The Road to Religion
I have oft expressed puzzled astonishment for the basis upon which most of us become members of this or that religious sect. I don't have any specific figures at hand here but it seems well over 90% of people select their religious affiliation via inheritance or marriage. Religion, like philosophy, focuses on our relationship to others in this world, our purpose in this world, a value system appropriate for seraphic living, what virtuous living is, the priorities essential for making ourselves a 'better' person, and our own proper relationship with the Creator of the Universe. None of these matters can logically be dismissed lightly as unimportant---certainly not something which we would accept via inheritance or part of a marriage pact---nor should we accept something so important that way. Humans have long since rebelled about someone else selecting a mate for their marriage, being assigned by birth a career/position in life, what kind of music we like, or art, or hobbies, etc.
To the extent the above is true, so be it. What is, is. Clearly, to the extent any of us dislike those of a different religious bent, there but for the grace of birth or marriage, goes I, or you, or us. Few, it can be said with any seriousness, are making reasoned deliberated choices regarding religion----we all pretty much just are born into, or marry into, our religion. That certainly keeps it all simple and orderly----and inane. For something which we accept being assigned to us, it is little wonder that these assigned guidelines for living end up being followed, in varying degrees, according to our life situation at any given moment. We are 'good', so to speak, when it is convenient to be 'good'---when 'good' doesn't conflict too much with our peculiar situation at the moment.
This then raises a broader question. What determined which religions became dominant in various regions of the earth? The answer, it seems, is even more unnerving than the immediate question of why each of us belongs to the religious sect we do. The dominant religion in various areas of the globe became dominant at GUN POINT. For example, Europe wasn't always Christian, or England always protestant, or the middle East always Muslim. Europe became Christian when the Roman Emperor Charlamagne sent armies across Europe and simply slaughtered those who resisted adopting Christianity as their religion. England became Protestant only after a series of Wars which alternately deposed Catholic and Protestant Kings. The middle East became Muslim only after guns and killing did the selecting. Killing to achieve such an objective is not entirely illogical. Beliefs, reasoned out or otherwise, are not facts. Nor do beliefs necessarily have to be acted out in public rituals, or consummated in grandiose cathedrals. To really get such thoughts out of society you really have to kill those who hold such thoughts in any serious vein. Only then are the beliefs gone and unable to be passed on to offspring or marriage partners. It seems those religions least amendable to violence end up minor sects viewed mostly as quaint abnormalities, amusing curiosities----like Buddhism, or Quakers, or Mennonites, etc. They are never a threat because they never really bother anyone. And because they never bother anyone they can never be a dominant religion. Quakers, Buddhists or Mennonites don't ride into town with guns and demand, "Be a Quaker/Mennonite/Buddhist or die".
In some societies there has been progress in terms of tolerance for varied religious beliefs---up to a point. In the U.S. it is ok to be Baptist instead of Episcopalian, it may be a bit less ok to be Catholic instead of Protestant or vice versa, and even less ok to be Muslim instead of Christian, etc. Underneath all this is probably the fear to what extent a different religion might try to force their way on matters. For the most part the tolerance is of a sort where "just don't try to get in my face about any of this crap". I mean it has to be crap, because if it is not, then what are our own religious notions? But tolerance comes with a price. The issues upon which religious beliefs are needed become less and less openly discussed in order to keep the peace. Thus comes the feeling that society would be more ethical if our own religious beliefs became the law of the land. I cannot claim to be free from all this myself. If I find myself having to deal on a daily basis with someone wearing a turban and wrapped in a robe, it immediately is an annoyance. It is not cool to my sensitivities, it is outside my own preferences of how to dress appropriately, and try as I might, I am suspicious of what goes on inside their mind. Certainly if someone looks different they must think different. Then we do the completely irrational. We issue a dress code. No one, from now on can wear a turban or whatever else it is that is sending us a signal that their thought processes might not be lined up in proper order. But frankly, most of us are pretty smart. Can't fool us. "You may dress like us, but you are not, so watch your step." And these 'they', of course, become more and more embittered. A few in society escape all this and manage to get along well with all sorts of religious or cultural deviates, but such an achievement is achieved only by bucking majority pressures. To make matters more complicated, we usually make exceptions. Circumstances force us to sometimes get past the images, and we can become genuine friends with this or that 'person of difference'. We might even treat them with more deference than most anyone else. The matter has thus been solved----proving we have no prejudice and the proof is there for all to see. Frankly, all that is displayed is a tangled web of inconsistent hazy interrelationships.
The operative mode, in one form or fashion, is mostly this: it is not sufficient one have faith in their own beliefs, it becomes an obsession that others must have their religious tenets in the right order or else. The or else comes in various forms including ostracization, making certain beliefs illegal, and death via military conquests. George Bush did not exactly invent pre-emptive slaughter of those who live or think differently. Strangely, the religious freedom embodied in a non religious government is one of the strongest deterrents against domestic unrest and violence. People who are free to follow their own religious beliefs have a sense of hope, mainly in the form that God will make life better for them if they follow their religious beliefs. The burdens of life are often then seen as some sort of test of their religious faith. Maybe so, but it never occurs to me to harass Keisha the cat to see if she will break the bonds of trust in me. I will always have embedded in my memory this picture of a minister paralyzed by a stroke in the hospital bed next to me and parishioners tearfully admonishing him to hang on, that "God is not through with you yet". My concept of God is a bit different.
While there are those who genuinely believe if their religious beliefs were made the law of the land there would be peace and a community of moral behavior, reality seems to dictate that a moral society is more related to an equitable distribution of wealth than to any particular set of religious dogmas. Any religious beliefs which do not lead to an equitable and fair distribution of wealth among the general population will never lead to any long term peace or moral community atmosphere.
The alternative to entrenched unchanging rigid religious beliefs passed down via birth, via religious scripture written by humans in past ages, or via marriage, is to acquire religious beliefs based on reason---and the reasoning based on the current state of knowledge at the time of the reasoning. The greatest gift given to humans, by the Creator through His created evolutionary process, is the ability to reason. Reasoning accumulated over time, based on a changing knowledge base, improves human life in all aspects, and there is no obvious reason why this should not include religion. Religious beliefs cannot improve if they do not change. Philosophy, which is really a form of religion, works best when human religious authorities are not regarded as all powerful. The nature of God is a central focus of both religion and philosophy.
Religious wars are ludicrous right up front. After all, beliefs of any sort are not facts. To die for a belief is not exactly heroic. I may believe a certain person would make a good President but that hardly justifies my killing someone who believes otherwise. And if I could pass a law requiring others to vote for my candidate, that adds nothing to the reality of whether or not my candidate would be a good President. Whether or not my candidate for President would really be a good President is based on the quality of reasoning as to why he/she would be a good President. Changing one's religious beliefs based on using reasoning applied to an advanced knowledge base of the times, is a healthy sign of religious progress, not an act of heresy. Only blinded fools brag that everything in life can change with the increased knowledge acquired over time except their religious beliefs which, with some sort of Bible in hand, are to remain etched in stone---to be changed only over their dead body.
In part the world is so warlike throughout history because those religions with the greatest intolerance and acceptance of war to resolve conflict, are the religions which become dominant over most regions on earth. Strangely, militaristic behavior is not supported by the tenets of their religion. The core religious values in all major religions are the same---some variant of do unto others as they do unto you, fair is fair, what goes around comes around, we are our brother's keeper, etc. But then there seems a split within each religion into two basic camps---the religious right fundamentalists and the religious left. The right tend to be rigid, intolerant, dead serious about their beliefs, angry, seek to punish perceived heretics, and act seeped in revenge. The left tend to be tolerant, forgiving, sympathetic, sharing, less dogmatic, open to change, more live and let live regarding religious beliefs. Thus it is never easy to provide any valid description of a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. Whatever one uses as a description applies only to a portion of the religious flock in question.
Missionary work is rarely wrapped in any real uplifting blessings for the targeted natives. Just ask the targeted American Indians or the tribes in Africa, South America, or anywhere else missionaries venture. What primitive people have ever been raised up by missionary zeal? Even in Europe, what were the Dark Ages but total dominance of religious authorities? In the end it will be freedom from religious persecution and access to economic opportunity which will raise and uplift primitive groups, not religious missionaries---this not withstanding any good intentions of the missionaries. Sadly, the good intentions of religious missionaries serve mostly to lull natives into accepting the economic and political entrepreneurs who follow---as night follows day---with their economic exploitation at gun point.
Most everyone looks for messages from God which will guide us how to live. A few, like Pat Robertson, get personal messages from God. Or so these few insist. Most of us simply inherit or marry into a religion and then accept the scriptures of that religion as true messages from God. When one examines history, and focuses on the forest, not the trees, this latter method clearly misses the mark. It manages to turn serious moral issues into mobs of religious soldiers acting in ways totally abhorrent to the basic precepts of their own religious scripture. Were it not for the slaughter and persecution it might be a humorous Laurel and Hardy show. Let us suppose, for a moment, that one rejects inheritance and marriage as the path to religious values. What then, is left. One could wait for messages from God to come booming out of the sky or to personally communicate with each and every one of us----OR, we can accept a God created universe operating via a God created evolutionary process---a process, over time, which we know more and more about, and then use our ever evolving powers of reason as the basis for religious beliefs. It is this God created evolutionary process which gave all of us a chance for individual existence, a process which frees us from blaming God for all the bad things that happen or praising him for every good thing that happens, while at the same time allowing us to praise the created self driven evolutionary process which, ever so slowly, evolves upwardly and onwardly to new forms and levels of life. Reason itself can lead to valid religious values which lead to a world that would truly be more peaceful, sharing, and just for all the life forms of an amazing God created evolutionary process. Reason does not deny the important contributions of any prophet written scriptures from the past anymore than modern science makes fools of earlier pioneering scientists. These past scientists are still heroes and so are past prophets in various religions.
