Asking the question - "does God exist?" - is kind of pointless, because in reality, it has never been a question of whether some arguable historical sectarian definition of the word ‘God’ exists, but rather a question of whether life has any higher meaning that can be derived from a cosmic purpose.
So when the question is instead asked - "does life have any higher meaning that can be derived from a cosmic purpose?" - you find that the respondents are no longer divided along the lines of the secular and religious, because many secularists are also humanist idealists who believe that life does have some kind of higher meaning, even if they are unprepared to define the cosmic source of this meaning.
Those who are not idealists and who do not believe in higher meanings are often scientifically-minded freethinkers who rely on having irrefutable evidence before committing to any belief. However, because the idea of cosmic purpose is so heavily associated with dubious sectarian definitions of God, many scientifically-minded freethinkers become reactionary atheists. They often ignore the fact that there is insufficient evidence to dismiss the possibility that life may have some higher meaning, and so their beliefs become based on irrational skepticism and blind faith in meaninglessness rather than on the scientific rationalism that they so vocally claim to follow.
There is a belief system, however, that can bring secular and religious thinkers together. Evolutionary Metaphysics combines scientific thinking with the best scriptural wisdom from each religious tradition. Rather than choosing to believe or disbelieve in cosmic purpose, it proposes that we understand both possibilities and thoroughly examine them both to their eventual conclusions.
Choosing to be either a Christian or an atheist then becomes an existential choice not derived from ignorance or reactionary skepticism, but rather from understanding the possibilities, and choosing what metaphysical worldview and moral idealism best suits your sensitivities, knowing that other choices can be equally valid as long as they are also derived from the same underlying contemplation.
Re: Evolutionary Metaphysics
If I understand you correctly, you seem to imply that believing in God and believing that there is a "cosmic purpose" are equal. I don’t agree. At the end of your argument, it’s still really about us, isn’t it? "Choosing what metaphysical worldview and moral idealism best suits your sensitivities".
If there is a God - a Creator, then it’s no longer about us - but about Him. It’s a message of self-denial and acceptance of the greater Truth.
Also, belief in a truth should be motivated by the reality of that truth - not the positive or negative effects of belief. To say that you gain equal benefit from believing in God or just believing that we exist for a reason cannot be - if the truth is that there is a God.
Re: Evolutionary Metaphysics
The truth is that if this universe was brought into existence by some kind of purposeful process, for example, if it was created by some kind of God, then it is likely that our human consciousness evolved to fulfil some kind of cosmic purpose. But if this universe was brought into existence by a purposeless process, as many atheists believe, then the evolution of human consciousness would have been an unplanned accident of nature and we would have no cosmic purpose.
If the ‘Truth’ for you rests entirely upon your particular religious sect’s interpretation of their chosen scriptures, and if that suits you, then as long as you don’t go around oppressing or hurting others, your faith would be a socially acceptable choice. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. The truth is that your beliefs are just one of a number of different possibilities. I am not suggesting that you change your beliefs, but I would suggest that a wise person would make sure that they were aware of what the other possibilities were too.
The discipline of Evolutionary Metaphysics attempts to examine and describe every possibility. But you will only be able to accept this way of thinking if you are the sort of person who appreciates the value of science and is open minded to the idea of evolution.
If you can understand all of the possibilities and still choose to believe what you believe, then your faith cannot be criticized by anybody. But if you are unaware of the other possibilities, then your blind faith is highy questionable.
Re: Evolutionary Metaphysics
Xen, you wrote, "If the ‘Truth’ for you rests entirely upon your particular religious sect’s interpretation of their chosen scriptures, and if that suits you, then as long as you don’t go around oppressing or hurting others, your faith would be a socially acceptable choice."
I wonder, where does "as long as you don’t go around oppressing or hurting others" come from? As you state it, it seems to be a final rule of thumb or a final principle that legitimates a belief system. Why does that principle make a belief system socially acceptable?
I, too, would have to take exception to the statment from your first post. As far as Christianity goes, I don’t think the cross suits anyone. That’s why it’s been considered foolishness and weak for so long. There is no way to prove it’s worth, but we take it up by faith.
Re: Evolutionary Metaphysics
"But believing in something doesn’t make it true." So, scientifically, NOT believing in something doesn’t make it NOT true. (That’s the extent of my alegebraic knowledge ;)
If you want to try to figure out every possibility, good luck. Maybe a giant cosmic squirrel gave birth to an alien named Zeus who populated the earth by mating with small but ultra-intelligent ring-tailed monkeys.
We can never understand all the possibilities - there are too many. Our search for truth takes us where it takes us. In the end, faith is an element to whatever you believe. It takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as it takes to believe there is. It’s just that the faith is in different things.
I choose not to put too much faith in how smart people are. On top of that, I am unable to look around at creation and everything in it and believe it is a meaningless accident. If that’s what you believe, OK. It seems like a very depressing idea, but if that’s what you’ve come up with, who am I to argue with you.
I would consider though - what if you are wrong? You just told me to be open to other ideas. Right back atcha. Have you thoroughly studies the Christian scriptures and the teachings of Jesus?
Incidentally, I’m pretty familiar with the major religions, and to me - Christ is just different. His teachings and life were the most profound I’ve ever experienced, both in idea and in action. My faith isn’t built totally on the Bible or doctrine. There’s an element of personal experience that defies science or logic.