Latest thoughts on religion (and why I still bother)

Regular readers know this is something I've been struggling with for a long time. I've gone from lapsed Catholic, to strict Catholic, to generic Christian, to theist, to deist, to agnostic-leaning-strongly-toward-atheist.

This transformation has been driven by, and has also driven, a tremendous amount of thought, prayer, reading, writing, and conversation. More than a few people have said, "Why do you put so much effort into this? It's not as if you're ever going to get solid answers. Plus, you don't have to take it all so seriously..."

My response to that is three-fold. First, the question of God's existence is--potentially, anyway, depending on the nature of God, if there is one--the single most important question we can ask and answer in life. Second, I enjoy the intellectual exercise of working my way through these issues. Third, despite what people say, I do believe that I am getting closer to solid answers...not necessarily solid answers for everyone, but for me.

In short, I see a clear return on investment here.

So, where am I now? I start with the fundamental question: how did all of this stuff get here: you know, life, the universe, me, soap-on-a-rope, etc. I look at the answers that science gives, and they don't work for me. In part, that's because they're terribly incomplete. Scientists simply don't know, for example, how life began on this planet. They have some well developed ideas, but at this point, that's what they are: ideas, not answers.

Beyond their incompleteness, many of the ideas lack an intuitive plausibility and simplicity that I need in order to say, "Okay, that makes sense to me." For example, the idea of the universe having its origins in an infinitely dense singularity doesn't help me much. First of all, I can't imagine or understand the concept of "infinitely dense." Second, even if I could imagine and understand "infinitely dense," I would want to know how the singularity got there, how long it had been there, what "there" even means when you don't have the concepts of time and space to work with, and why the singularity violently heaved all of its matter outward 14 billion years ago. I want answers that I can wrap my brain around. They are not forthcoming.

Now, some (many?) would say, "That's just because you're not smart enough to understand the science." Could be. But that doesn't change my situation: science doesn't provide satisfying, intuitively plausible answers to my questions.

You can proceed two ways from this point. On the one hand you can say, "Give science some time. Eventually it will provide the answers you're looking for." On the other hand you can say, "If the answers that attribute all of this--life, the universe, you, your self-awareness--to random chance aren't satisfying to you, then maybe answers that attribute it to some sort of higher intelligence will be satisfying."

Because I'm worried about dying before "eventually" rolls around, I'm going to go with the "other hand" here. (I can always jump back to scientific explanations if good ones turn up before I die.) That gives me two more options: 1) intelligent design; or 2) some sort of organized system of philosophy or religion that assumes (or believes it can prove) the existence of a higher intelligence.

I can't embrace intelligent design for two reasons. First, I don't understand the science well enough to make legitimate judgments about its intellectual merit. Second, many people who do understand the science--even Christians who understand the science--are highly critical of ID as science. So, intelligent design, like the purely materialistic/scientific explanations, doesn't help me much.

That leaves me with non-scientific systems of thought, whether philosophical or theological. They provide answers that do make intuitive sense to me. Again, this may be true simply because my brain isn't large enough for the scientific explanations to make the kind of sense I'm looking for. But I'm stuck with the brain I've got, and the philosophical and religious answers to my big questions are the ones with the most intuitive plausibility. To me. For now.

Okay, so what to do about that? Pick a religious philosophy or an organized religion and follow it. Why? Because it's easier than starting your own. That's the same reason I'm taking Krav Maga classes rather than trying to invent my own method of self-defense. Krav Maga may not be the best system out there, but it's a system into which a lot of people have poured a lot of time, thought, and energy over the years. It will definitely get me where I want to go...maybe not as quickly or efficiently as other methods, but it will get me there.

Religion should work the same way. Why not reap the rewards of someone else's investment? Why not stand on the shoulders of giants (or at least people who shop in the big-'n-tall section)? Why not follow a path that has gotten other people to the place that I want to get?

Okay, so which religion or philosophical stance am I going to choose? I don't know. I do know, however, that it will have to have certain characteristics:

• It will have to welcome, even embrace, doubts and questions of the sort that I struggle with.
  
• It will not claim to have a monopoly on truth.
• It will not claim to be the "one true way."
• It will not ask me to believe things for which there is scant or no evidence.
• It will not ask me to believe things about God that make no logical, empirical, scientific, or historical sense.
• It will require some thought and effort.
• It will provide a non-material reward for that thought and effort...in THIS life, not after death.

So, there you have it. If you'd like to nominate your religion, the comment box is open for business.

Comments

[Thomas]

Funny it sound like Judism in some aspects, granted I haven't studied it closely enough to say for certain, but the doubts, thoughts and effort is a key part of the modern religion I have heard it said. Good luck on your path where ever it takes you

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

I think it is like Reform Judaism, but I'm still learning about that.

[bk]

First, I believe you set up a false dichotomy between science and religion (or reason and faith). I believe the answer is both/and, not either/or.

It may be hard to find a religious system that meets your fourth point. In fact, it will cause problems in science. How about "It will not ask me to believe things against which there is credible evidence"?

Your third point is logically inconsistent with your quest. The quest for truth pre-supposes that truth can be determined, and that you can objectively measure each proposed solution against the ideal. Besides, anyone who takes the question seriously is going to believe that his system is the most true, or else he would switch. I suggest dropping that criterion.

With those modifications, I would claim that Catholicism meets your criteria.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

I agree that it's not either/or when it comes to religion and science. I have only rejected the purely scientific explanations, that is, those explanations that reject religion altogether. There are many philosophical/ religious approaches that do not reject science altogether. So, I can follow a religious/ philosophical path without rejecting science.

You're right...the fourth criterion may need some work. I'm not sure your revised version would work for me. However, something along the lines of, "It will not make extraordinary claims on the basis of scant or no evidence" might.

Can't agree with you on my third criterion; I'm not looking for the "one true way." I don't think there is such a thing. As I said in the post, I'm looking for something that works for me. And it simply isn't true that anyone who takes the question(s) seriously will hold out for the system that is "most true." Did you buy the best possible house for you? Select the best possible mate? Choose the best possible job? Attend the best possible school? I didn't. Like most people, I'm a "satisficer," not a mazimizer. At a certain point I recognize that the marginal gains from additional search are not worth it. I don't need the best possible/most true system, and I'm not willing to invest the resources to find it. As I said, I'm looking for something that works for me.

I'm glad Catholicism works for you. It worked for me for a long time. It no longer does. If you really want to know why, a good place to start would be reading all of my religion posts. But if you don't want to do that (I wouldn't), I can tell you that I think it fails according to at least three of my criteria.

[Vox]

"A man travels the world over in search of what he needs and returns home to find it."

Sounds like you may be a lapsed Catholic again

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

Not a chance! The whole theology of the eucharist on its own is too much for me. Though that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[bk]

My criticism of your third point was not well expressed. My real point was not to reject a system simply because it makes claims about its own truth. The claim may not be true, but it is not less true for being claimed.

I can see where you might think Catholicism fails on your third point (though Her position is more nuanced). The doctrine of the Trinity challenges your fifth criterion, potentially ruling out any form of Christianity.
You mention the doctrines on the Eucharist, so it may be a point for you against your fourth.
That makes three, but I would assert that your sixth criteria would lead to their resolution, which begins to satisfy the seventh.

Vox's quote reminds me of Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Have you read it?

[Vox]

You are unlikely to find any religion that does not consider itself "the one true way", having gained "a monopoly on the truth". Even if you stick with a so-called non-denominational Christian religion, they certainly believe that the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, et cetera have it wrong. None of the other religions believe in Christ, and the Christians take him pretty seriously ("no one comes to God except through me"). I think you will find the same conceit in all other religions, though only one or two of the biggies require their followers to do much about it (for instance, killing all the infidels)

Also, since all religions are based on faith, you are stuck with groups that will ask you "to believe things for which there is scant or no evidence". Most of what I have heard about God makes "no logical, empirical, scientific, or historical sense", and yet some of the finest minds throughout history have believed.

It sounds to me as if you may need to reach back to some older religions.

The Greeks and Romans had a system that would seem to fit your criteria, and it is fairly flexible. If you find something you cannot understand or explain, you get to create your own mythology - perhaps even create a new god. Your computer crashes? You must have offended Ram, the god of computers! He brought forth the great machines to improve our skills of calculation and deduction but he becomes enraged by those who spend too much time surfing YouTube or looking for p0rn. Heck, you even get all sorts of great feast days (sort of like the Catholic saints, but without the guilt) Polytheism seems to be a rockin' way to go.

If you want something more 'acceptable' you might try Buddhism, which comes with a politically correct (and in the case of most people who use it, meaningless) slogan - "Free Tibet" It would also seem to fit into some of your criteria. There are always many questions to be answered, making a it great place for someone with questions.

Barring that, I think what you are looking for sounds quite 'new agey'.

The New Age belief systems seem to be all about what is easy and comfortable to believe. An added bonus is the unlimited flexibility to pick and choose only those beliefs that you want, ignoring all others. You can even mix-and-match 'faiths', a little pagan, a little wiccan, a smidge of goddess worship.... The pay-off in this lifetime being the ability to feel part of something bigger than yourself and never having to doubt those beliefs (but having the freedom to do so) because said beliefs are totally fluid, adapting to whatever scenario you find yourself in.

I, however, am still unclear as to WHY you need to search out a belief system. I can see you enjoying the intellectual exercise. I don't get why, if you have no belief system currently, you would find the question of God's existence so pressing.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

I don't think Judaism considers itself the "one true way" for Gentiles. It has Noahide laws that it says we can follow in order to be considered a "righteous Gentile." So there are two ways, at least: one for Jews, one for non-Jews. This, as I know you know, is very different from Christianity. Also, there is at least part of Islam, and a subset of Muslims (the more moderate ones), that believe that Judaism and Christianity are just fine. That is, some Muslims believe that Jews and Christians need not convert to Islam to end up spending eternity with Allah. So again, it's not necessarily "one path to God."

As I tried (but failed, apparently) to make clear in my original post, I don't think the scant/no evidence objection applies to the existence of God. What's the evidence? The universe, the earth, life. I rejected the purely materialistic explanations for this in my original post. The only other explanations available to me, then, are God-based. And they happen to make some intuitive sense. To me.

As for the why, again, I tried to address that in my original post. If there is a God, and God is the creator of the universe and the author of my existence, I can think of no more important question in life than what, if anything, God wants from me. Could turn out to be nothing. Could turn out to be something. Either way, I think it's important enough to spend a lot of time trying to come to conclusions that satisfy me.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

BK: haven't read Chesterton's Orthodoxy. I'll add it to the stack. My objections to Catholicism are not so much to Catholicism per se (aside from the theology surrounding the Eucharist) as they are to Christianity in general. And they're pretty basic. For example, as I've noted here before, the scholarly consensus on the authorship of the Gospels is that we don't know who wrote them. (There are some dissenters, of course, but even the dissenters acknowledge that most Biblical scholars consider the Gospels to have been written by people whose identities we don't know.) The Gospels, however, make extraordinary claims--perhaps the most extraordinary claims in history. No one outside the Gospels can validate those claims. We don't know who the people are/were who are making the claims. We have little basis, therefore, for judging the validity of those claims. We do know, however, that they are almost unimaginably far-removed from anything in common human experience. If you want me to believe that sort of thing, you better come loaded for bear. The Gospels, unfortunately, are barely loaded for squirrel.

[Vox]

Perhaps I am too far away from the question, or I am not smart enough to grasp your point (gotta work with the brain I have).

If the point of your search is discovering what, if anything, God wants from you, you shouldn't have to choose a belief system.

They all ask basically the same thing; some require good works, some merely suggest it...same with prayer, tithing...

If every belief system wants the same things, and it is just a matter of degrees, why not be the best and do the most - and consider yourself covered?

:-)

[Pemba]

"And now here is my secret, a very simple secret; it is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

The brain gets in the way of matters of the heart; belief - by definition - can't be framed in logic or by a codex. Having said this, sometimes like you I wish that I could believe in something as strongly as others, some of whom don't seem to think much about it.

These questions are worth wrestling with, but perhaps the answers only come when one lets go. I don't know this for sure, but it's worth putting forth the idea.

[Sherry]

Try Bahai.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

I have to admit, it makes a good bumper sticker.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

Pemba: if I can't find a belief system with an empirically, logically, intellectually satisfying foundation--with faith required only to get me the last 20 percent or so of the way--then I probably will just throw up my hands and call myself an agnostic. That's the way God (if there is one) put my brain together.

[Pemba]

Ah, well, that's the nature of religion in general: The existence of a higher power can't be proven; source materials are always suspect, particularly when they're grounded in murky human history; and most major religions only require from their followers that they have a willingness to believe.

I knew an old Jesuit once who - when confronted by his students with questions about religion that naturally exist between the head and the heart - would only say,"It's a mystery."

Like you it seems, I'm a (hopeful) agnostic primarily because I also have difficulty letting go of the questions that come from my (God-given, if there is one) brain. While the questions come from there, I've suspected for awhile now that it's not where I'll find the answers.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

Pemba: one thing I REALLY struggle with is this: why would a God who is powerful enough to create the entire universe, who (if various traditions are to be believed) wants nothing more than to commune with us, why would THAT God do such a lousy job of providing evidence for his own existence, and providing clear guidance on the nature of the communion with us that he wants? A God like that could address those issues with a snap of his fingers. That he hasn't done so raises big questions for me.

[Name:]

I'm with the old Jesuit. I permit mystery in my life.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

You mean like why Adam Sandler movies routinely gross $100 million plus?

[Vox]

How apropos is the timing of this auction?

"Einstein: Bible Is 'Primitive, Pretty Childish'"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355323,00.html

[Pemba]

I guess that your question is another one of the mysteries. Maybe God is a creator, and not much of a manager. Maybe He's just good at start-ups. Maybe He's busy with the infinite number of other galaxies, stars, and worlds in the universe, and is generally happy to let us sort things out for ourselves on our own little planet.

Maybe He's omnipotent, but chooses not to be omnipresent. As a parent, I can tell you that I can't be involved in every little aspect of my children's lives, and I wouldn't want to be.

I like the George Burns take on it. In "Oh God..." he says,"I just create the possibility for choice, and the rest is up to you."

Or, maybe like the God in "Dogma," from time-to-time He just likes to watch a sunset somewhere, and He gets lost in it and gets Himself jumped by two demons from New Jersey.

Then again, maybe there's a God, but there is no after-life. Maybe our reward in living is this one life we have, and religion only provides a framework for living this life as well as we can. In this view, individual religions are very similar and are also all a bunch of hooey; but, even still, faith is important and we humans seem to be hard-wired for it.

As an agnostic, I'm interested in the questions, also. I'm less interested in those that are framed "what's in it/where's the proof/which is right for ME?" than I am in those that help me to define my place in existence relative to an all-powerful consciousness. God's got to be a busy guy, and if He doesn't have time or inclination to prove Himself to me I'm fine with it. That doesn't mean that I can't ask myself what He wants from me. My best teachers have always let me find the answers for my own questions, anyway.

(This was an interesting and provocative blog post, by the way. I guess you can tell that from all of the comments. Thanks...)

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

Thanks, Pemba. And thanks for your contributions.

[Michelle]

I can't address theology, but I can share my beliefs.

I agree with George Burns comment in Pemba's comment.

For me, there's not a right way or wrong way; it's about choices. We're here for to experience this world, not to follow rules*. By having the experience, we are fulfilling our purpose. We're communing with God through our experiences. See, no need for special guidance.

*Some people like rules. Rules usually work for those who are going to follow them anyway, but they don't change the behavior of the people who are going to ignore them.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

So anything goes, as long as it's: a) legal, and b) an experience?

[Michelle]

Legal? Doesn't have to be.