broadly rationalistOriginally Posted by simonj
I've never had any reason to believe in any sort of God. Even as a kid I didn't think just because it said so in a really old book meant it was true that there was a God. As I grew up I learnt more about evolution and looked down on kids who seriously believed in the garden of eden.
Throughout school I was basically an agnostic, taking the view that "if there is a judgemental God I'm far more likely to be judged on my merits as a person instead of how often I visited a relatively old building with some statues in"
Eventually I came to the conclusion that I'm an atheist because, while it may be impossible to prove that any sort of God exists, I personally do not believe one does.
On the issue of Pascal's Wager (the idea that the pros of being religious - mostly the concept of Heaven - outweigh the cons of not being religious - mostly the possibility of Hell) I think believing in God just so you might end up in Heaven isn't really true faith so that's all bullshit to me.
Would I like there to be a God? No. I have no reason to. There isn't anything especially trivial that is unexplained in our universe that needs a God theory to back it up. Evolution is, to me at least, a far more beautiful and coherent explanation for creation. There's a wonderful quote by Douglas Adams that sums it up: "Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
broadly empiricistGod I hate Dawkins and Hitchens.
I think that there is something within our psychological makeup that naturally develops some concept of the divine, and the interaction of this with post-agrarian structured civilization leads to what we think of as religion.
One idea for the origin of the divine may be that the divine may act as something ever-present which ensures that each of us complies with the rules of our community. Obviously this would have an evolutionary advantage for a group of people, since it would encourage cooperation and that each individual, even when unobserved adheres to a system of rules that ensures the survival of the entire group.
As an example of a study that seems to suggest this, some girls were tasked with playing a game against each other. They were told that a "princess" was watching them to make sure they didn't cheat. In one scenario, someone was sitting in the room with them as the princess. In another, they were told that the princess could see them though she wasn't visibly present in the room. The second group of girls cheated less in their game than the first who had a minder physically present.
I'm not sure what I need to add to that. Is religion "good" or "bad"? I don't know; I think it just is, even if I don't believe there's actually a "God" out there.
et voila
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks