This weekend, a young diarist,Teenaged Pundit, here at Kos shared his experience of what it means to be apart from the general run of believers in this day and age. He described himself as an an atheist. He may be. He certainly seems to be agnostic as the tough minded T.H. Huxley, whose thought I very much respect, would define it.
In any case, it seems this young person has already suffered somewhat from being unwilling to go along with the religious herd. However, he doesn't seem to have yet suffered the scorn from being unwilling to fully pack in with their atheistic counterparts
His musings indicate that he will experience further disillusionment. Too many true unbelievers, too, will brook neither hesitation nor disagreement.
Nothing about deity is subject to proof. It is all "outside the box." Even if a belief in god is proven to be the result of brain chemistry, a believer can simply say, "Isn't it great that god arranged things that way." And, that would be the end to any rational debate."
But, that has never stopped militant atheists from forcefully insisting on the absolute rightness of their point of view any more than it has stopped theocrats. One need only look at the history of the USSR and Red China to know that this is so. But, from what I read this week-end such disappointments are for Teenaged Pundit to deal with and think on in the future.
When one gets down to it, god and religion are two different issues. The issue of deity has and always will take care of itself no matter what the priests and unpriests say. Dealing with deity is internal to each of us. One lives one's life according to one's personal code of conduct or one doesn't. Some hear the call and feel the need to consider deity. Some think about baseball instead. The world is funny that way.
Religion, on other other hand, is a very large public concern. Our Founding Folks, particularly Jefferson, Madison and Franklin, thought and wrote a great deal about religion and religious freedom, not so much about deity. They understood that the former could be dealt with rationally; and, that the latter was the subject of speculation only. More importantly, they knew that religion, in the person of religious demagogues, is always a threat to freedom and democracy.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. - James Madison, in a Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832.
"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed,... - [Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity - James Madison (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)
Reading between the lines of Teenaged Pundit's missive, I can only urge him to continue think about religion. Carefully approached, it is a useful form of speculative thought, impinging as it does on the motives of so many human actions.
Also, I would urge him not hesitate to enjoy the feeling the awe that is the positive basis of so much that we call religious. We are not the only species which feels it. Dogs do. Cats do. Chimps and bonobo do. Elephants, also. What it means and whether it is limited to mammals or even animals no one knows. But it is best not to get ensnared in the foolish trappings the priests and hucksters find so useful; nor, to get entangled in heated debates about religious trivialities or authority. It's as pointless as debating the color blue or whether one likes donuts.
Teenaged Pundit mentioned being struck by a particular passage from the New Testament,1 Crinthians 13. In fact he quoted it. It is probably the jewel of the new testament which is mostly a bunch of second rate writing. I provided a link to the King James Version which I prefer. It sings.
Along with The Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rules, Matthew 7, it is the essence of Christianity although one would not know it, listening to the Rleigioous Right. Most of the remainder of the new testament, like most of the old, is child rearing and ancient religious and secular tall tales, government and politics. A lot of it is the worst kind of dross and when it isn't actively toxic.
There is lots of religious expression in the world . If a religion sticks around long enough, the best of it always ends up with some form of Golden Rule. It doesn't always end up with a deity. The worst of it always emphasizes the differences between "them and us;" always demands that people give up the things that make them happy; and, always demands someone's blood.
And, yes, the best and the worst will be two sides of the same religion because religion comes from humankind, not deity.