As a non-christian/atheist, I believe that people can learn to love each other, but without the addition of a God. People should not have to follow counterintuitive faith in order to belong to a group that enhances their fitness by creating a net of trust and community. This is exactly what the Unitarian Universalists have done, with which I consider myself to be a member. In unitarianism, we believe in a set of axioms that guide an individual toward moral behavior, but without an omnipotent being. We have still created a community of tolerance and trust that resembles that in a monotheistic setting.
Secondly, the theories of agent detection, causal reasoning, and theory of mind seem much more plausible than believing in something or someone that cannot be sensed or observed. Brain behavior, cognitive development, and evolutionary genetics have progressed greatly in the last century, even in the last ten years making the actual physical manifestations of the psychological of human behavior more readily observed. Scientific research through repetition of observation from a creditable source carries more weight than faith (Atran, James).
I do agree that religion can bring a level of comfort, security, and peace that science may not be able to provide. I believe that religion is a necessary crutch in a positive way. But the definition of religion to me means a guideline for living life in a healthy manner. This does not mean that a belief in God or faith in immaterial beings is necessary.
In addition, religion may have been a byproduct of brain evolution and an adaptation to environment at the same time. But I also agree that these theories probably will not affect people's personal beliefs, whether atheistic or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
When you say faith is counterintuitive, do you mean it goes against reason or it goes against nature? Because according to the article, a faith in a higher power actually is supported by humans' intuition.
Also, when you say scientific observation is a better choice than faith, you're not acknowledging that the two can go together. My first post was about this. Scientific explanations, like the ones you mention, are good as science but do not rule out the possiblity of religion.
Sweet! Another UU :)
I was gonna comment, but I see Carissa essentially already said it. Organized religion and science don't have to be separate (they're rather dependant, as one is facts without meaning and the other is meaning without facts).
Also, faith doesn't have to be counterintuitive. We're all a product of our life experiences, so what seems counterintuitive to you may be perfectly obvious for someone from a different perspective. It's similar to experiencing culture shock, or trying to follow the logic of a four year old. (kids have a type of logic that makes sense among themselves but adults cannot follow it. I forget who did that research, but I could look it up if need be).
Post a Comment