Do you believe we all have souls?

[Runt]

Well, Alaric, then I guess a LOT of people out there believe in a God that makes no sense, cuz I'm finding that many Unitarians view God the same way I do (and, of course, many don't as well...), and many pagans as well.

Just think of it like this. If God is everywhere (and to be truly "powerful", it MUST be everywhere or it is limited, it has boundaries), then it must include everything. Every rock, every tree, every animal, every human, the moon, the stars, the universe. Everything we CAN understand, and everything outside of that which we can understand (because in our limited human understanding, we CANNOT understand everything-therefore God is incomprehensible as a whole).

Why do you refer to God as "Him"? If the Christians were right and God DID make us in "His" image, then were do women come in? Women obviously weren't made in HIS image, for they are female...they therefore must not be a part of "humanity"...or God is not male, but male AND female, thereby discrediting any religion that believes in a only-male God.

If you don't like it, then so be it. I don't care. They're my beliefs, not yours.

 

[Alaric]

Well, Alaric, then I guess a LOT of people out there believe in a God that makes no sense...

Bingo.

Just think of it like this. If God is everywhere (and to be truly "powerful", it MUST be everywhere or it is limited, it has boundaries), then it must include everything. Every rock, every tree, every animal, every human, the moon, the stars, the universe. Everything we CAN understand, and everything outside of that which we can understand (because in our limited human understanding, we CANNOT understand everything-therefore God is incomprehensible as a whole).

= God is everything = God is just another name for the universe (including any speculative alternate or parallel dimensions, etc). The only difference between your beliefs (and probably the UUs') and mine is the terms we use. Connectivity between elementary particles, parallel universes, alien beings creating the known universe in a petri dish, or the whole world a chemical-induced illusion created in your brain which is floating in a jar in an alien laboratory - it doesn't matter (see further down).

Why do you refer to God as "Him"? If the Christians were right and God DID make us in "His" image, then were do women come in? Women obviously weren't made in HIS image, for they are female...they therefore must not be a part of "humanity"...or God is not male, but male AND female, thereby discrediting any religion that believes in a only-male God.

I don't mind, it's just that 'It' takes away the connection to humanity, and S/He is confusing. 'He' is convenient, not least because it tends to imply a purposeful 'creation' of the universe, while a 'She' would imply a 'giving birth' to the universe, something that She loved but did not purposefully create. These kinds of subtelties can be important.

If you don't like it, then so be it. I don't care. They're my beliefs, not yours.

'Like' has nothing to do with it. Beliefs aren't just subjective - it's not just 'okay' that you believe what you do and I believe what I do, logically or morally. I think we'd agree the Nazi beliefs shouldn't just be respected - they should be fought. Suicide cults and religions that cause great existential suffering aren't okay either. Your views on God don't seem to have any implications for your behaviour or morality at all, but you're making logical errors, and if I were you I would want them pointed out.

I was a Christian at your age, until I realised all the contradictions in my meager arguments - but that was without forums or others at all, so once I became truly atheist I thought my views were infallible. My arguments have changed quite radically over the last few years, and forums like this one were a major factor in that. You formulate your arguments, they seem infallible, until suddenly you meet someone who challenges them and forces you to either reformulate or revamp your entire argument - or else they just say "Yeah, that's just a confusing version of the ... argument that so-and-so tried to use so many centuries ago - it goes like this, and it doesn't work because...". People introduce you to great philosophers, and you realise that 'Holy crap! Even the ancient Greeks have tried to solve this problem!' Many great theologians through the ages have acknowledged and confronted in their own ways the problems that I am presenting you with. It's all been done before, trust me. Never just 'decide' to believe what you do. Your loyalty should be to the truth, and if so, with enough seeking, you'll be changing your beliefs every other day from now on. And that's good! The Bible is all very nice, but try reading Augustine, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard's very different views on Christianity, and you'll be blown away. God and religion go far deeper than you can possibly imagine. Most monotheists don't have a clue what their religion really means.

 

[Master Vigil]

Its true alaric, but I also believe it to be logically impossible for god to possess a gender. Also, if everything is the same except for the terms we use. What are we debating about? Just the words I guess. So if we are all understanding each other without the words, then we are all the same except for our syntax. The greatest part is, in the end, words have no meaning. Words become nonexistant. So I guess in the end. We all are alright.

Also, I don't believe you can compare runt's philosophy to the nazi ideas. Especially because runt's isn't harming anyone.

 

[Alaric]

Jeez, Vigil, you missed every point I was making. Of course I don't think God literally has a gender, only a child would think that - it's the ideas attached to the concepts of masculinity or femininity that matter. And I am arguing precisely that the different religions do NOT believe the same thing, that they attach very DIFFERENT meanings to their idea of God. Runt thinks that she agrees with all religions, while I say that she only agrees with atheism. I am saying precisely that words DO matter, it's Runt that thinks that it's okay to call your beliefs the same name as other people's in order to get in with the group. And I am not damn well comparing Runt's ideas to Nazism - if this isn't blindingly obvious from the context, then it should be by the fact that I specifically said "Your views on God don't seem to have any implications for your behaviour or morality at all"... What exactly do you take me for?

 

[Runt]

Alaric--

See, I understand the points you are making. You obviously don't think so, but I HAVE tried to use logic to formulate my beliefs. Perhaps I have not done a great job at it, but at least I do not simply blindly accept whatever I am taught.

I'll show you a little of the thought process that led to my beliefs:

For me, if God exists and is infinite, it CANNOT be biological, because things that are biological DIE and thus are finite.

So if there is a God, what is it? I can't be sure, I can only use logic to define what it ISN'T and then try to work with that.

If it is not biological, then it cannot have the characteristics that only biological creatures posess. Therefore:
*It has no gender
*It has no personality
*It has no emotions
*It has no senses as we understand them (whether the ability to sense light, the ability to taste, to smell, to feel, to hear, to, I don't know, sense electromagnetic waves and radiation, or any other sense a biological creature may posess.)
*It does not "think", for cognitive abilities are also biological and are reliant upon a brain, which, obviously, is a part of a biological organism.
*It does not "give birth" or get virgins pregnant or "create" in any way that we understand.

Therefore, any ideas of God as male, female, humanoid, loving, wrathful, or having a "plan" are simply ridiculous.

So, if after all of this, someone like me still chooses to believe in God, then I have to choices:

1. I can reject logic completely, and insist that God really IS these things.

2. I can acknowledge logic, and recognize that God, if It exists, must therefore be incomprehensible (because It obviously can't be anything that we understand). Yet if this God is going to have any meaning in my live, then I must look at God as an archetype, or a series of archetypes, of things I DO understand.

That's how you get meaning from an incomprehensible God, and can worship as you please, while at the same time understanding that your views of God are probably contradictory depending on how you chose to view God at a particular time, or possibly even outright wrong.

As I said earlier... we worship God not for God's sake, but for our own. Believe it or not, I can easily look at the world through purely scientific eyes, and eliminate God completely...if I chose to. But for me, this strips life and the world of much of its meaning and beauty. For ME... not nesessarily for you.

And before you say "Don't give false meaning to something by adding God into it," just try to see it this way.

We as humans NEVER see things as they truly are. Take light, for example. Scientifically, we can define it, but when we think of the concept of light, many alternate connotations are associated with it that it would probably NOT be associated with it if we were describing light as it is percieved by a plant. Light, for most of us, is comforting because of that odd human fear of the darkness. Light is associated with warmth, day, spiritual awareness, happiness, holiness, someone who is energetic or animated, "goodness", and truth.

This is false meaning... none of these things are REALLY associated with light, but because of the way our brains work, we make extra connections between the things we can SEE and the many concepts that are not necessarily visual. We write and speak metaphors all the time; their roots stretch deep through our linguistic history. Our subconscious views the world largely through symbols. Therefore, we can view reality purely through the means that science provides us, or we can use archetypes, metaphors, and connotations to gain greater understanding of our lives while striving to understand science.

 

[Master Vigil]

Sorry Alaric, I wasn't trying to insinuate anything. But I understand runts position and don't think that it makes him atheist. Taoism does not believe in a god the way a christian or muslim or even a shintoist would. But that does not make them atheists. I view god as an essence that causes everything, permeates everything, and flows through everything. But just because I view god in a different view, and define it in different terms doesn't make me an atheist. sorry if none of this seems to be on topic, i'm writing real fast cuz i'm leaving real soon. sorry.

 

[Runt]

And Alaric.... lol, I do NOT agree with all religions.

Christians? No

Muslims? No

Pagans? No

Buddhists? No

Hindus? No

Satanists? No

However, this does not mean that I do not RESPECT these religions.

It does not mean that I am unable to find merit in some of the things they teach.

It does not mean that I believe that they never touch on the truth.

It simply means that I am not able to accept enough of each individual doctrine to truly call myself a member of ANY of these religions.

That leaves me two choices. I am agnostic, and I am Unitarian. I am NOT atheist, because I not only believe in the possibility of a God, but I believe that there IS a God and it is simply beyond our understanding. Something that is beyond our understanding doesn't "not exist"... it just means we can't perceive or analyze it!

In my inability to understand my incomprehensible God, I have used a series of archetypes that bring insight and meaning to my life, and thereby give God (whether "true" or "false" or simply "imaginary") a place in my life.

Why is this stance so antithetical to you?

 

[Alaric]

Runt, I think you're explaining your views very well, and I myself like the idea of 'picking up the ball and running with it' - that is, I don't think you should avoid taking to heart an idea that appeals to you just because you can't fully understand or explain it. The only thing is if the idea is impossible or nonsensical - then you should drop the ball and try another one.

I agree with what you say about our associations with the word 'light', and this was in part my point - light has a scientific definition, but we humans also associate many other things to it, as you mention. If we found that light didn't have independent existence, but was just an amalgamation or result of other forces, it wouldn't matter to our understanding of 'light' - all the associations would still be able to refer to a common concept called light that we all understand. And that is how it is with God. People believe in God, and come to associate a ton of different things to the the term, like love, justice, purpose and so forth - but what you are doing is dismissing all those terms, and attaching the term God to something else entirely, a kind of universality, or understanding, or meaning, to everything. Like with Aphrodite - people may believe in the goddess, with whom they associate certain attributes and virtues like beauty and femininity, virtues which can exist and be understood independently of the actual existence of the goddess. But what you can NOT do is to claim that you believe in Aphrodite, but you just don't think it's a she at all. That would be to misunderstand what Aphrodite is all about. You can still admire beauty and femininity, however. I don't see how you get meaning and beauty from an impersonal, uncaring God - what is different from your worldview and mine?

As far as outright religions are concerned, their morals and values are derived from their version of reality. Christian morality is nothing without the existence of the Christian God, and Buddhist morality is based on the concept of rebirth, for example. No rebirth, no karma, no point. Certain practices are good insofar as they refer back to humanity - for example, in Islam you should fast during Ramadan so that you may get closer to the poor and needy (among other things), and this is quite a good idea. We don't need the existence of Allah to admit that this might be a good thing to do. Taking good advice from religions is a good idea, but the lessons are always about people, not God, so they must necessarily fall under another general principle or value that can be described without resorting to the word 'God'.

 

[Runt]

Alaric, I'm not entirely positive WHAT your world view is. Here's mine, though... I think there's a God, but since we can't truly know it (again, the incomprehensible thing), we instead must deal with archetypes. So Aphrodite, for example, is a face and a personality that I apply to this incomprehensible God that may or may not be true, but has meaning (and therefore usefulness) for me. That is why I think you are sort of right about the definition thing. Perhaps I should use the word "Source" to describe this incomprehensible "God", and use the term "God" to describe the archetypes that are understandable and useful to us as humans. Kind of like the "Source" is the "reality" (as I see it) and "God" is the illusion, but because we can't truly percieve "reality" (human reality is illusion, but because we are unable to see past our "illusion" because we are limited by our perception, for us the illusion IS reality... if that makes any sense) we ignore the "Source" as the reality and work with the "illusion" (archetypal Gods) that represent the illusion that is our reality.

Wow... I think I just made that horribly confusing...

As for morality, I think you are right about how morals are defined by religion. However, I think the morals that transcend religion or are shared by MANY religions exist because deep in our hearts we know that they are the right thing to do, and not because some God (however each individual defines it) says "This is what you must do."

UUs, strangely, talk about morality, but don't ascribe it to God. We believe we should do things that are "right" because they are RIGHT, they are necessary to living peacefully (or as peacefully as possible) in human society, and not because they are something "God" demands of us. Yet, many of these morals are also found in religious texts and are entangled with religious beliefs, like karma. But I think the religious beliefs are simply a way to try to JUSTIFY our morals, and are not the reason the morals exist.

 

[Alaric]

Your views are what I would imagine sentient-yet-ignorant-of their-origins computer programs in The Matrix would believe! The world of the Matrix is the world as seen by their individual programming, while the actual Reality is the computer and computer programs running the Matrix, and when they 'die' they all return to the Source, which is all knowing, yet incomprehensible while still in the Matrix, and doesn't care for the individual computer program...

And btw, I forgot to mention it last time, but I don't think a being necessarily has to be biological in order to think or feel. If thought and emotion are just the result of chemicals and electrical impulses, which can be simulated in computers, then you could imagine the universe as a big thinking brain, with galaxies acting as brain cells etc... just a thought.

Two questions, then:

1. What do the archetypal Gods (the illusions of reality that we work with) have in common with the Source (the actual reality)? How do the archetypal Gods help us understand reality? If there is some part of reality that only religion and not science can help us solve, by what standards do we measure the truth, or usefulness, or applicability of the religion's teaching?

2. What are the consequences of your beliefs for the way you live your life?

And regarding the 'deep in our hearts we know what to do': Remember that we have some instinctive priorities and desires that are often in conflict. Deep in our hearts we might want our tribe to be the best and most powerful, and these kinds of emotions and instincts are the thing that is exploited in sports and to incite genocide. It would be quite easy to say to someone who was unwilling to commit atrocities that they knew deep down that it was right to be dutiful to their own, that they should be strong and act for the good of their own people, etc. What religions tend to do is justify and entrench the universal selection of one instinctive drive over another, usually the one that is most beneficial for the group or for spreading the religion.

 

[Runt]

Ooh, you ask hard questions! I would like to answer them right now, but they require a lot of thought, which also requires a lot of time... which I don't have (I have a nail-hair-makeup appointment in a 1/2 hour to prepare for prom tonight! Yay!)

So, I guess I'll have to answer your questions tomorrow.

A couple quick comments: yes, the Matrix thing IS a good reality. The people within the Matrix who do NOT know about the "real world" outside of the computer world are like us humans who cannot view the "real reality" where God may (or, admittedly, may NOT) exist. But even if they recognize that their reality may be only an illusion, this does not change the fact that they must DEAL with their illusion-reality... and they might as well do it in terms that they understand and are beneficial to them.

Hmm... thinking "God"/Universe... I'll have to think about that before I can comment more!

BTW... I really appreciate that you're talking (debating ) with me... it is really helping me confront my beliefs, shape them into something that works even BETTER for me, and address questions that simply have not come up in my own mind... I'm beginning to wonder if I should rename my "Comparative Religion" class "Creative Religion"....

I'll respond to your questions tomorrow...

 

[Master Vigil]

In Taoism, the archetypal gods would be our personified ideas that help us understand the Tao better. Although not the Tao, they still have some properties of the Tao. And since the eternal Tao is unreachable, and unknowable, we have these things in the middle to help us understand.

We would also measure the truth, usefulness, and applicability by looking at natures chi, and our chi, and understanding its natural flow.

and the simple consequences would simply be living a bad life, a stressful life, and not becoming one with the Tao (enlightenment before or after death.)

Thats a basic Taoist point of view.

 

[Runt]

In Taoism, the archetypal gods would be our personified ideas that help us understand the Tao better. Although not the Tao, they still have some properties of the Tao. And since the eternal Tao is unreachable, and unknowable, we have these things in the middle to help us understand.

LOL, Master Vigil, that explains what I believe very well... except for one small change. Instead of the archetypal gods having some properties of the Tao, I would say that the archetypal gods MAY have some properties of the Tao (since we can't be sure, because the Tao is unreachable and unknowable."

(Hmm... Tao might be an interesting word for what I've been calling "God" or the "Source"... I'll have to look into Taoism more...)

 

[anders]

In "my" version of Daoism, there is nothing which comes close to the notion af a "god". What helps in following Dao is Dao itself.

But I fully agree that un- is the best description of Dao. In the translation of the very beginninng of Tao Te King/Dao De Jing by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

 

[Runt]

What do the archetypal Gods (the illusions of reality that we work with) have in common with the Source (the actual reality)? How do the archetypal Gods help us understand reality?

Our “illusion” of reality and the Source’s reality probably overlap in some areas. I think of it like this: There is Reality and then there is our perception of reality

Our perception of reality is based on our sensory observations (science), our mental creations (probably not the best term, but it was all I could think of to describe the reality that we sense that is not necessarily “scientific”, like philosophical “truth”, archetypes, symbols, psychological stuff.), and our guesses about reality (scientific theory and religion). Or, another way to look at our reality is that we have the Interior World (vision-logic, concepts, symbols, emotion, myth, etc) and Exterior World (atoms, molecules, biological creatures, galaxies, planets, etc). For most of us, our Interior World is just as “real” as the Exterior World (and I don’t speak just of religion, but also of psychology and philosophy). And then, transcending all this (if that is the right word for something that includes and yet goes beyond… I can’t find my dictionary…) is Reality. Part of our perception of reality, or our “illusions” may be true or may hide some inner truth.

Therefore, finally getting around to answering the question, much of what we perceive to be Reality, whether scientific or archetypal, probably has some connection to the “true” Reality (the Source). Meaning, those archetypal Gods, whether or not they literally “exist”, represent part of Reality as we understand it, and therefore have merit for us.

So what do I have now? Not so much an unknowable GOD, but an unknowable REALITY: The Source. (The Tao?) We humans try to perceive this Source/Tao but, unable to fully comprehend it, we must make do with archetypes and sciences, which describe and define reality by OUR terms, with concepts and language we can understand. Because for us our “illusion” is the only Reality we have, we must deal with it, so science and archetypes (whether “gods” we believe in or myths we hear about and can find merit in but DON’T believe are necessary “true”/factual) have a place in our lives.

If there is some part of reality that only religion and not science can help us solve, by what standards do we measure the truth, or usefulness, or applicability of the religion's teaching?

I think we must understand that religion deals with an archetypal reality, a metaphorical reality, and not a physical reality. For example, the mythological union between an archetypal fertility goddess and her consort, an archetypal fertility God, represents something that is part of our world, even if, scientifically, sex is regarded only as a means of passing on genetic information for the propagation of a species, “love” is seen as only a chemical reaction that helps give males and females of a species more incentive to mate or gives the parents of a species more incentive to protect its children.

What are the consequences of your beliefs for the way you live your life?

My beliefs, of course, totally and completely affect the way I live my life. If I believe an action to be “wrong”, I avoid doing it, and if I fail to avoid it, I feel guilt, or anger at myself. Beliefs of course tie up with morals… but we must understand that it is highly doubtful that these morals should be in place NOT because we as humans need morals to “get along”, but because some archetypal god “wants” us to do its “will”.

 

[Master Vigil]

Actually, thats what i meant to say runt. It is completely unreachable and unknowable. However, we know the forces of nature and science, and we can put them all together and create a full picture. And since the tao caused nature and science, nature and science must be part of the tao. Thats where the i ching and trigrams come into play. And yes, I think taoism may be able to suit your beliefs very well, since we believe quite the same. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I would suggest picking up a copy of the Tao Te Ching. Its very short and very enlightening.

and anders, The first 2 lines of the Tao Te Ching pretty much sum up the idea of the tao being past words. And how logic and words are not usefull in understanding the tao, thats why it says...

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. (no human words can be invented to describe, prove, or disprove it)

The name that can be named is not the eternal name. (since no words can be used to describe, prove, or disprove it, we must name what we know. and we call that tao. and later it gets into the duality of it by calling it the mother of all things in chapter 1, and then the father of all things in chapter 4.)

As for it being comparable to the word "god," I guess thats up to your definition of "god." If your definition of "god" is the first cause of the universe, the creator, the supreme, the unknowable, the eternal. Then yes it can be used to replace the often hated term "god." It does go beyond the normal definition of god though. Especially because it has no human characteristics, no gender, no emotion, etc... it can only be known fully through enlightenment and can be sensed through chi. And these are of course brought upon by silent meditation, or silent observation, or silent action. But always silent. No words.

Thats why the Tao Te Ching was so short. Because words are not important. In chapter 5 it says, "No amount of words can fathom it, better look for it within you." This shows the inner self which has the possiblilities of knowing the tao.

the tao is like water it says, for it benefits everything without striving with them. Like a great ruler who is never known, when great things happen in the country, the people think that they themselves achieved them. This makes a great ruler. The tao is like this. Which is why it musn't be proved or disproved. For it must exist and benefit without us knowing. For we must believe we have done it ourselves.

 

[Runt]

*blinks*

Wow... that is SOO weird! Here I was thinking I was being creative and unique and NOT following the beliefs of ANY religion, and somehow I independently arrived at similar beliefs (or identical?) as Taoism... without knowing NOTHING about the religion! (I thought Taoism was just meditation and inaction--"do nothing"... ) You know how they say that nowadays there is no such thing as a "new" idea...

Alaric argues (or has argued) that I'm trying to be the "Great Compromiser", trying to reconcile the beliefs of all religions AND science... if my beliefs match Taoist philosophy, does this make TAOISM the "Great Compromiser"?

A few questions Master Vigil... What is the difference between Taoism and Zen? Are there different kinds of Taoist philosophies? And (bringing this back to the original topic) do archetypal gods have any place in Taoism?

 

[Master Vigil]

Taoism was one of the original religions in china, before buddhism arrived there. But taoism was a big influence of zen buddhism which started in china as "chan" buddhism. "Zen" is the japanese counterpart.

It may be a great compromiser, I am not to say, it is beyond my knowing. However being that Taoism "" balance, it could be. The opposites must be in balance for there to be peace and unity in the universe. (yin/yang) As it says in chapter 2...

When all the world recognizes beauty as beauty, this in itself is ugliness.
When all the world recognizes good as good, this in itself is evil.
Indeed, the hidden and the manifest give birth to each other.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short exhibit each other.
High and low set measure to each other.
Voice and sound harmonize each other.
Back and front follow each other.
Therefore, the sage manages his affairs without any ado.
And spreads his teaching without talking.
He/She denies nothing to the teeming things.
He rears them, but lays no claim to them.
He does his work, but sets no store by it.
He accomplishes his task, but does not dwell upon it.
And yet it is just because he does not dwell on it,
That nobody can ever take it away from him.

(Simplicity is the key to the Tao. When things get complex, they get too controversial. Keep things simple in the Tao, and everything flows smoothly.)

 

[Master Vigil]

There are also 2 main schools of taoism. Normally scholars separate them by calling them religious taoism, and philosophical taoism. The philosophy is more common and basically deals with the Tao Te Ching which was written 400 years before christ by Lao Tzu, and the basic ideas in the I Ching, and some of Chuang Tzu. Religious Taoism was developed alot later and includes deities and archetypal gods. The most common are the 8 immortals which are represented in the I Ching using trigrams, they are Heaven, Earth, Fire, Water, Mountain, Wind, Marsh, and Thunder. They also have other representations like gender, and elemental properties. It gets to complicated for my Taoist tastes. But you may like it.

 

[Alaric]

... Meaning, those archetypal Gods, whether or not they literally “exist”, represent part of Reality as we understand it, and therefore have merit for us.

We humans try to perceive this Source/Tao but, unable to fully comprehend it, we must make do with archetypes and sciences, which describe and define reality by OUR terms, with concepts and language we can understand.

The ancient harvest or fertility goddesses were personifications of the concept of growth. When people wanted a good harvest or a healthy baby, they prayed to the right god instead of understanding how it is that plants grow and babies develop. Gods are the lazy person's route to reality - 'I can't be bothered/don't have time to find out how the world works, so I'll just pray to a god.'

In Norse mythology, warriors were protected by Odin, and those who died on the battlefield were carried up by Odin and the Valkyries to feast forever in Valhalla. A bit like the interpretation of Islam that says that those who fight for Allah are guaranteed a place in heaven. These myths do not in any way represent reality; indeed, they are directly damaging to society. These are straightfoward examples, but it is the same for all religions and worldviews that are not based on reason and evidence - they may sound harmless, but beliefs like that can have all sorts of nasty side-effects.

If courage on the battlefield can be said to be a virtue, we must explain why exactly. Then you can start talking about the extent of our duties to society, how we treat other societies, the psychological implications of sending young men off in longboats to loot monastaries, etc etc. This is science and philosophy, which incidentally includes all manner of rational thought. The physical reality and the extent to which we can know it, the emotions, the virtues, the social relationships between people - all can be debated rationally. When we leave this realm and venture into the religious and the mythical - that is when we lose all connection to reality.

If a religion has an element of truth in it, it is because the religion was built upon certain understandings about the world that worked. Leaving a field fallow for a year, or not cutting down trees in certain spots, or honouring your parents, were ideas that worked for some reason, and were incorporated into their belief systems. However, now we can explain why these things worked, and we don't need to resort to religion anymore. Practicing a religion might still have many unexpected benefits, because they are based on some knowledge that we have lost, but the trouble is that you are acting blindly, and the practices might do more damage than good.

I would suggest using religions, rather than 'trying them on'. Take a look at Taoism and the others, read about the way in which it tackles morality, epistemology, and ontology, then investigate the validity of each claim it makes independently. Never just decide what you believe and see which religion fits best - to do that is simply to admit that you aren't interested in the truth or reality at all, but just want to register yourself as belonging to some group.

Also remember that fields such as psychology weren't always considered part of science - but now it is. There is nothing in this world outside the realm of science. Like the aforementioned epistemology and ontology, which deal with the nature of being and investigating how we know what we know, and where the limits of our understanding are. To be religious is to say 'Ah screw it, that's all too complicated for me, I'm just going to pick the religion that I like best and practice that and see how it goes.'

My beliefs, of course, totally and completely affect the way I live my life. If I believe an action to be “wrong”, I avoid doing it, and if I fail to avoid it, I feel guilt, or anger at myself. Beliefs of course tie up with morals… but we must understand that it is highly doubtful that these morals should be in place NOT because we as humans need morals to “get along”, but because some archetypal god “wants” us to do its “will”.

That doesn't explain anything. I mean, how does your belief in some big Source or outer reality affect the way you act? When do you feel something to be right, but don't do it because it contradicts your beliefs? Frankly, it seems to me that it's your feelings that affect your beliefs, rather than the other way around.