Labeling Beliefs

     I hold a belief. I have spent time finding out what it is I think, what I feel, & what seems to make sense. I suppose you could say I've always held a belief, technically that’s true. I mean, as a child I believed that there was a world out there. As I grew, I learned about God and believed in him. Later on that there are spirits/souls out there without a suit of their own. As I became a teen I started to ask ‘why’ after some hard times occurred. From the very beginning, we all hold a belief. Even NOT believing is a belief in its own right. (Please note that I’ll write something up on that last part later. There is a bit of obscurity on that one. Wording is key, as is with anything.)

     Having a belief then, doesn't mean much. As with many things, it is the substance that has value. What do you believe? What then… are you? Oddly the belief itself often comes second to the categorization of it. The category is a bit ambiguous. What I might consider to work, others might not. A category has a rule on what makes it so, yet there is always grey area. A poster in my mailbox is still IN my mailbox even if half is hanging out. It fulfills the category even with something leftover.

     This is how I view religions… well “organized” religions. I don’t know if there is a difference between ‘Organized Religion’ & simply saying ‘Religion’. They’re used the same. “What’s your religion?” is just short for, “What organization of religion are you a part of?” That is something I wonder about. Why the need for classification and what does it mean if you lack the ‘required’ organization. I’m a Spiritualist if I *need* to be defined, but what of the Catholics, Muslims, Jewish, Hindus, or Non-denominational groups? And to take two of those a step further, what of Christians (Non-denominational & Catholics)?

     All of these groupings have a familiarity attached to them. Anyone that is a member has common attributes, or rather common beliefs. While there are common thoughts within a religion; it is another thing to say ALL thoughts are common among them. We all have differences in our beliefs due to our own perceptions. This makes the idea of a ‘One True Religion’ a hard concept. If all Christians have slightly different thoughts about all the nuances that makes someone Christian, then how can Christianity be 100% correct?... when it isn't agreed upon completely by its subscribers. It doesn't falsify any truths within mind you. Just as science has known facts… new knowledge can change those facts yet still hold the truths outside of the changed concept. The same holds true for Spiritual Knowledge.

     One of the biggest issues I have with organized religion is the idea of worship. Simply put, I refuse it. I refuse to worship someone(/thing) simply because they are superior to me in some way. If someone wants my respect they’re welcome to have it. But worship? I don’t deal well with people that expect or need to be looked up to. In my mind ALL are equal. All are on a level playing field: Gods, advanced races, ourselves, & dogs… past all of our physical selves, we’re equal. Nothing will get my submission simply because. To me, a god or driving energy should be something close, something personal. I would rather view a god as a best friend than something I’m unworthy to look upon. If you've ever made a friend out of a boss or parent, then this concept should be easy to understand.

     Although I’m not fond of labeling faiths, I’ll admit that it does aid in a basic understanding of another’s beliefs. With a label, one can easily state a lot of information in a word or phrase. Even as a self-described Spiritualist, there is still meaning. Positive meaning. What we could do without are labels that aren't so positive or simply are too vague. Pagan is one such word… told to the world that Non-Christians are Pagan. There are many Powerful & Personal beliefs that are swept under this term. How about instead of having a world where we find the ‘One True Religion’, we embrace all religions, learn all religions, and discover the greater truths that are nigh impossible to decipher on our own?

Where is the Black Cat?

     While anyone can go to Wikipedia to see why this analogy is wrong (*cough*), let’s delve into it just a little bit shall we? I saw this for the first time a few days ago and honestly I’m a little appalled by it. Philosophy is. Theology is. Science is. (I’m ignoring metaphysics.) Theology is more about the study of a religion. This does not preclude that the theologist believes in a god, or the god that they’re currently studying.

     So my first question would be: If belief isn't required to be a Theologist, but theology is like finding a cat in a dark room, then does this not work against the extremists that created this picture? The theologist found the cat, which could then therefore say that they found a god. I haven’t seen it used this way, but if you’re going to knock it, you should word it better. No one needs to study religion to believe in something greater. Just as no one needs to study science in order for a watch to tell time.

     A belief is simply that: a belief. I would have sooner expected this picture to say “religion”. It’s not entirely accurate as it does not encompass all believers, but it gets used generically enough that it still would be a better use than Theology. I've only seen this (example/picture) used to knock (down) believers, so I again think that this is what was intended. But where am I going exactly? There seems to be this “common” notion by atheist extremists that atheism and science go hand in hand. Furthermore, they will say that one cannot believe in god and science at the same time. Beliefs and Sciences are separate things. I can believe in something beyond this life and also believe in evolution. If you disagree with me, then we have an issue… because I do believe the earth is billions of years old, that homo-sapiens and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor that was neither monkey nor humans as we see them today. I also accept that we can date the earth to the last Ice Age via Dendrochronology. So all this talk about Science being an atheist’s proof? I don’t buy it. Not everyone believes as Christians do and that “what’s out there” is specifically an omni-potent god. There are other ideas out there, other ideas that fully accept science. Fully. Completely. Atheism and Science. Theism and Science. Both work. Neither disproves the other.

     So my second question would be: Why do people think Science is specific to a belief style? Just because a religious zealot says “Science is a religion!” doesn't mean the rest of us agree with that notion. There’s no reason to take an extremist’s point of view and declare it upon everyone else. We’re not them. You’re not them. Don’t be them. And no, not seeing god isn't your scientific proof to be an atheist. Prove to the rest of us that the wind doesn't exist. You can’t see that. You say it affects you, that you can feel it. If you cannot give the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you can’t witness things as others can… then you’re not doing science justly. Science accepts the fact that perhaps they’re doing it wrong, perhaps more knowledge is needed to see the next truth, and that one cannot go into an experiment with an expectation of the result. You can think you might know… that’s a hypothesis, but expecting to know and then stopping pursuit once you find “proof”? That’s not following the Method. Also, a “lack of proof” from theists (not that theists state they’re lacking any) isn't a justified answer. For one, it isn't a scientific approach. Secondly, what is a belief if you’re just taking what others say or don’t say? Not much, I’ll tell you that.

     So this leads me to my final question. This is the one I find interesting. Everyone is in a room looking for a cat. The scientist is using a flashlight, and I assume this means that they will find it. So here’s my (third and original) question: What is Science’s reaction when they spot the black cat… being held by Theology? After all, Theology did find the cat when Science was still looking.

Extra thoughts to think on:

1.  It states that the cat isn't there for Metaphysics and Theology. This is an unfair analogy because either the cat IS there for all, or is NOT there for all.  So we have options. 2 – No Cat, 3 - Cat
2. It depicts science as the smartest of the four choices, yet science also got duped into searching for a black cat in a dark room. Assuming the cat isn't there since again it only states when the cat isn't there, but never states that there IS actually a cat present.
3. There is a cat, but it simply is not in the room. So Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Science are looking in a room where there is no cat.  Yet Theology found the cat that isn't in the room. How? Well maybe the door is open, or maybe it’s on the other side of the window. We might live in a box, but the extra spice to life is being able to both Think and See outside of it.