On Practicing Religion

Even though we have discussed the discussion of religion, we still have some things to address to further bridge the rift fully into discussion of theology itself.  Like many, I have many more disagreements with the way I see religion practiced than I do with the theology.  Ultimately, I found there to be certain truths that echo through the teachings of religions, and to let my disagreements sever these connections would be doing myself a disservice, placing me unnecessarily at odds with ideologies and individuals alike.

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness — a declaration that brings a wide variety of reactions.  Although I ultimately turned from the Witnesses, it was not for the typical reasons alone — I was at the time too young and invincible to spend much time considering their stance on blood, and seeing birthdays and Christmas from the outside for so many years made compulsory celebration and gift giving seem insincere and needlessly consumerist.  I disagreed with their choice of young-Earth creationism over evolution, but that was not what drove me away.  In the end, it was not their interpretation of theology that I chose to leave, but the way they let those conclusions separate themselves from others.  I disagreed with their disagreements most of all, which is necessarily a difficult position to uphold.  Even before I understood the grander mechanisms of the world the way I now do, I thought it obvious that religion should bring people together, not push them apart. 

I would not go so far as to suggest that discussion of theology is unimportant — I would not suggest that we should not consider whether we go to heaven or are resurrected on some kind of restored earthly paradise as the Witnesses argue, or even whether we are to be reincarnated or if death is the ultimate end.  To the contrary, I believe that truth should be sought to whatever end it yields.  Nevertheless, I would say that such differences in beliefs on the afterlife should have less influence on how we live our current lives; specifically, we should never let these disagreements on the metaphysical side of religion get in the way of us loving others, especially when such love is one of the core commandments of the religion.

And so, disagreeing primarily with disagreement, to turn my back utterly on religion and morality would be to repeat the mistakes of the religious practices I was trying to escape.  When we let the difference between our understanding of truth and someone else's drive a wedge between us, we are ultimately serving our ego and not the quest for truth, which ultimately does everyone a disservice, most of all that which we claim to seek.  Since gods of war are no longer prevalent, there is no purpose for conflict in the name of religion that could not be better served by a peaceful approach.

This holds all the more true in conflict against religion.   The existence of a deity can neither be proven nor disproved, largely because there is no strict definition for "God" and therein arguments devolve quickly into semantics.  Every logically sound argument for theism I have encountered has been based on so loosely defining a deity that it becomes just a new semantic argument for existing phenomena.  Yet every logically sound argument for atheism I have encountered has been based on so strictly define a deity as a caricature of itself that it could not possibly exist.  As such, to believe that there is no God is no more based in empirical evidence than to believe that there is a God.  Because atheism comes with none of the same commandments to spread the word that theism often has, evangelizing atheism becomes more about attacking the beliefs of others than spreading absolute truth.

Yet as purposeless as the evangelical atheist is, the theist who attacks instead of understanding and relating directly acts against commandments to love.  We could argue whether it is worse to evangelize pointlessly or directly act against one's beliefs, but we would be missing the point.  Vilifying the opposition does nothing to overcome the problems of religion, instead perpetuating them.  The conflict is the problem, not the rationalizations we introduce after the fact.

Neither theism nor atheism are inherently flawed in their rationality.  As I stated, it is the people who practice these that are flawed and therein introduce flaws.  Religion is indeed often used as justification for atrocities, but so is nationality, race, capitalism vs. communism, and any other difference between two groups of people.  Similarly, atheism does not presuppose immorality, as there is significant basis for an objective moral stance — one that, again, very much mirrors the core moral stance of many religions.

Religion or its absence is not to blame for the conflict that surrounds it, but instead the dehumanization and vilification of others is what drives these evils.  To attack beliefs because of their practices (driven by its practitioners) is to simply complicate the matter — if we fight against beliefs because those beliefs lead to fighting, we only serve to counteract our intentions.  As a letter on Zen by Layman Hsiang stated, "If we raise our voices to stop echoes, we are not cognizant of the fact that sounds are the roots of the echoes."