[image: fineartamerica.com]

A Life worth Living without Religion

A few months ago I posted a poem entitled My Rationale for Disbelieving. It drew mixed reviews. I expected as much. I did not set out to convert anyone from his or her beliefs into a state of disbelief. I merely wanted to point out a few incredulous elements that exist in nearly all religious belief systems. Elements, by the way, that virtually no intelligent human being would likely ever accept as logically coherent or compelling on any level. What I did not do was to offer a set of principles that stand in contradistinction to those religious beliefs but that nevertheless offer an uplifting quality worthy of serious thought by anyone. I will state them in this essay. But in anticipation of comments that suggest I should read volumes about somebody else’s beliefs, let me be clear: I have no intention of spending 20 years or 20 minutes reading all the various religious literature so that I might accept or reject their tenets one by one. Nor will I ever write a 2,000 page treatise on this subject. Let others make the case for their own beliefs in a simple understandable format such as this essay. I will lay out the foundational principles here that have entered my consciousness over the years and have passed my tests of believability. Each can stand on its own merits. First, here is a more definitive statement of what I perceive is wrong with religion.

It is necessary to draw a distinction between “being religious,” and “belonging to a religion or church.” Most human beings are probably religious in the sense that they stand in awe of the universe and everything in it. They have a further sense that there was and is a Providential power behind it all. They and I are Deists. In the main we do not need guidance from others about these feelings or how to act on them apart from respecting the collective wisdom of the ages. We know that churches and clerics are too often an obstruction rather than an aid in providing such guidance or guiding principles.

Those who believe they have a need for churches and clerics in their lives are the “religionists.” Typically, they sing and pray together, and they pay money into the coffers of their church and to their clerics. They also believe they can and do live worthy lives by following the tenets of their church and the words of their clergymen and women. I don’t have issues with any of them or their beliefs—to the extent they do not go beyond their bounds with their beliefs. It’s when they intrude into my life that I get into a defensive mode.

Now, name a religion—any religion. Put a tyrant as its head and you have all that is necessary for theft, sexual abuse, imprisonments, mental and physical anguish, torture, and death. And their tentacles spread far and wide beyond their cloisters. Start with ISIS today and work backward through a list of misguided zealots in virtually any religion you can name. How could life be any worse than living under the tyranny of Idi Amin; Saddam Hussein; Pol Pot; Nicolae Ceauseseu; Adolf Hitler; Mao Tse Tung; Jim Jones, or David Koresh? The Mormon Church was founded by Joseph Smith after he claimed to have been visited by an angel who gave him a set of brass plates that revised Christianity in a way that only he could understand, and then the angel immediately retrieved the plates after Smith barely had time to read them. That genesis would make for a good comedy in any theater. Rather than suggesting something divine, it is likely a good example of a disturbed mind at work. Catholics had to contend with tyranny for 684 years during the period known as the Inquisitions. During that same period 70 different popes were at the head of the church, and not one of them condemned the atrocities committed in their name or in the name of God. Moreover, this church has proclaimed for a very long time that it is “the one true church” and it is “incapable of committing errors in matters of faith or morals.” And to this day not one pope has ever apologized to humanity, nor admitted to these atrocities directed by papal bulls and administered in the name of God. “Errors were made” is not a substitute for the most heart-wrenching admission of guilt, for violating virtually every principle for which it was founded, for seeking restitution, and for paying back every thing of value taken—with interest—wherever and whenever it occurred. And what sensible human being would waste their time in front of a television set while a host of self-proclaimed “ministers” implore them to send their money to them? It is reported by several sources that Pat Robertson, alone, has bilked his audiences of $100 million. Hokum!

The fundamental problem, as I see it, is religion itself. “God speaks to me” is so much nonsense and does not deserve a moment’s consideration as the source of religious authority. Nobody needs to be told by others what God thinks, especially those who believe they do. If everyone recognized the conditions for abuse implicit in that assertion, a major source for evil would lose its authority to exist. But as the scholar Carl Sagan once noted, “You can’t convince a believer of anything, for their belief is not based on evidence; it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe. “ Those who exhibit this need are stuck at the lowest level of knowledge: they rely on authority figures for information. Not only is this source consistently wrong, it stifles or ends the pursuit of knowledge by the higher and more interesting forms of inquiry: intuition, imagination, rationalization, and empiricism. I will give a more detailed response to the perils of relying on authority figures for anything, and will give my antidote to them a bit later.

Let’s shift this discussion to the positive side. The first principle for living a life of value in my experience that stands out as having a morally uplifting quality without religion is this: Live and let live. This principle is a simple acknowledgement that we are all equal; that no one is superior to any other; that superficial differences such as color, gender, beliefs, nationality, and various orientations have no relevancy as to how we should treat one another. It is based on the observation “there but for the grace of God go I.” We did not choose our gender, our color, our size, or any other physical or mental attribute. The case could be made that we were each assigned our physical and mental make ups consistent with our abilities to overcome them and to live worthy lives in spite of them. Neither this belief nor the practices that follow from them require that we must attend a church service, genuflect before statues, sing hymns, recite prayers, nor contribute to anyone’s wealth in order to find grace before God. These denials, of course, fly in the face of tyrants who demand obedience to them as their first principle.

The second principle is equally simple: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The Golden Rule subsumes most of the do’s and don’ts in the 10 commandments without scaring the hell out of anyone. But you do not need a cleric to tell you to treat others with respect.

The third principle is this: Let your actions follow your conscience—your inner compass—when the morality of any given issue is not clear. You must be prepared to defend your actions when they differ from the “rule of law.” To accept and abide by every edict passed into law by every nincompoop who manages to find his way onto a law making council is just another form of tyranny. You must, of course, pay taxes even when they are unfair, or observe rules that discriminate. You do not have the obligation to take up arms and kill when your conscience tells you otherwise. You nevertheless have the duty to speak out against tyrants, and wrong doing, and every atrocity committed by anyone, anywhere, at any time. Ignoring the evils others commit is a sin of omission, and it often is a far more serious offense against providence than many of the commandments.

And the final principle: Pray directly to God when you need courage, or comfort, or the stamina to manage your life. He does not need an intercessor. I suspect he would prefer hearing directly from you at all times. I doubt if he ever responds to requests for money, wealth, or some advantage over others.

It is entirely possible to incorporate these principles into your life without the need to attend or to participate in the rites and religious practices of any church, to pay them money, or to listen to sermons on morality from equally sinful persons, or to sing hymns, or to say prayers in the hopes of gaining some advantage in life in the hereafter.

Let’s now return to religion as a way to control your life, and why religionists do not want you to pursue knowledge through avenues with which they are not familiar. Notice how they shudder, cringe, or mock phrases such as “critical analysis,” or “logic,” or the “scientific method.” And while there have been a few thinkers of note in the world of theology, in the main they do not compare favorably to philosophers and scientists as teachers or sources of knowledge. It is interesting in a world filled with pretenders to knowledge and to truth that Socrates and the Socratic Method still stand as the single most inspirational teacher and source for how to teach.

To summarize: In spite of the cathedrals, and the hymns, and the lavish expenditures, religion has no authority to explain, or to teach, or to govern anyone. It is devoid as a source of anything spiritual. Its purpose is to gain and hold control over you, your actions, and your money. It purports to answer questions that do not have answers. Its clerics are neither scientists nor holders of truth. “God speaks to me,” or “God ordained me,” or “God gave me the Truth to pass on to you” are all empty assertions and unworthy of anyone’s time and patience. A far more enlightened response to the source of knowledge and how to acquire it came nearly 400 years ago from a distinguished scientist: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” In simpler terms: “God gave us a brain and He expects us to use it.” Thank you, Galileo.

It was thinkers like Galileo, and Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein who used their own observations, calculations, and careful measurements to pull us out of the Dark Ages and into an era of enlightenment. They did not listen to clerics who regaled them with the flat earth theory, or why Jupiter had no moons, or why the earth was at the center of the universe. Similarly, genuinely compassionate persons like Socrates implored us to think, to reason, and challenged us to use our God given brains to solve issues and advance the human condition.

And so, I will end this discussion with one of the wisest observations of all time by one of the wisest men of all time: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” --Socrates (c. 420 B.C.). To genuinely live it is to investigate it, to contemplate it, to study it, to love it, and to accept your fellow human beings as your equals.

Oh, by the way: I have it on good authority that there is no such place as “hell.” It is a concept conjured up by control freaks designed to get you to do their bidding.