Why I Don't Worship or Believe in (a) God

I was raised Christian. It took years to figure out my relationship with the God that had been taught to me. Over the years, I examined the reasons I was told to believe. There are many things I could say about why I now don't worship, believe, or even have interest in God, but this quote pretty much sums up the basics. 

 

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." –Marcus Aurelius

Science vs. Faith

Some say that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism. I suppose for some, that might be true. But not for me. I use no faith to come to my understanding of how our world works and do not "believe" in evolution. It happens to be the best explanation out there given the evidence, but I'm willing to change my opinion at any time given new information. It's the same approach I give to understanding history. I don't have "faith" that things happened. I have evidence, and I change my view of history as I receive new evidence, knowing full well that most likely, whatever it is that I understand about what happened in the past is from snippets of evidence. That's not belief. Belief requires no evidence other than simply believing. For example, I believe in reincarnation - but there's no reproducible evidence for it or against it, and it can never really be known if it's true (until our species evolves enough that we can have a shared experience of the afterlife).

Some creationists are very offended when their belief that man was plunked here on Earth by the hand of God is labeled "anti-intellectual." Calling it judgmental. There are people who judge creationists for other reasons, and but calling a story believed first and then using evidence to prove it as "anti-intellectual" isn't a  judgment. For example, saying that believing in reincarnation is anti-intellectual, I am being told that I derive my opinions from belief, not my intellect, which is absolutely true. It's not a judgment, so much as discriminating understanding of how one comes to a conclusion.

It is possible to reconcile evolution and religious texts, even with an orthodox reading of them. I know enough people who do to know it's possible. One thing that I believe (and it is not scientifically proven, however I see lots of compassionate people believe this, too) is that science and religion are two sides of the same coin, coming at trying to understand our existence from two different approaches. Neither is better, but they are indeed different. I think teaching our kids this distinction is very good for them, because it allows them to be able to have their own personal beliefs (and not be threatened by others) while also being able to look objectively at the world and let the world (that many believe God created) teach us about who we are and where we can go. Without science/intellect we are lost in a bubble of inbred stories, and without belief/faith we are lost in a void of loneliness and separation from our humanity.

We need science and faith. And they are not the same. We need both scientists and spiritualists. And they are not the same. To me, the most amazing people, and the ones who are able to see what others cannot, are those who have both within them, who can separate, yet reconcile the two sides of the coin. Alan Watts, good example. Albert Einstein, another one. Pema Chodron, another one. Deepak Chopra, yet another.

It's those who divide themselves into one or the other, and then fight each other, who will always be fighting, and never growing or learning. And if there is a God, I'm sure that would make him very sad indeed.

Are You Really Christian?

I am confused why a person who identifies themselves with a particular religion would question the faith of others who are of the same religion.

This letter to the editor over at Salon.com made me blink. The text in quotes is the original text of the article. The last paragraph is the actual response:

"A lot of atheists seem to believe that "faith" means "voluntarily checking your brain at the door." They get mad, because it's frustrating watching other people do something so stupid. I respect that. In fact, I respect it a whole lot more than I respect "because the Bible says so and my mommy told me the Bible was the world of God." I’m interested in those two paragraphs because they argue quite well the atheist side of the argument – indeed, to my eyes, they are the most sensible portions of your post. Well, Allie, really – whose side are you on?? Are you sure you’re not an atheist? Are you sure you're a Christian?

I don't understand how the original article's description of Christianity puts any doubt in the reader's mind whether she's Christian or not. "Are you sure you're a Christian?" Why would anyone ask this question of another, and feel compelled to write a letter to the editor?

Considering first of all that there's about a billion different flavors of Christianity, then considering that religion is, at its core, personal, what kind of response should this question elicit?

The label of "Christian" or even "religious" is a label we give ourselves, or that others give us, to help us understand who we are, where we belong, and to convey what we believe without going into detailed explanations. But really, does saying, "I'm Christian" give me very much information? The only way I can know what that means is to get to know the person and talk about religion, faith and how that person sees the world.

The only time that the label "matters" to another is when that person is making a decision on how to define that person is for social triage. Or to decide whether that person's opinion is worth listening to.

How limiting it is to put people in categories like this! The original post had something to say, and it doesn't matter if she is Christian, Jewish or Martian. Her opinion has weight on its own, or it doesn't. Why does a person have to be "really" Christian for the letter writer to care?

Well, maybe I've answered my own question. I suppose I have my own bias, and my own inability to see the advantages to limiting my exposure to only those opinions of people who I can securely categorize as "my people." I am obviously limiting myself somehow, since I am having a hard time seeing the letter writer's perspective.

Perhaps I'm too entrenched in my own "open-mindedness" to understand a different perspective.

What do you think? Am I being close-minded by being open-minded?