Slow News Month, But Not For God

At least to me, it's been a rather slow month in the news. There have been a few stories here and there that have sparked my attention, such as the institution of Sharia law in Pakistan, but other than that not much to talk about. Well, to be honest there is plenty to talk about, but what else is there to say about the economy? Not to mention I have been unusually detached from the world of those over the course of the past, say four to six weeks, but I digress here. What has been on my mind is the concept of a god. It's something the enters my mind quite frequently because I find it one of the most cryptic things to understand amongst human ideas. It's not hard to understand the the reasons why so many believe in a higher power, but it's very difficult to comprehend why it persists, and how so many people can rationalize their faith a la carte.

Anecdotally, it seems that Americans like their ideology like their lunch, a la carte. They pick and choose what fits their needs or particular lifestyle, and to hell with the rest. While this is good for lunch, I'm a fan of all you can eat bonanzas just as much as the next person, I find it disturbing in the context of religion and belief.  Sure we all pick and choose from various streams of thought to form our value and belief systems, so it is not that incorporating many ideologies into one conglomerate is wrong. But what this does to the concept of god and religion is it undermines it. Or at least it should. The religious like to allude to the "word of god". But what is that? First of all there is no word of god because it was all written down by men. Second, there are so many conflicting opinions about what the word of god represents that it is watered down to the point of being meaningless. 

Another thing that I find hard to digest is that many only seek the advice and guidance of a god when it is convenient. Drug addicts will lie, cheat, and steal to provide for a habit, yet look to god to get them about of a bind when they're bad habits come back to haunt them. Mean, rude, and malicious people will make the lives of others miserable, then on their death bed plead to a god that he sees that deep down they are a good person. The dishonest and unscrupulous reek havoc upon the public and individuals, yet describe themselves as "Christians" and "god-fearing men". It seem to me that many use religion as a tool first, and also as a futile attempt at justifying their worth and virtuosity. What really gets me is when politicians or celebrities try to make their case to the world that they are good by proclaiming faith in a religion; And people eat this up. So what does it mean if they are religious? That they are good and honest? Well what does it mean if I am atheist? I remind you that George Bush was a god-fearing man who is a committed church goer. I'm amazed at how religion perseveres despite the inherent fallacies and inconsistencies in the teachings and practice of all religions. What I believe is that human beings are fallible, and inconsistent, and prone to wrong doing, but lets get over it, I'm not going to burn in eternal hell for being a human being.

Which brings me to another thought. This weekend I heard that since I don't accept Jesus Christ as my savior, I will not find peace after death. Or so they think. I find funerals and deaths an awkward thing because I don't believe that the deceased go to a better place, I believe they're dead. This is not cold or heartless, I am anything but, this is just the truth. I still feel compassion for those who have lost loved ones, but as an atheist I don't speak to the deceased, because frankly they can't hear me. This is how I have come to terms with death around me, and the prospect of I myself dying. It happens. Sadness surrounding it is no less profound, I simply believe that life ends at death. 

Back on topic...In the scientific community and idea starts as a hypothesis, develops into a theory, is then challenged, and then is eventually either deemed a fact or a fiction. Religion is the only thing that will not be challenged by those who adhere to it.  Despite our resistance, most human beings cannot help about adjust their thinking when their ideas are bombarded by counter-evidence, but the religious can stare logic in the face and wag their finger at it. It is in effect, incapable of challenge, because it would challenge their beliefs, and questions their faith, which could unleash a the inner apostate. The same reasoning that buttresses religion would not survive in science or the courtroom. So why the double standard? Human beings love the superlative. They love thinking there is always a higher power. In fact they desire control, because if there were not the almighty controlling them (the government is controlled by believers and thus the almighty!) what would happen to the world. Utter depravity most seem to think. Additionally, they can find comfort knowing that if they sin, the almighty will punish them, and they will have penance for their human iniquity. It almost justifies the wrong that humans are capable of.

I'm not advocating dogmatism here. I certainly don't want religion to be any more dogmatic than it already is. So when I say assail the religious for their "a la cartism", do not confuse what I am saying. Ideas need to be challenged. For that to happen one must seek alternative thoughts. It promotes healthy intellectual inquiry and should engender new ideas which are more substantively sound. Religion and god does not promote any of this. The so called faithful live lives that conflict with the teachings of their faiths, oblivious to the conflict. Their faith endures despite a multitude of logical reasons for why they should question it. They react to questions by squelching healthy dissent to their beliefs. The constitutions protects my right to speak out on this issues. Thankfully the founders were practical, for I fear had they not been, my voice would be silenced. I love debate, most would say debate is healthy, but their is no debate to the faithful, because they believe.