Philosophy

I've been thinking a lot lately about an intrinsic hurdle in sociopolitical ideology that it seems can never be surmounted: religion's place in our lives. I am not a religious person. I do feel, however, that people should be free to worship whatever they want in any way they see fit, as long as it does not harm others. This is generally the basis of all the decisions I make in life; if what you do doesn't negatively affect anyone, I don't care.

Recently I have debated with a few devout Christians on matters such as gay marriage. It is frustrating for me because the Christian argument at some point always becomes cyclical. It always gets to "god says [blank]," which is fine if you're a Christian and you're referring to the Christian god. But speaking personally, I don't believe in god at all, so that [blank] has absolutely no authority for me. I imagine this is frustrating for anyone who is [fill in the religion that's not Christianity], or simply non-religious.

I believe in facts that can be proven through the scientific method. Facts don't give us all the answers to the universe by any means, but they give us a foundation with which to coexist (e.g. this desk is "hard" and "brown" and made of "wood"). I feel that humans MUST use facts, as limiting as they can be, to deal with each other in times of strife. If someone tells me I can't do [action] because of [non-factual reason], I'm going to get upset. This is the problem with all religious arguments in the end. "Because god says so" is not a factual argument.

The religious argument, at its core, requires the other side to convert. The factual argument, at its core, needs dogmatists to stretch their dogma. Neither is ever acceptable to the other side. This delta between fact and faith becomes palpable and often deadly in law and politics. It has been the source of countless wars and unimaginable acts throughout human history. It also affects myriad smaller arguments in American life, such as public display of the ten commandments, school prayer, gay rights, etc. How can this delta be crossed, or at least shrunk? It's obviously not easy. My view is already apparent. I feel we must use facts, despite their limitations, as the basis of our interactions. Most people won't argue with facts, they only argue that the facts should be ignored - but that is a different problem.

If every person on Earth were to willfully and sincerely convert to [fill in the religion], we would come closer to world peace than we've ever been. But compare the likelihood of that happening against all religions letting their dogma slide just a little from time to time, using fact and equity as the guiding principals. I like our chances better there.

I’ve heard the line of reasoning that people need a strict, black and white code of conduct by which to govern their lives; a moral compass that never waivers, so to speak. I don’t necessarily disagree with that assertion, but I give humankind more credit. I think people instinctively know what’s really right and wrong. We call these instincts “empathy” and “love” and “selflessness.” Instead of ending an argument at “god says [blank],” we could consider “what if I were in this situation?” Also, different religions have vastly different “moral compasses” and trying to get all those aligned brings us back to the start of the conundrum.

Again, I strongly believe that people have the right to practice any religion in any way they see fit if no harm is caused (and we do know when harm is caused). Faith is a necessary and powerful part of human existence, but it is frequently misapplied. The overwhelming power of faith can be harnessed away from dogma and moved toward empathy; it is possible. Some of us have already taken the first step.