I
considered the idea that we are born spiritual and develop our spirituality depending on which culture we grew up in. I considered this both while in college, and later when I became
Buddhist. I think it's a valid one which I eventually came to disagree
with (although I can understand the perspective).
This is why. I do
believe, as most Buddhists do, that we
are connected to each other and the entire universe on some level, and
we know that instinctively, as we are empathetic creatures. Yet the
story of a god (whatever that god may be) is not instinct. It is the
result of a history of the human race trying to understand things they
do not understand, using some "perfect" or "extreme" version of
themselves or the things around them to to explain them. The use of a
god figure had then evolved as a way to control as well.
We are all born
atheist - that doesn't mean we aren't connected in some way (that even
science says is true, as we share the same particles as long-dead suns
and breathe each others' dead skin cells), or that we aren't innately
aware of that connection - only that the idea of God is not something
anyone just believes because we have some innate God-believing-gene, but
because it's taught to us.
1 comment:
It sort of depends which definition of atheism you use - "lack of theism" or "actual disbelief." That is to say, if you ask three people the question, "Does God exist?" and they answer "Yes," "No," and "I don't really have a strong opinion either way," clearly the first person is not an atheist, and clearly the second person is. The question is whether or not the third person is, and there are common enough definitions of "atheist" by which either definition could be considered correct.
By my preferred definition, though, I'd say the third person [i]isn't[/i] an atheist, but an agnostic, and by those definitions, I'd say that we're all born agnostics; that is, I agree that we're born not believing, but we're also born not [i]dis[/i]believing.
Post a Comment