A Conundrum

One of the foundations of my atheism is that the structure of religion is rather illogical. It's a zero-sum game, where only one faith is considered to be correct (unless you happen to be Unitarian, I suppose). But then, the faith is locally grown. Why would God let a random portion of the world into salvation early and ignore the rest? Surely an omnipotent being would know that people would be brought up so securely in these "false religions" that he is merely forcing them to go to hell as it is hard to truly change such fundamental parts of your person?

Occam's Razor and Anthropology classes lead me to believe that we made it all up in order to feel better about death and other things that are beyond our control (natural disasters, birth defects, etc), as well as another authority to appeal to to keep people under control (both maliciously, and not maliciously). It's comforting to think of a being that likes you, and will help you, even though your crops were just ruined and your beloved grandmother has died. She's in a better place now.

I'm certain this, and other aspects of religion that I've spoken about before, are part of why people don't do so well with it given a certain amount of thought.

But, for me, it cannot be so cut and dry. I know a lot of scientific atheists that not only mock faith, but also close their minds to anything, well, supernatural rather completely.

I'm left with a touch of confusion at times. I know rationally that there is a part of myself that wants the self-induced high of faith (I can call up the same feeling you're supposed to get from, say, prayer with little difficulty). Religion feeds upon this part of the mind. Now, this part of the mind is exceedingly powerful. It can help recovery. Meditation and visualization exercises (also known as biofeedback) can help relieve the pain, especially that of migraines (my husband and I both know this from personal experience). I'm rather sure that we don't always give the mind as much credit as it deserves, and it is a rather powerful part of ourselves.

People leave an impression upon me, an underlying feel to them that I can compare with others and even talk about these similarities between people. My husband has answered questions before they have even been asked. If I'm not distracted, I know if people are in the immediate vicinity even if they aren't making noise and I cannot see them. I can read emotions rather well. Areas have specific, constant feels. I know within an hour if I'll be close friends with someone. There's something tangible about these experiences on occasion, something that feels more emotional than rational.

Now, a lot of this can be explained away. For instance, a lot of empathy is merely being able to read people's tones, expressions, the million little hints of body language. Sharing the feeling or having others react to it (for instance, one person being grumpy makes the other grumpy in short order, or sad, etc) is likely some psychological response in close relationships. Answering questions before they are asked can be a sort of ability to read body language and context well enough to make the connections and answer an unasked question. Logically, all of these things likely has an answer in our subconscious.

Also, I'm not all new-age-whatever. If people use, say, the Tarot, I don't think it's a mystical force, but that it is something to help people think about things with some direction. A guide that they create. It's the same way for anything that are phrased so broadly that anyone can read into them (see, for instance, horoscopes). The meaning is something you pour into a ready-made mold. Anything deeper is something that I'm not going to read into it without much more proof, as much as I like the idea in a secret part of myself.

I've read a beautiful essay on how it is possible to be spiritual, but not religious. There is a part of everyone that is capable of appreciating beautiful things with awe. How incredible it is for us to have come from literally nothing, and made all of this! I know there are places that have such an aura, so to speak, about them that I find myself feeling what is generally called a "religious experience" as I feel more at peace and just appreciate the beauty of it (Nara's Todaiji temple complex is one of these places for me). We aren't just beings of rational thought, and spirituality honestly encapsulates that second part of our nature.

I don't believe in any sort of god. It's not only improbable, but almost an insult to my existence and the wonder of how it has come so far from so little. A part of me yearns for the supernatural I read in my fantasy novels, but I know that there really isn't much of a supernatural world of magic and beasties.

But, I have had some of those coincidences people talk about when they speak of how they know God is there for them. I think a lot of us have had them. I don't take them as evidence of the existence of the supernatural, so to speak. Whatever there is of the supernatural is not outside of our understanding, even if it goes beyond explanation now (though there is little that fits that mold currently).

This is rather hard to express, I suppose.

There's a lot about our spiritual nature that we don't really know yet. The mind is more powerful than we give it credit for, I think. And, I feel that this part is not open for discussion amongst the atheist community. Though, at the same time, I have to wonder if some of this is wishful thinking. I cannot subscribe wholeheartedly to the rational approach, though I still live in a state of flux as to how I feel about the non-rational things in life. How much of these realities do we create? Are any of them able to do so much more? Have I really read too much paranormal fantasy?

But, at the end of the day, I can't ignore the more instinctual, emotional aspects of my existence. I just don't know what to do with them. I don't know if they are really welcome in what we call the atheist community. There are some I read that strike me as close-minded and intolerant as the faithful they mock (though I'm biased and will usually say "deservedly so").

I suppose, in the end, that while rationality is, in my opinion, the best basis for philosophy, it simply cannot be the end-all-be-all.