Okay, this is about belief. Not what I believe in specific, but what I think about believing. And I’m not talking about trust, or lying, per say. I’m talking about cultural, religious, moral beliefs.

Let’s face it, we all have them. Even atheists believe in something ... they just happen to believe in the absence of something. And Gnostics believe in something they can’t name. That being said I suppose religion is the place of believe to start this conversation. So, some definitions:

Atheist – a person who believes there is no higher power, no god, no divine. Incorrectly referred to as a non-believer.
Gnostic – a person who believes there is a higher power, god, or divine and that as humans we lack the knowledge and perception to name, classify, or identify this divine.
Monotheistic – a person who believes in a single god or divine being. The Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) fall into this category.
Polytheistic – a person who believes in multiple gods or divine beings. Hinduism and some forms of Buddhism (originating in China) as well as Druidism, and several other “dead” religions fall into this category.
Spiritualist – a person who believes in a single, or multiple, higher power(s), god(s), or divine being(s) but does not believe in “religion” as it is presented by any organized group.
(There are others such as existentialism, and science [not scientology] but I’m focusing on the above definitions)

So, since we all have an opinion on religion we all have a belief. And this is not an argument about which belief is better than the next (I hate that argument because I’m always outnumbered and get shouted down) – I am arguing one simple belief: if we all have them why fight over them?

What is so wrong with being a member of an organized believe system that everyone who’s Atheist, Gnostic, Spiritualist, or a scientist has to attack these members? (By the way, don’t scientists, and Gnostics, and most Spiritualists follow a basically organized series of traditions, rituals, and yes, believes?)

Okay, I understand that organized religions have fought wars with each other for dominance since well before the rise of the Roman Empire (Jewish history is rife with examples of this era). I understand that people have done horrible things in the name of religion. They’ve also done horrible things in the name of science, politics, nationalism, and anarchy.

I understand that religions are considered by some to be archaic, restricting, and out-of-touch. How old, exactly, is democracy? What about theocracy? We still have that too. What about government in general? We’ve had government in its most basic form since we first gathered into tribes and bands. What about laws? Don’t they restrict your freedom to do whatever the hell you want? Don’t they impose some semblance of a moral code on the people? As for out-of-touch ... what until you retire and you’ll find you too are out of touch with the teens and young adults of the day.

I understand that there is no proof. There is no evidence. And therefore it is assumed there is no truth, no accuracy, no rational behind any of it. (Read Douglas Adams for a great argument on faith vs. Proof, it’s quite funny really). If something fails every known test for detection, does it exist? I can’t answer this one, sorry. I think faith has its place, it’s useful and everyone needs a little of it now and then.

Having said that I understand all that, am I missing any other arguments against organized believe?

Moral believes. These are the believes we each have about what is right and what is wrong. Let me note that there is a difference between “right and wrong” and “legal and illegal” for a lot of people. Now your moral beliefs may be shaped by the law. They may also be shaped by religion.

For the most part I feel moral beliefs are a better guideline than law (with the exception of those people who lack a moral compass or whose moral compass does not point “North”). I understand that I am saying moral beliefs are only right if they do not fall too far outside of the norm. But I assume (and that is dangerous) that most people would agree that killing someone is morally wrong (with the exception of self-defence or the defence of a loved one – and for some people assisted suicide falls into this exception as well).

Our basic moral belief system includes ideas about theft (when, if at all, is it okay to take something that does not belong to you without asking and without the intent of returning it in a state the same as or better than you took it?), death (when is it okay to kill another human? when is it alright to kill an animal, and which animals?), truth (when is it okay to omit or alter the truth? what counts as a “good” lie and what counts as a “bad” lie?), and injury (when is it okay to harm another human or animal? when is it okay to cause harm to oneself? does it matter if that harm is intentional or accidental?). There are some grey areas between the four “categories”, especially between truth and theft (think politics, business etc) and injury and death. There is also the subject of emotional injury caused by an physical act, or something said or not said (you accidently run over my fiancé with your car. You’ve caused his death and my emotional injury. Is my emotional well-being part of your moral code?).

The norm states that theft is bad, killing humans is bad (with the exception of defence – a remnant of our kill or be killed survival instinct), killing animals for food or out of compassion is good, killing animals for “sadistic” sport is bad (hunting for trophies ... is that a grey area here?), lying is a grey area based around the result – if it results in injury (physical or emotional) or death it is bad, otherwise it may serve a good purpose, hurting others is bad (with the exception again of defence), hurting ourselves is a grey area (this includes ideas on the acceptability or drug and alcohol use, self-abuse, self-mutilation, and suicide). Those outside the norm are considered sadistic, or psychotic.

Is it a good thing that we do not accept any wide deviation from the moral norm? Should we be as free about moral beliefs as we are about religious beliefs?

As for cultural beliefs, they are all wrapped up in what I’ve already said as culture is the accumulated practices, beliefs, traditions, rituals, and knowledge of a group of people defined by a regional or political boundary, an organization, or an age group. Cultural beliefs are complicated. Mine, as an example, include Dutch, Belgian, German, Catholic, Mennonite, Canadian, Democratic, 2nd generation after the last World War, University Educated, Private Schooled, Public Schooled, and Rural. I’ve had to blend these into a mixture that was acceptable to me, drawing on the cultural teachings of each to create my own values and beliefs. And we each do the same thing. We take in, sort, and discard or accept hundreds of thousands of pieces of information everyday.

Anyway, that’s my belief about belief.