As humanity turns towards atheism and moves away from Christianity (at least in the West), I have often pondered the startling realization that our nation was founded on the very ideals that God existed and granted us natural rights. Moving away from these original ideals pulls the rug out from underneath our nation, challenging the very rights that we promote every day. Now that many are moving towards a belief system in which God does not exist, the question of who/what gives us those inalienable rights emerges. Can we maintain those rights without them being divinely ordained?
I do believe, however, that even without a God to look to as the provider of our rights, we can find immense inspiration in the truth of our surroundings. Inherently, it can appear that an atheistic point of view on the world is pessimistic. I would argue that it’s an incredibly empowering philosophy for human kind. Without a god that intervenes with the actions of humans across the globe, the world as we know it becomes putty in the hands of collective humanity — able to be molded to fit our philosophies on life. The question of whether we can trust humans (and eventually artificial intelligence) to mold this world is at the forefront of extensive discussion in the 21st century. And this question can’t be answered without a proper understanding of human nature.
I find discussions trying to silo humanity into “good” or “bad” as a collective as an utter waste of time. While there may be some objective “good” that we can strive for, experience, chance, and genetics are the primary drivers of human behavior. Humans are neither objectively good nor bad, they are simply the adjectives we assign them.
I have recently noticed an error in my own approach to the world in that I believed there are two forces that should govern the world: rationality and religion — rationality to help us reason through problems that we can measure and thus can be studied through the scientific method and religion to help us solve problems that can’t be studied by the scientific method. However, my view of religion is narrowed to established western religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. My knowledge regarding eastern ones is scant and thus I am necessarily constrained to view religion wholly through the lens of the big 3 I mentioned.
Yet, in my brief flirtation with Daoism years ago, I found a religion that was much more easy to stomach than the teachings of the Christianity I grew up in. I found a similar feeling when I read of the logos of the ancient Stoics. And in my reading on psychadelics and the spiritual revelations of psychadelic experiences, I found a similar theme. Instead of denouncing religion whole-heartedly (which, as I got closer and closer to science, I did more and more), I realized that religion is not stagnant. It must be adapted to those things that we cannot yet (or may never be able to measure) such as human consciousness. When Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk if consciousness permeates all matter, Musk pointed to the fact that it couldn’t be tested by the scientific method. This is where we cannot relinquish religion — it involves speculation and faith. And until we can test it (if we ever can), we can only take our best guess.
