![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been thinking about doing an entry on why I'm not religious, and I might as well go ahead and do that now. Mind you, I'm not against religion. I'm against some of the actions committed in the name of religion, and against people trying to force their religion on others, but I'm not opposed to religion itself. Indeed, there are times when I wish I could be religious. I'm just not, though. I don't really see adequate proof that God exists, or that following any particular moral or legal code is going to get you into God's good graces. It's fine if you do, but I have a different opinion on the matter.
I have heard of Pascal's Wager, which basically states that you should believe in God because you have everything to gain if you're right, and nothing to lose if you're wrong. The main problem I see here is that it seems to support PRETENDING to believe. It's hard to force yourself to believe something. Even if I went through the motions of religion, I would still know that, deep down, I don't really and truly believe. And if I'm not fooling myself, surely I'm not fooling an omniscient God, either! I guess I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist, because I don't necessarily dismiss the idea that God could exist. I don't actively believe, though. If that's a prerequisite to salvation, then I guess I'm not going to Heaven. I can only hope that, if there really IS a being who judges everyone, this deity will have pity on generally good people who just can't believe. I'd have to say that I consider such people to be more worthy of eternal life than those who claim to be religious but simply go through the motions, or those who commit atrocities in God's name. I doubt my opinion would really matter to this god, though. I just don't have much respect for the "Believe what I believe or you're going to Hell!" philosophy.
The other problem with Pascal's idea is that it doesn't take other religions into account. What if you become a devout Roman Catholic (Pascal's religion), and it turns out you're worshipping the wrong god? I get the idea that a lot of people follow the religion in which they were raised. If you're constantly told by your family, friends, and preachers that a particular religion is the right one, you'll often come to believe it as well. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, but I get the feeling that some religious people essentially believe a particular thing out of ignorance. I've seen people argue that casting doubt is a bad thing. I refer you back to this entry for an example of this. As I said then, isn't someone who evaluates the arguments of doubters and still believes in a particular religion a more loyal follower than someone who only believes because they don't know anything else?
Many religions give the role of creator as one of God's most important functions. The Bible starts out by saying that God essentially created the Universe out of nothing. Apparently, God is infinite in time, but the Universe is not. It's pretty much a cliché by this point to ask, "If God created the Universe, who created God?", but I think it's still a valid point. Why is it so much easier for some people to accept the existence of one eternal being than to think that the Universe itself might be eternal? This certainly doesn't disprove the existence of God. It's possible that creation was a local phenomenon, or that God came into existence WITH the Universe. This does, however, cast some doubt on the "God is worthy of worship because He created the Universe" types of arguments.
I could go on about what I find to be inconsistent, unlikely, or outdated in the Bible, or probably just about any other holy book, but I won't. Not right now, anyway. I certainly could be wrong, and maybe I'm destined for damnation because of it. I have my reasons for not believing, though, and I thought you might be interested in them.
I have heard of Pascal's Wager, which basically states that you should believe in God because you have everything to gain if you're right, and nothing to lose if you're wrong. The main problem I see here is that it seems to support PRETENDING to believe. It's hard to force yourself to believe something. Even if I went through the motions of religion, I would still know that, deep down, I don't really and truly believe. And if I'm not fooling myself, surely I'm not fooling an omniscient God, either! I guess I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist, because I don't necessarily dismiss the idea that God could exist. I don't actively believe, though. If that's a prerequisite to salvation, then I guess I'm not going to Heaven. I can only hope that, if there really IS a being who judges everyone, this deity will have pity on generally good people who just can't believe. I'd have to say that I consider such people to be more worthy of eternal life than those who claim to be religious but simply go through the motions, or those who commit atrocities in God's name. I doubt my opinion would really matter to this god, though. I just don't have much respect for the "Believe what I believe or you're going to Hell!" philosophy.
The other problem with Pascal's idea is that it doesn't take other religions into account. What if you become a devout Roman Catholic (Pascal's religion), and it turns out you're worshipping the wrong god? I get the idea that a lot of people follow the religion in which they were raised. If you're constantly told by your family, friends, and preachers that a particular religion is the right one, you'll often come to believe it as well. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, but I get the feeling that some religious people essentially believe a particular thing out of ignorance. I've seen people argue that casting doubt is a bad thing. I refer you back to this entry for an example of this. As I said then, isn't someone who evaluates the arguments of doubters and still believes in a particular religion a more loyal follower than someone who only believes because they don't know anything else?
Many religions give the role of creator as one of God's most important functions. The Bible starts out by saying that God essentially created the Universe out of nothing. Apparently, God is infinite in time, but the Universe is not. It's pretty much a cliché by this point to ask, "If God created the Universe, who created God?", but I think it's still a valid point. Why is it so much easier for some people to accept the existence of one eternal being than to think that the Universe itself might be eternal? This certainly doesn't disprove the existence of God. It's possible that creation was a local phenomenon, or that God came into existence WITH the Universe. This does, however, cast some doubt on the "God is worthy of worship because He created the Universe" types of arguments.
I could go on about what I find to be inconsistent, unlikely, or outdated in the Bible, or probably just about any other holy book, but I won't. Not right now, anyway. I certainly could be wrong, and maybe I'm destined for damnation because of it. I have my reasons for not believing, though, and I thought you might be interested in them.
