We see the constant debate between the religious and non-religious. It seems to go in circles. Conclusions never reached and minds never changed. What directly draws them apart is not the belief in God itself but mainly the trivialities associated with religion. A little closer look at the arguments surrounding the never ending debate and you’ll see they’re a lot more similar than it seems.
The arguments that are consistently seen revolve around the religion’s themselves(doctrine, stories and myth), the way the God is particularly conceptualised, the idea of God itself, and then the logical inconsistencies.
Both sides have a big blind spot of what they’re actually fighting over.
First, the religious. Grounding their spirituality in the religion rather than just having it(because the religion brought on the feelings). They genuinely believe in what they call 'God'. This belief is truly felt, and that’s why they go around with such conviction. It’s a real feeling, that most will have sometime in their life(not always associated with God) but they interpret the feeling as an embodiment of the religion.
This is what the atheists fail to see, as explained, the religion itself doesn’t make the people believe, the feeling associated does. So they attack the religion, and because the religious think their faith is specifically because of the religion itself, which it is partly, they defend, no matter how inconsistent their arguments, they will continue to fight because they’re justifying a very real feeling or truth through it.
Seeing the arguments surrounding particularly the concept of God, this is where the similarities are found. “If everything needs a creator who created God?” The response, “God is self-existing/has always existed/doesn’t need a creator.” There’s an obvious contradiction. But explore this a little deeper, they’re using the same argument as the atheist, they’re just expressing their ‘faith’ towards a different thing. God instead of the universe itself.
The religious say God is self-existing, the atheists, that the universe is, or that they don’t know. They're the same things. They choose to personify the complex, ‘intelligent’ workings of the universe into God. The atheist sees it more rationally but still believes the same thing.
This whole special “feeling” mentioned before could be compared to the concept of meaning. Now specifically when it comes to the people that ‘don’t know’. This is the difference between believing in meaning/having meaning and not. Not knowing means you’re still chasing an answer, trying to find some origin. Not realising that it doesn’t matter how long you trace the trail of existence it’ll never accurately explain why it exists to you, not through any sort of straight-forward logic anyway.
Now, totally disregarding the religious and non-religious. Instead, breaking it down to the game of meaning. Some have found it in life, atheists, religious and everything in between. And others haven’t, whether religious or not.
Although the reason religion is such a widespread concept in human culture, is because it illicit’s meaning. Well, used to, before we became all rationale. Instead of having to go find or create this meaning, out in the world. It’s explained. Most widespread religions have a well-structured framework to bring on this feeling of meaning or at least the conceptualisation. Through all its stories, metaphors and so on. A hack to life, an understanding of what, at first glance seems like complete randomness(or is). It may not be 100% right, but is usually more right than wrong.
So when seeing the debates of both sides, trying to convince one another their ’truth’, it’s essentially a useless endeavour. Not only because they believe the same thing most of the time but also, atheists are fighting to break down what brought the religious to that awareness of meaning or ’spirituality’. Then the religious are trying to bring on or explain a very personal experience to the atheist, which is impossible.
When it comes to the ones that don’t know, sometimes what will create this 'meaning realisation' is when someone is opened to the other perspective(rationale or religious). Other times the realisation just comes going through life, putting it all together. Or a mix of both.
So maybe the arguing isn’t completely pointless after all.
The arguments that are consistently seen revolve around the religion’s themselves(doctrine, stories and myth), the way the God is particularly conceptualised, the idea of God itself, and then the logical inconsistencies.
Both sides have a big blind spot of what they’re actually fighting over.
First, the religious. Grounding their spirituality in the religion rather than just having it(because the religion brought on the feelings). They genuinely believe in what they call 'God'. This belief is truly felt, and that’s why they go around with such conviction. It’s a real feeling, that most will have sometime in their life(not always associated with God) but they interpret the feeling as an embodiment of the religion.
This is what the atheists fail to see, as explained, the religion itself doesn’t make the people believe, the feeling associated does. So they attack the religion, and because the religious think their faith is specifically because of the religion itself, which it is partly, they defend, no matter how inconsistent their arguments, they will continue to fight because they’re justifying a very real feeling or truth through it.
Seeing the arguments surrounding particularly the concept of God, this is where the similarities are found. “If everything needs a creator who created God?” The response, “God is self-existing/has always existed/doesn’t need a creator.” There’s an obvious contradiction. But explore this a little deeper, they’re using the same argument as the atheist, they’re just expressing their ‘faith’ towards a different thing. God instead of the universe itself.
The religious say God is self-existing, the atheists, that the universe is, or that they don’t know. They're the same things. They choose to personify the complex, ‘intelligent’ workings of the universe into God. The atheist sees it more rationally but still believes the same thing.
This whole special “feeling” mentioned before could be compared to the concept of meaning. Now specifically when it comes to the people that ‘don’t know’. This is the difference between believing in meaning/having meaning and not. Not knowing means you’re still chasing an answer, trying to find some origin. Not realising that it doesn’t matter how long you trace the trail of existence it’ll never accurately explain why it exists to you, not through any sort of straight-forward logic anyway.
Now, totally disregarding the religious and non-religious. Instead, breaking it down to the game of meaning. Some have found it in life, atheists, religious and everything in between. And others haven’t, whether religious or not.
Although the reason religion is such a widespread concept in human culture, is because it illicit’s meaning. Well, used to, before we became all rationale. Instead of having to go find or create this meaning, out in the world. It’s explained. Most widespread religions have a well-structured framework to bring on this feeling of meaning or at least the conceptualisation. Through all its stories, metaphors and so on. A hack to life, an understanding of what, at first glance seems like complete randomness(or is). It may not be 100% right, but is usually more right than wrong.
So when seeing the debates of both sides, trying to convince one another their ’truth’, it’s essentially a useless endeavour. Not only because they believe the same thing most of the time but also, atheists are fighting to break down what brought the religious to that awareness of meaning or ’spirituality’. Then the religious are trying to bring on or explain a very personal experience to the atheist, which is impossible.
When it comes to the ones that don’t know, sometimes what will create this 'meaning realisation' is when someone is opened to the other perspective(rationale or religious). Other times the realisation just comes going through life, putting it all together. Or a mix of both.
So maybe the arguing isn’t completely pointless after all.
