­Right, so here I’m going to explore my thoughts on the philosophy of religion and the nature of belief in the 21st century, or something. Nothing too huge or grandiose then. Fucking hell.

It’s a decent thing to think about though, isn’t it? We’re all alive, after all. We’re alive, we don’t know why, and one day we’re going to die. It’s pretty weird, really. Some people never figure out why they’re here, but even if you don’t there’s always value in asking the question, if only to put things in perspective and work out what’s really important to you.

Back in the day

Back in the day, the answer to the meaning of life was easily found and that answer was usually God. Different Gods had their different perspectives on why humans existed, but basically the meaning of life was to keep the bloke upstairs happy – and it usually was a bloke. Serving God was the meaning of life, and that was that. Now get on with it.

What if your God wanted you to kill people? Well, many of them did, and many people have killed because they’ve interpreted their God as wanting them to. For example, Abraham is held up by some as being a pinnacle of faith precisely because he was willing to kill his son on God’s say so. Thankfully, if God told someone to kill their kids nowadays then there are safeguarding procedures in place to try and prevent it from happening.

All of this begs the question of whether someone can ever tell if God is actually speaking to them, or if it’s possibly a delusion. This might be insensitive, but how could someone ever tell the difference? Because it feels real? Because a delusion would feel real also! Another issue is that it’s often assumed that the ‘real’ voice of God is the one that people feel urges them to give to charity and be nice to each other, and that the voice that tells some people to kill other people is a perversion of God’s voice. How do we know that’s the case, though? Couldn’t the ‘real’ voice of God just as easily be the voice that tells people to kill others? I don’t see how that isn’t a possibility.

My personal opinion is that God doesn’t exist and if people insist that God is speaking to them then it’s likely to be their own dissociated subconscious reflecting back at them. I’m always open to a better explanation, but I am yet to find one and in the mean time I can get on with other things. I also believe that, for a significant number of people, the main reason they believe is because they were indoctrinated as children. There, I said it.

I did believe in God when I was a child, but my parents (luckily, I think) were quite lackadaisical about it and I was able to walk away from it relatively easily at the age of ten or so. There was no existential anguish or any particular struggle within myself as far as I can remember, and I think this is largely to do with my parents never being too bothered about it. If I’d had the impression that it would cause serious problems with them if I stopped believing, then I may still believe today. In practice though I just got older, realised that not everyone believed, realised also that the only reason I believed was because everyone around me did, and began to intuitively suspect that in all likelihood that was probably what everyone else was doing.

I was fortunate in that I never got any spiel from my parents about the tortures of hell or the fact that I was born in sin; none of that. If I had then I might have felt too much fear or shame and too much guilt about doubting it to ever be able to get away from it. I got it a bit of it from teachers in school and on a Sunday but I never quite got inundated enough for it to stop me from walking away when I was old enough to think about it properly. Other children aren’t as fortunate though, obviously.

The Present Day: A Wider Perspective

The world is full of varying beliefs – current estimates suggest that there are around 4,200 religions in existence today. This figure is likely to make many people wonder how a person could possibly decide that a single one of these beliefs is accurate, while the other 4,199 are wrong.

Throughout the vast majority of history, people did not have to think about any of this on a regular basis, because people usually lived with other people who had the exact same beliefs as themselves. If people did have to consider that there were people out there with other beliefs, then regarding them as equal and respectful human beings who simply happened to candidly believe in something else would be too much of an existential challenge, and so it didn’t tend to happen. Instead they would be regarded as ‘heathens’, ‘infidels’ or whatever else; lesser people though, in any case. This went on for most of human history, without it being too much of an issue so long as these people generally lived apart from each other.

Things have changed indelibly though. No longer can someone just settle into their cosy little inculcated belief system and live out their days without it being challenged by the realities of the world around them. Never before in human history are we reminded of the fact that our beliefs are just one of a variety as much as we are in the present day. Not only are people constantly reminded of the diversity of beliefs though, but they are now also expected to treat people of all beliefs with parity.

This poses some uncomfortable issues, especially in relation to all-encompassing beliefs like religious ones. If God, for example, believes that we should treat everybody equally, then does that imply that he does so also? In which case, how is it preferable to be a Christian than to not be, so long as you’re happy enough? On the other hand, if a person believes that God will not treat everybody equally, then doesn’t that undermine the aspiration of equality in the material world?

This is coupled with the questions which arise from there simply being so many beliefs in the first place. For example, how can having the one ‘true’ belief be down to anything other than luck, when there are so many out there? Is it not a bit arrogant think that you have stumbled across the one ‘true’ belief, while so many billions have believed candidly and got it so wrong? How can it possibly make sense?

The answer as far as I can see, which seems obvious to me, is that it doesn’t make sense. It simply doesn’t make sense to think that your single belief is the sole correct one without any consideration for the pure chance that lead to you choosing that believe over all the others. It must be said though that I think it is more ignorance than arrogance, because putting their head in the sand and choosing not to think about it seems to be the most common reaction. The problem though is that as different beliefs continue to mingle and collide, the issue is becoming impossible to ignore.

This applies to more or less all areas by which people have traditionally identified themselves though, and not just religion. Political beliefs, national identity, gender roles, sexuality, a career, parenting techniques…you name it, it’s getting questioned. Pluralism is the fabric of life nowadays, and while on the whole it is likely to bring change in all kinds of positive directions, it creates a lot of uncertainty on the individual level.

The essential impact this has is a personal confrontation with the fact that no ‘ism’ or system of thought can any longer be sunk into and be regarded is the absolute, ultimate truth. At least, not without putting blinkers on and cutting much of the complexity and uncertainty of the world out from of one’s awareness.

What will become of a person’s belief itself then, in this context? In my opinion, the most important shift that needs to be made is not necessarily in the detail of what one believes, but in the way in which they do so; in the attitude they have towards belief itself and, consequently, towards life in general.

To elaborate on my point, let me introduce to you to two caricatures: Person A and Person B.

Person A:

“The truth is x. People who disagree with me are wrong, and people who agree with me are right.” Person A, 2016

Some people respond to the increasing dynamism of the real world and the uncertainties that come with it by clinging rigidly to the veneer of certainty that their ‘ism’ gives them like a toddler clinging to an old teddy. Person A is one of those people, and I think they have an attitude which is redundant, out of date, and which furthermore implies a lack of any sense of ownership, responsibility or awareness of their (small and ultimately insignificant) place in the world.

As the world becomes increasingly complex and scary, a great way of simplifying things and assuaging your anxieties is to hold on to a particular belief system to give you a sense of certainty. In order to do this you must block out any insight that threatens to challenge your belief and make you feel uncomfortable. This can be taken to unusual extremes in cases of fundamentalism, but in its mild form I believe it is quite common. Person A exemplifies this attitude but, as discussed in the previous section, living with this attitude is becoming increasingly difficult and people are needing to put their blinkers on even more than ever.

I don’t think this has much to do with what the belief itself is, which is why I’m talking in the abstract and why I think atheists can be like Person A as well as theists. It can also apply to other kinds of beliefs, and not just religious ones. The essential point though is that Person A uses their belief as a crutch; a defence against an uncertain and scary world.

Person A is imprisoned by their belief, because rather than being open to the world and new experience, they have closed themselves off from the world in order to hold onto it. Being imprisoned in this way can give a sort of comfort though – there is a certain reliability and inner consistency in it. Freedom, on the other hand, involves taking responsibility for yourself, which is scary. If you are imprisoned then you have no responsibility, but if you are free then you are confronted with the fact that you are going to have to make responsible decisions on how to live your life. If being imprisoned is preferable to the anxieties, uncertainties and inconsistencies of being a responsible adult in a complex world, then imprisoned a person will remain.

For Person A, having their beliefs questioned is extremely uncomfortable because this poses a challenge to their reality. Lip service may sometimes be paid to the idea of critical analysis, but questioning their beliefs on any kind of genuine level is just too agonising to be tolerated, and such serious conversations on the topic would tend to be avoided at all costs.

If people believe in something because they genuinely feel it to be the best explanation for the world, then they are going to encourage having it questioned because they want to make sure that there isn’t a better way of looking at things out there. If it’s the sense of certainty that appeals more than the truth though, then critical analysis becomes a threat to that certainty and is regarded with scorn. I think then that a good indicator into why a person believes in something is how they respond to having their beliefs questioned.

Person B

“I believe in x, and I believe in it very candidly and find it meaningful. I believe in it based on my interpretation of my experience in the world so far. That is the truth as far as I can see at this moment.” Person B, 2016

This, to me, seems like an appropriate attitude to have towards one’s beliefs in a pluralistic society. First of all, it acknowledges uncertainty as an essential and unavoidable element of life. It expresses a humility in acknowledging that your perspective is exactly that: your perspective, based on what you have learned so far based on your interpretation of your partial experience, which is open to change as you go about your life an learn new things.

This attitude will enable Person B to be be much more dynamic in their life and open to the world around them. They can let the world change their beliefs, and they can respect people of other beliefs and regard them equally as being other people on their own journey. Person A would regard people changing/amending their beliefs as a sign of failure, while Person B would call it learning. Person B can regard those with other beliefs with genuine interest as it gives them an opportunity to learn something new, while Person A would see them as a threat.

With truth as the ultimate aim, Person B has nothing to hide and is likely to actively encourage talking about the ‘big’ questions as they are seen as opportunity to gain new insights and learn something more about the world around them. They have certainly nothing to lose from the process of discussing the beliefs that are most important to them; either they learn something new, or they don’t, and if they don’t then they are simply in the same place as where they started. Either way, talking about it can only add, rather than subtract. Furthermore if beliefs are held with humility, then there is no issue in having them challenged.

With a sense of humility also, Person B is likely to develop an overwhelming sense of curiosity and excitement about the idea of adding to and amending those beliefs as they spend more time living in the world and learning more about it. They may realise that their horizons can be expanded infinitely as they take in new information, and can grow passionate about expanding those horizons in different ways and learning as much as possible throughout their life. And if what they learn changes their current beliefs? Then that is fine, because their current beliefs were always acknowledged as being provisional anyway.

Perhaps expanding these horizons is precisely what gets Person B up in the morning; the idea that who they are at this moment is not the finished product; that they can improve on themselves and add to their understanding in any way they feel motivated to. Perhaps most importantly of all: rather than worrying about their current beliefs being wrong, they assume that they are wrong – and certainly incomplete – and set about living a life which actively tries to challenge them.

Compare this to Person A, who desperately clings to their belief and sees any open discussion of it with people who believe differently to be a potential threat. Person A is very unlikely to be curious about anything of great import, because in order to be curious you must first acknowledge that you don’t know everything already, which itself is an acknowledgement of uncertainty. It’s easy to pity Person A, closed as they must be to the wonders of life and the world around them!

Meanwhile, no matter how much Person B learns and how confident they feel about a particular viewpoint, there is always an awareness that their perspective might be wrong, which keeps them constantly open to new experience and insights. Person B essentially has a fundamentally scientific attitude, which systematically questions its own underlying principles, rather than a dogmatic one, which does not. Person B, like any good scientist, is actively trying to prove themselves wrong.

What about God then?

All this is not to say that a scientific attitude is necessarily opposed to religion or that religious belief is necessarily dogmatic. I do however personally find it difficult to imagine how religious belief would continue with the numbers that it has today if we were to abolish dogma and indoctrination of any kind. If children, for example, were not fed any of it in school or from their parents, and had to discover it purely on their own terms without any coercion or cajoling whatsoever. This could obviously never happen in practice, but if it did then I feel there would be very few children growing up with a belief in God compared to the numbers today. I am also inclined to have a very deep suspicion of anything that seems to rely so much on indoctrinating people in order to survive.

In the above scenario, I think the numbers of believers would be significantly less, although those that did believe would be very candid and congruent about it, having ruminated and come to their decision on an even playing field. Pluralism definitely poses a huge threat to dogmatic thinking and indoctrination though, and I believe that that is a good thing, because people are more likely to believe in things based on thought and reasoning rather than fear, tradition and superstition. To say that this spells the end of faith altogether is completely mistaken though, in my opinion.

The issue is simply how it is going to adapt going forward. One thing that I feel will probably need to happen is that the religious institutions, if they are going to survive into the distant future, would need to focus much more on the practicalities of how people should best live their lives and how they should help other people in the world, rather than each of them focusing on contradictory claims about the nature of the world at large. The latter focus only serves to separate people, as far as I can see.

Going Forward

Spirituality of some kind seems to have existed for as long as we have, and seems to be a fundamental part of human existence. Across all kinds of disparate cultures and traditions, the only examples I can think of where there has been no sense of spirituality whatsoever has been in societies where it has been stifled by oppression. It seems fair to say that it is here to stay then, although in precisely what guise we can only speculate.

To think that current beliefs and practices will not evolve further in the future, or to believe that the specific beliefs and practices people have today are the ‘right’ ones on some important objective level though, is a very ‘Person A’ way of looking at the situation in my opinion, and I think it is unhelpful. 500 years from now, if any of the current major religions still exist, they will undoubtedly be followed very differently to how they are today. It seems to me that the specific beliefs and practices aren’t so important then, but rather the personal meaning that people find in them.

A person’s relationship with their spiritual side is unavoidably based on a mixture of their personality, their life history, and the cultural context in which they live. A person who is now a Christian could easily be a Muslim if they were born in Afghanistan, or an atheist if they were born in Soviet Russia, or believe in Zeus and Apollo if they were born in Ancient Greece. Even though a person might find their specific beliefs extremely meaningful, I believe that people need to find the humility to be consciously aware of this fact.

If we can consider that people with different specific beliefs may actually be feeling the same base-level feeling as we do when we have a spiritual experience; if we can consider that our connection to God (whatever that word means to us) is filtered through or own personal lens; then we can maintain a way of looking at things which, at it’s very foundation, has a fundamental respect for all beliefs and is inclusive of all human beings.