen ones, out of all the vastness of the known Universe. Somehow, we humans remain at the spiritual center of JAG's Universe - with time, it's become clear that we've learned we're not at the physical center of the Solar System, nor the physical center of the Galaxy, nor the physical center of the Universe (if it's even possible to define where that might be). Science has steadily demoted us in terms of the physical world, and it's not at all clear that if other sentient beings exist beyond the Earth, we are even the chosen ones among that grouping. Of course, it's likely that if we do encounter another sentient life form and we're able to communicate with them, then they probably thought they were the chosen ones by their deity (or deities) before they encountered other life forms. Of course, they might be involved in some sort of interplanetary proselytizing mission, or even an religious Holy War, converting other life forms or destroying them if they refuse. Time will tell what we might encounter in terms of another sentient life form. Given our own history, when an advanced culture on Earth has encountered a less advanced culture, our track record of tolerance for their ignorance is not very good. If we encounter a life form less advanced than we, perhaps we'd give them the same that we've done in the past. And if the first sentient life form we encounter is more advanced than we, we might well be subjected to a dose of our own medicine. At this point, it's simple speculation - no doubt it will be an adventure for us, either way.
I've written elsewhere (see item #5) about our "dominion" over the Earth. One interpretation of scriptures is that everything on the planet is ours to do with as we please - assuming we've chosen to adhere to the right faith. The only reason that any non-human species exists is to serve us, we crowns of the Creation. Not all believers accept this belief, however. And it's another place where holy texts and science touch - and clash. If we humans were instantly to disappear, most of the species on Earth would do just fine, and many would begin to prosper after a long decline initiated by our "stewardship" of the Earth. A few species, like domesticated corn, would have difficulty because we've caused them to bend to our wills in such a way that they would be hard-pressed to survive a few generations. For the most part, though, non-human species would get along just fine without us. On the other hand, we are far more dependent on other species than some would have you believe. If insects disappeared, we'd be in deep trouble, for example. Same for some bacteria. The empirical evidence here on Earth seems to offer a different perspective on our role within the Earth's ecosystem. Our species isn't as special as some religions would have you believe.
We also tend to forget that before the current set of major world religions developed - a few thousand years ago, at best - there were other forms of religious worship. By most current dogma, these ancient people were doomed to oblivion at best. They couldn't have believed in the current major religions because they didn't exist at the time. Hence, too bad for them. If we think about those religions at all, it's generally in a patronizing way. Aren't such beliefs quaint? Obviously, they were simply myths that deserve only an academic interest. Of course, I'm confident at the time that the people believing in them were quite willing to kill unbelievers and to give their lives for the advancement of their religious causes. Human sacrifices were definitely on the agenda for many of them, which we see as a particularly dark side to some of these "quaint" belief systems. We think of them with some horror perhaps, and see their believers as having been deluded by myths. Those myths might well have been invented by the power-wielding members of their societies to keep the citizens cowed and willing to do as they were told. But of course we modern humans would never submit to something like that, right? Our unverifiable beliefs aren't simply myths, right? No one in the existing religious hierarchies ever asks for sacrifices to maintain power, right?
Some of my believer friends have asked me, "What would limit your behavior in the absence of punishment by a vengeful deity?" To them, it seems, the only reason not to run a red light is the threat of being caught by the police and punished for that transgression. As I see it, there are at least two other reasons to not run a red light:
Thus, I don't believe that I need the threat of punishment to obey traffic laws. Under some circumstances, I've disobeyed traffic laws, of course. I don't believe that in the process of willful breaking of those laws, I've ever threatened either of my reasons listed above. But of course, if I'd been caught, I'd have been given a ticket, and I wouldn't contest the validity of that punishment.
Morality, in my opinion, has a far deeper source than the threat of punishment. There's even scientific research to back up such claims. You can't have a society composed entirely of predators - individuals who take what they want, when they want it, at whatever cost it might involve for others. Even a society with a 50-50 split between predators and prey is impossible. In every society, however, a few predators are simply inevitable. Their cost is not important, overall, but it clearly has major impacts on individuals. I choose not be such a predator, but I can understand how it might be attractive to some. If you review, say, the Ten Commandments, most of them involve either worshipping the wrong deity, or taking something from others - i.e., predation. Ignore the religions prohibitions for the moment - they're on a different plane. As I see it, I don't need the threat of eternal damnation to choose to live a moral life to the best of my ability. If you see your faith in a vengeful JAG as based on the threat of his/her vengeance, then it seems to me that your morality has a pretty shaky basis.
Understanding that human society is built on cooperation, not on predation, is a fairly modern idea, I think. But it's the view I choose to have. Morality works because it's built on something more substantial than punishment by the Creator - it's built on the so-called Golden Rule. Treat others as you would ask them to treat you. I doubt that non-sentient creatures have any sense of morality. They don't know right from wrong - they simply do whatever their instincts tell them to do. It's not immoral that a lion kills a lamb - it's simply part of a grand scheme that life has evolved - it is a sort of cooperation, but it doesn't guarantee all beings the chance to survive. Some must die that others may live, and the predatory pressure works to the betterment of the prey species as a whole, if not for individuals. But humans operate on a different level. We know the difference between cooperation and predation. A species that preys on itself has some obvious potential survival problems, especially if that becomes widespread. Morality is generally good for individuals, as well as the species on the whole.
It seems to me that most of the world's major religions have another common thread: at least one human being who is actually divine, or at least in direct communication with JAG. From dictionary.com, I find the following definition of a cult to be useful:
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
as well as this somewhat pejorative version:
6. religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
From the same source, I find the following definition of a religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
as well as:
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
You can read into this whatever you like, but I'm struck by the basic similarity between these two. In our society, the word "cult" is generally given the negative interpretation above, whereas religions are generally given the status of the first definition I found, above. Given that many religions seem to have their origins in a person considered by his followers (I'm deliberately using the gender-specific pronoun here.) to be divine or at least in direct communication with the divine. Jesus certainly fits this description, as do Moses, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and even Buddha. In recent history, we have Jim Jones (People's Temple), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology), Fumihiro Joyu (Aum Supreme Truth), Charles Manson (The Family), Sun Myung Moon (Unification Church), etc. Any set of followers of a faith healer (including Christian Science) can be considered cults.
We often become aware of these cults when they commit some horrible act, sometimes including murder and mass suicide. An interesting feature of many cults is that the leaders exploit their followers, often sexually and almost always economically. Although the Mormons presently repudiate polygamy, it was certainly a feature of the early church and a breakaway sect of fundamentalist Mormons continue the practice. Suicide pacts are not particularly helpful for the survival and prosperity of a cult, obviously. Many cults fail to survive the deaths of their founders, though a few have.
It seems to me that there just isn't much of a difference between religions and cults, except that religions gain respectability through numbers and they may move beyond some of the practices they followed when they were small in numbers (like the Mormons) and as the secular societies around them change. When they get big enough, then many cults become "respectable" religions. Given that JAG is not performing daily conversions of water into wine, nor do we generally accept that JAG speaks to us in so many words, we have to accept virtually everything posited through the words of some prophet. Someone who apparently knows just precisely what JAG wants and is eager to pass the Word on to us. This is just as true for religions as it is for cults. Functionally, I just don't see the distinction if you accept the notion that it's impossible to know absolute truth. To me, only the arrogant, the deceptive, and the foolish can claim to know absolute truth
It's also interesting to me that we find it "quaint" when we learn that humans are assigned deity status, such as the ancient Egyptian pharaohs. European royalty was once considered divine in a sort of secular religion. As noted, we seem quite dismissive of such claims from the point of view of the present. However, depending on which faith we subscribe to, we may be just as willing to accept the divinity of our chosen religion's prophet(s). From where I sit, it's hard to tell the difference.
I'm quite willing to accept that formal religions have their redeeming values. Their morality often matches mine and good things are done by many believers. When not engaging in violence or condemnation of unbelievers, the followers of formal religions have accomplished wonderful things. The fact that some of them engage in hypocrisy or even evil deeds behind closed doors (as in child molestation by some priests) is not a condemnation of those religions, but rather of the individuals and their failings. Human beings are indeed far from perfect and their misdeeds don't imply that their ideals are somehow to blame for those misdeeds. It's been said that you should never let a hypocrite stand between you and your God. I believe that ... my rejection of formal religion is not based solely on the misdeeds of the so-called believers.
If someone finds comfort in this life by believing, who am I to deny them that comfort? Let them draw from religion whatever they can to help them deal with the problems that life inevitably presents us, including death.
But I ask them not to force me to accept and live by their beliefs. I have my own ways of dealing with life and my own way of connecting with "God", as I'll discuss in what follows. I mean no disrespect for them personally if I reject their beliefs. I make no generalizations about them in their beliefs, so I ask that they not pre-judge me because I don't share their faith.
Clearly, I find all formal religions to be unacceptable, although some are more egregious than others. Their deities are laced with logical dilemmas, are vengeful, intolerant, sadistic, and apparently suffering from an apparently mystifying lack of self-confidence, requiring my worship to allow me to sit by their side in Heaven. Sorry, that's not a very appealing Supreme Being to induce my worship. If there's a Creator of the Universe as we know it, surely that being would have no more time to worry about me than I would fret over the choices of a flea on the back of an African elephant. It's a huge Universe out there, with complexity we haven't begun to fathom. Surely that being would have some limitations to its power and knowledge, however far beyond my comprehension that power and knowledge might seem to me. Surely such a being would have many more things to worry about than the beliefs of one among billions on one small planet among billions. To a sentient bacterium, a human being would seem pretty powerful - although vulnerable to bacterial infection!
O.K., so where does my spiritualism arise? My church is not some human edifice - it's the natural world. My connections to the Almighty are not through ritual and dogma. When I have "religious experience", it's not mediated by someone ordained to lead me to enlightenment. Its origins come from the natural world and my sense of being a part of it. When I'm alone in the wild (sometimes during a storm chase), there are times when something wonderful happens. Out there alone, I can slow down, become attuned to what's happening in the world, and find myself by losing my "self" - that's when I feel connected to the infinite. I have no conscious control of this - it just happens from time to time, unpredictably. It seems to me that this arises from a feeling that I'm not a man apart from the world, but a part of it. Robinson Jeffers talks about this in his poetry, inspired by the Big Sur country. John Muir describes it in his lyrical prose about the Sierras. Thoreau wrote about it, in connection with his time at Walden Pond. I sometimes can feel it so deeply that it seems I must burst with it - this feeling of connection to the Universe and my love for the connected whole. Such moments come only when I'm alone, and always in a context where I'm caught in the moment and my "self" has disappeared. My spiritualism is evidently rooted in a sort of pantheism , or perhaps transcendentalism. although I feel no desire to be associated with a "movement" - it's a personal thing, not something I feel compelled to "join". I'm already joined to this and need no confirmation from others of like belief. Interestingly, the same loss of "self" can come to me when I'm doing science, or photography, or when hiking and camping. It always happens spontaneously and it is truly transcendental. It can't be codified, it can't be reduced to ritual, and it can't be shared in any conscious way with someone else.
Whatever power is responsible for the Universe certainly would deserve veneration, if not outright worship. I admit the logical possibility that there might be some sort of Creator that comes close to the anthropomorphic JAG figure touted by formal religions, although certainly not infinitely wise nor infinitely powerful. Apparently, if such an anthropomorphic Creator exists, s/he isn't very intrusive in our daily affairs, perhaps because his/her plate is full with the rest of the Universe most of the time. If s/he exists, it would be nice if it got demonstrated in a tangible way once in a while. Why force a person created with curiosity and logic to accept your existence on faith, with tangible miracles performed thousands of years ago to a select group of humans and then no more? I may not understand the mind of JAG, but what we do know about him/her ought to make some sense! Anyone capable of creating a Universe ought to make sense.
Obviously, I make no claim to understand the "meaning of Life" or any of the great mysteries that we all humans share. There might be a sort of "plan" but it might not be so anthropomorphic as a set of rules writ by the moving finger of JAG on tablets of stone. Likely it's a complex thing that would tax my human capabilities to grasp. I can accept my limitations, but I resent efforts by religious zealots to impose limitations on what i can say, do, and even think. Since I don't impose my personal beliefs on others, above all I expect that others will afford me the same privilege. What I think is my own damned business, and I don't have to justify it or even explain it to anyone. And I shouldn't be forced to accept "blue laws" imposed by some political activists among the faithful on everyone.
I see Life to be a great gift, as is the Earth and the Universe in which we reside. What I see in the world is wonderful and awesome beyond my comprehension. If I can learn something about how the natural world works, so much the better. I don't have to understand it all, though I surely would like to - that would be my main motivation to live forever. I'd love to see it all, somehow, and drink in its beauty and wonder. But that's impossible ... so I do the best I can with the gifts I've been given. I'd be overtly grateful to the Creator if I thought s/he was listening - I try to let the way I run my life reflect that gratitude.
I want to live a moral life and do what I can to make the world a better place for all of us - not because of the threat of eternal damnation, not because of the possibility of being rewarded in an afterlife, but simply because it makes me feel good to do so. And I have the sense that it somehow is the right thing to do, independent of any set of religious rules.