Thoughts on Religion in the World

Today I've been thinking about religion again and what it's all about. Religion is like the epitome of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Not only do the religious (particularly the fundamentalists) repeatedly say their beliefs in church and talk about it to their religious friends and continually re-read/study the Bible, but their lives are completely immersed in it because in order to convince themselves that it's all true, they must surround themselves with it. If this is the case, those who are more fundamentalist in their beliefs could actually be the real fence-sitters, at least in thought. Then again, those who are fundamentalists would be harder to convince that their religion is a sham because in many cases, they've built their lives around their religion and it would be extremely difficult to say all of a sudden that they no longer believed in everything that their lives had always revolved around. Or to put it more succinctly, if they admit their religion is a sham, they essentially admit that their life is a sham. I think it would be more than difficult for some and I am most empathetic to this. I think someone admitting that they no longer believe could also feel like escaping incarceration (mental incarceration, in most cases) and being exonerated. Either way, the emotions resulting from sudden disbelief would be extreme and extreme emotions are difficult to deal with. And even if one had the feeling of exoneration on some level, he or she would still feel a sense of loss and most certainly would lose some of the people in his or her life. I think a more appropriate approach would be a gradual one where, say a person went from being fundamentalist to more moderate and so on and so on.

I started thinking about all of this because I read an article from a British newspaper that asserted that there had been a recent rise in religion and that the Richard-Dawkins-esque atheists and scientists only had themselves to blame because they lumped the moderates and fundamentalists into one large group and ostracized them all. Incidentally, I do think that advances in science may have caused people to cling tighter to their religion, but I don't think it has anything to do with atheists trying to get people to use reason and use their brains. It is also a misrepresentation to say that Dawkins or anyone Dawkins-esque lumps those who are religious all in one big group of enmity. I believe it was the Bible that said something to the effect of "You're either with me or your against me", not Richard Dawkins. I also think it would be a misrepresentation to insinuate that Dawkins views the religious (moderate or fundamentalist) as his enemies, despite how heated any debate may have become. I think the source of the heat is the frustration he and any free thinker feels when confronted with circular arguments which are so often used by the religious and theologians.

I think part of the recent rise in religion (if there truly is a rise) could also go back to what I was asserting about religion earlier. Some people (fundamentalists) have to immerse themselves in their religion in order to keep believing and part of that immersion is to try and convince other people to believe. I think that would be a very powerful way to maintain faith. "If I can convince this other person that it's true, then it must be true," and not only that, but they must maintain the faith so as not to let the converted person down.

I think I have decided, though, that I could live happily in this world with the religious if there were no fundamentalists (especially those who want creationism taught in science class) and the religious left me alone and respected my non-religious lifestyle and considered me equal. That is, of course, entirely too idealistic. It will never happen. There are many things in the world that are this way; that would be great, but will never happen. World peace, for example, will never happen. Why can't we all just get along?