Religious, atheistic, agnostic. To be honest, I do not like any of these words. I think religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are such a personal, private thing. I’ve always figured I was an atheist/agnostic, but having a label like that really bothers me, because it sometimes seems like a religion…which defeats the purpose. And I’ve noticed lately the atheistic community can sometimes be as frustrating as the religious communities, trying to convert people. I think people should believe what ever they would like to, as long as it does not harm or even affect others. I don’t feel my beliefs can or should be explained with just a word.
I think that all the religions in the world today were created by people. Not by any superhuman being or “god”. Therefore they (and God(s)) are pure fiction, that people choose to have faith in because it makes them feel safer, better, more “good”, or because they are scared not to believe. Anthropologically speaking, the definition of religion is answering the “why?” questions we as curious humans have pondered. And to answer these questions, I turn to logic and facts. Does that make my religion science?
I do not believe in God in the sense of any existing religion. That makes me, technically, an atheist. But I also acknowledge that it is impossible to determine what exists and what does not. So then I become agnostic. It’s hard to determine what exactly I am, but I don’t care about the label. Science itself admits that it cannot ever be fully explained. Theories are only fact until someone disproves them. That’s one thing I love about science: it admits that it makes mistakes! It is not always correct, and allows change as new discoveries are made. Unlike religion, which strives for rigidity even when times change, science is not afraid to adapt. I base my beliefs on truth, not faith.
“Theories are only fact until someone disproves them.”
Theories are never fact; they are only theory. They are fact once they’ve been proven, and then they are no longer theories. I think the problem with theories is that they are often presented as fact, and people start to think the theories are infallible, not realizing/believing/remembering that a theory is just something that people think might be true, but hasn’t been proven one way or the other.
“That’s one thing I love about science: it admits that it makes mistakes!”
This reminds me of the episode of Friends where Phoebe tells Ross that she doesn’t believe in evolution. Ross tells her she has to believe in evolution because it’s fact, there’s evidence. Phoebe’s response is “Could you just open your mind like this much? Now wasn’t there a time when the brightest minds in the world thought it was flat? And up until like what, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing until you split it open and this whole mess of crap came out. Now are you telling me that you are so unbelievable arrogant that you can’t admit that there’s a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?” (I am a Friends geek so I did just go look up the episode so I could quote it properly)
That being said, I think everything, even science and its hard-proven “facts,” require a leap of faith – the faith that it is true.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you…!
Thanks for the correction, I know I used the wrong word. I meant that some theories (like the theory of gravity) are so universally accepted that most people accept them as truth. Yet there is always the possibility of them being wrong. Sorry for the mixup!
P.S. I love Friends!!!
P.P.S I LOVE LOVE FRIENDS! Especially in theological / scientific situations