Like all of preceding time, we are at an unprecedented time in human history. Quite interesting in my opinion, above all else is the current state of the religious/spiritual condition. This is especially true of the organizational standpoint associated therein.

But more on that later.

Before beginning any such discussion, though, I should begin by speaking of the leading factor contributing to today’s stances on the spiritual condition, namely science. While I have to adhere to a great many discoveries which have led to the improvement of the human condition and life in all manners, I see much to refute about the role science plays in disproving the spiritual. Let me first cite the understanding that all that is not scientific is spiritual. Likewise, all which is not spiritual must be scientific. While I don’t see much need to clarify, it seems anything which can neither be proved by scientific means (yet) nor denied on an either logical or intellectual level, the two are almost entirely bound to the same renderings, must be called spiritual.

And it is to anyone who pushes to deny such happenings simply on the grounds that they are “spiritual” that I offer my first point.

This is that in no logical way can science or any scientific means be used to cultivate the argument that something which can not be proven not be possible. By definition, science is a method. Again, it need not bear clarification, but a method for the greater understanding of the world around us.

So, by definition, to declare something impossible on the grounds of science, or, for the sake of making the argument more complex, scientific evidence is illogical, if only on the grounds that such evidence can and will most likely change. Declaring such is also, by definition, declaring that we as a conscious whole have nothing left to learn of the laws of the universe. Such a statement I find akin to a child, who looked out of all the windows of a house and ascertained that there is nothing left to see in the world.

Furthermore, given that science only improves upon “our”, in the most general of human senses, understanding of the world, it is entirely not our place to delineate what is impossible and what is not from the very start.

For those who would reproach this point on the basis that it provides a frame of reference, I would state that to declare such things is to close _____ doors. Logical, spiritual, emotional, and any other way possible. And to do so is never a beneficial thing. As it is, the best reason which I can fathom for doing so would be the protection from malignant factors, to keep out of the darkness, if you will.

But I must disagree. For even in the darkness we can learn about the light, and further engage an appreciation for it. What more frame of reference need we than that?

Looking at the past few millennia in terms of major human milestones, it is quite easy to see many manifestations of religion. This applies in both good and bad consequences. From the Renaissance to our views on slavery, many a thing has come as a result of religion. And the truth is, many other things also came from the result of those things.

So having stated my logical approach to science and the spiritual, I can begin the recourse on the state of the day’s religious condition. In doing so, let me first state that I will not bother with terms (ie atheist, agnostic) so much as the broader ideas growing amongst the tension of the religious and/or the non-religious. So it seems a debate might arise centered around an unanswerable question.

Is the world a better place without religion?

Bearing in mind first that, in 2011*, it seems as if the religious infatuation is beginning to grow weary, perhaps as an effect of the media age. Options grew too quickly, and technology takes away from the “experience.”

Before starting, religion need be defined as well. A system of beliefs does not count unless inspired by a more popular system of beliefs. General fondness for humanity is likewise different. Perhaps the best way to encapsulate the pedigree of religion is to say that set rules (written or verbal) have been put forth. This would cover Christianity, Hebrew and Muslim, three of the worlds major religions, as well as some of the older Middle Eastern religions. Beyond that set of rules, a religion need have enlightened ones (or the servants of the message). Priests, pastors, shamans, ministers.

Religion’s Utility within the Human Timeline

Those two characteristics will be my landmark when using the word “religion.” So why do I deem religion to be useful in the human timeline?

First, it is a sound example of higher reasoning. Perhaps the best documented one. It was a step forward into the philosophical realm. The ideas that were implicitly inserted into the Egyptian Gods and the Greek and Roman myths before them showed what the mind could conceive of. Without that first step, could we be where we are today? I submit not, without using these ideas we’ve learned through the development and evolution of religion.

It can also be stated that, regardless of time, religious thought was in fact bound to happen. The ideals imposed with religion are far less significant for most people when compared to the overall question it answers.

“Why are we here?”

A deity tends to loosen that rope a bit. At least enough to maintain a sanity you never knew about

before. While it could be argued that without religion we wouldn’t know about any need for sanity, it is likely to be discovered simultaneously with the inevitable notion of a creator.

Nevertheless, ideals are something which will have the longest overall contribution by religion, and on those grounds, the best. But to cover this we will need to look at two things. First is the diminishment of importance to the aforementioned question about life. People, it seems, have become very desensitized. To the point where death only hurts if it’s near us. It only REGISTERS when it’s near us. This is the case for many reasons. You name it: video games, propaganda, lower death rates. It’s true, people die less nowadays. And by the time they do they are so old that to know it you had to be dead. So it’s hard for deaths (at least of elderly) to be acknowledged by a great-grandchild or grandchild.

So with the decline, people have gotten sick of the question. They have heard it too much.

“Why are we here?”

“There’s no answer.”

“Okay, how do I act?”

(see religious texts)

Besides the truths already mentioned about the GOODS of religion, I should also discuss the bad.

Throughout history, religion has brought havoc upon the masses. Thousands upon millions dead in the Renaissance, millions more in the Holocaust alone. I speak plainly, but only to make it sound so much more terse. And worse. Even the slaughtering of millions of Indians on the plains and in the forests of North America was partly to blame on religion.

But do all wars begin or end solely because of religion? Of course not. There are plenty of wars based on far different things. The American Civil War for example, had no basis in religious causes. Neither do many political wars over land (Korea in the early 1900’s) or political ideology (The Cold War).

Can we really assume less war would happen without religion? Perhaps it could have been more. On suppositional grounds, people without religion to set them apart could easily use something else (see: KKK), like race. Or why not language? Or sexual orientation? In fact, the religious ideals could have been used to stymie wars.

Persecution may also be given as a negative to religion. Many people with religion can be persecuted for that, (see: Holocaust). This would certainly be embrazened as one of its negative points. But to this I would counter that persecution is most accurately the other side of the stick being held when at war.

This point can double its use when considering persecution, like reasons for conflict, can be attributed to many things. To think religion is their only, or even their biggest, cause is naive and erroneous.

A few millennia has given us a large sample of human behavior. As a debate to its place in history, religion earns not a favorable, but necessary one.

---

* The year in which this essay was written.