misanthropy is rising

subject: ignorance, religion, arguments
style: intellectual
source: Albert Einstein

"Only two things are infinite,

the universe and human stupidity,

and I'm not sure about the former."

[Post begun on listed date;

completed on 4.29, 20:25.]

My misanthropy level is rising.

It has been quite a long while since I actually took the time to write anything noteworthy concerning religion. Nowadays I normally aim to stay away from getting into arguments about religion with religious people, because I have found that their minds are typically so terribly melded that you have trouble making any sense out of what they have to say, and even if you can, they certainly are not going to even remotely accept your input, and it will just end up turning into a huge fiasco where everybody hates one another's guts, so it is usually best to just stay away from them altogether and not even make the smallest attempt to voice your doubts of their righteousness. But today's little encounter has given me the inspiration I needed to speak out once again. And I suppose it might be worthwhile to hold an argument with a nonreligious person who happens to disagree with me, so I might as well give it a shot.

Allow me to start by saying that, when I made that statement today, I was not looking to start up a full-fledged debate. She said she wanted to know what it feels like to have blind faith. I said she wanted to know what it feels like to be ignorant. I was simply restating her point in different words. I suppose I presumed the fact that blind faith is characterized by ignorance was common sense. I still believe it is; but I apologize for assuming the average person is characterized by common sense.

For the record, I was not in the most ideal situation to be winning an argument. I was basically pitted against four or five other people; and it is not my nature in the first place to debate, let alone am I capable of fending off several opponents at once. I am willing to admit that I am not particularly good at oral arguments, and I should not be penalized for this reason. More importantly, I find that far too often, I am put down for not coming up with a retort for a certain statement right away. I can only assume that this is how everyone is treated in argument. Is it so terrible that I would rather think over my answer before I respond, so that I am relatively certain I believe in what I am saying, than blurt out the first comeback that pops into my head, while I am able to stand by my own statement only halfheartedly ? I think not.

In fact, now that I think about it, this must be a major reason for all the ignorance and lack of logic in the world. People always think they need to have an answer for every question as quickly as possible, often within moments, and they become so obsessed with beating their rivals to the punch that they never take the time to actually think through their reasoning and come up with a quality stance.

But as I have said, I am not one of those people. Which is why I infinitely prefer writing a long-winded rant about something than getting into a real-time battle of words with someone in which I am expected to rush to conclusions at every step of the way. So now I get my way.

Also notice that I never claimed ignorance was a bad thing. No, not at all. It certainly has its perks. Ignorance, as they say, can be blissful. And in fact, I myself would love to be able to experience what it feels like to be ignorant, under the condition, of course, that I could return to my original enlightened state when I had had enough. But this condition, of course, is unlikely in a real-life scenario, because it appears (from my experience) that once you submit to passive thought and naivete, it is quite a task to dig yourself back out.

Ignorance can by all means be positive. And it follows that I was not making, nor did I intend to make, any negative or defamatory statement regarding either a specific religion or the institute of established religion in general. It just so happens that I am not particularly fond of religion, but that is entirely separate and has little to no bearing on the issue at hand.

In fact, I made a mental connection recently that provided a little bit of insight, regarding Panic at the Disco. A great number of people really don't like Panic at the Disco or their music, and disapprove of anything associated with their name. Meanwhile, I happen to view them as my favorite band. What several other people detest, I spend time with on a daily basis. I immerse myself in the brilliance of their music, and I typically find it to be a fascinating, heartwarming, enriching experience. Perhaps the same, or a similar, statement can be said about religion. It works for some people, manages to make them happy, but for others it has an entirely contrary effect; and this is not something that necessarily needs to be reconciled. But the dispute here is not whether religion is a good thing.

The statement in question is, by extension, that "believing in God is ignorant."

"Ignorant" is defined by the modern Random House Dictionary as:

• lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned
  
• lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
  
• uninformed; unaware
  
• due to or showing lack of knowledge or training
  

Someone who believes in God [or a god] by blind faith (and considering the overwhelming lack of evidence, I do not see any other manner by which to believe in God) assumes that what she is told by her religious leaders is the truth, without requesting any proof, without looking into it for herself, without taking into consideration the countless other options (namely, all the other religions of the world). She believes because she has been told to believe. The sole factor driving her to implant her faith in Catholicism (for example) and not in any other religion is peer pressure. She has been told, by people she looks up to and trusts, the same allegations over and over so many times that they have been reinforced in her mind as truths. It works on the same principles that convince young children to believe, without a doubt in their mind, that Santa Claus drops in through their chimney once a year and gives them presents, along with all the other good kids of the world. Children believe what their parents believe, almost without fail; especially when they are "taught" what to believe in church on a regular basis. The same process occurs with political beliefs and ideologies; it's called political socialization. Their minds are melded at an early age, while they are still considerably weak and naive, so that when they reach a more self-conscious age at which they can make their own decisions, the major ideological and sectarian choices have already been made for them, and they stand by their beliefs as faithfully as though they had had a say in them.

People sustain religion because they want answers (comfort, consolation, whatever you want to call it); while all along, they are fully unaware that by doing so, they have stopped asking questions. Who but a fool would expect an answer to a question they never asked ?

They believe because they have been told to believe. If there is a better word for this than "ignorant," I certainly cannot think of it.

Meanwhile, people like me were not force-fed any beliefs during our childhood, and look where we ended up. Sensible and mature, composed and intellectual.

Thank you for your time.

p.s. You asked me whether my unawareness of how it feels to live someone else's life makes me ignorant. The answer is simple; so simple, in fact, that I had to hold myself back from answering straightaway for fear of having misinterpreted the query. The answer is yes. Do I need to explain ?