Contemplating religion, and vocalising such contemplation, is a dangerous passtime. No matter what you say, you will inevitably offend someone.

Inescapable religious paradoxes continue to vex me. They fan my fires of scepticism to the point where zealotry of any hue raises my hackles and stirs my sense of fairness, logic and humanity.

Some of the paradoxes that continue to challenge me include:

• If there is one Almighty being, why do so many different religions exist?
• What is the real purpose of religion?
• If multiple religions are the intended "natural" order of things, then how, in the name of one God, can something in one religion be condoned, while forbidden in another religion?
• If God is the almighty creator of everything that exists, then how does one justify the "good" and the "bad"? If God was so against the "bad", then how can it exist? If it does exist, then what is its real purpose?
• If all that exists is determined by the will of God, then how can anything on earth be "bad" since to be, it had to be created by God? To suggest that God created "bad" implies that God "got it wrong" - or else it has a purpose - what is that purpose?
• If religion preaches the love and inclusiveness of God, then how is it that more people have died in the name of religion and difference than through any other man-impacted cause in human history?
• Why is access to God and the understanding of God's meaning and intent funnelled through the interpretation of self-appointed spokespeople?
• If Satan and Hell exist, they must exist by the will of God. Anything else implies a limitation on God's power.
• If God insisted on adherence to humankind's interpretation of God's will, then why didn't God "hardwire" us to perform accordingly?
• If one accepts God's determinism as the principal mechanism of life's progress, then what is the point of life?
• If one accepts the principle of free will, then what is the purpose of life?

I recently responded to some of these questions in a letter to a friend during a prolonged communication on the purpose of religion and God.

I agree with your cynicism and share your frustration about the futility of religious passion. You may have deduced, wrongly, from our verbal and written discussions that I am a believer.

What I believe in has nothing to do with religion and is in fact in response and reaction to it. Because of my father's desire for me to accept his religious belief, which I couldn't do unquestioningly, I embarked on my journey of discovery. This led me to the conclusions that I noted in my last epistle.

But in relation to formal religion, I share your conclusion wholeheartedly. However, I have recognised that for some people, religion represents a set of values that for them, helps them deal with the difficulties and enigmas of life (despite the incongruities, inhumanities and illogicalities that such belief may represent). In that sense, and because on the spiritual level most religions share some basic elements of goodness, religion can be useful.

Where problems arise, as you have accurately pointed out, is when religious functionaries manipulate the "purity of the religious message" to suit their own or their "organisation's" own interests - in direct conflict with the essence of the religion they preach.

Every religion has to a greater or lesser extent been guilty of this.

This does not negate the comfort that some religions give to some people nor does it negate the good that some religions do for society. On the other hand, these good deeds do not compensate for the insensitivities, bigotries, murders, conniving, and atrocities undertaken in the name of most religions by their adherents.

I hope this isn't sounding like an apology for religion because it's not meant to be. I don't like formal religion because it is based on the assumption of separation, isolation and the inferiority of those outside the fold. This is wrong and against a sustainable social environment. And I also think their belief in an all-powerful god is also misguided.

What we must take care of in this discussion is to differentiate between religion (which is the creation of man) and the issue of god (which presumably isn't).

I think we are in agreement on the matter of religion. Now for god and some of my thoughts:

You are quite right when you say that the existence of god is unprovable and is a matter of faith. However there are views of life and the supernatural, which are logical and which help explain some of the problematic issues you raise.

1. Why logic? Logic is important, (at least to me who doesn't possess unquestioning faith), because I need a logical construct in order to run my life. I am not prepared to accept someone else's interpretation (let alone one that is thousands of years old and appears irrelevant to today) as the only or correct interpretation. I cannot devote what precious time I have on this earth for someone else's agenda or belief. It needs to be my belief in order for me to be comfortable with myself since I believe I only have myself to answer to (leaving law aside).
2. My belief in god is not a religiously based one - but rather something that has evolved in me. It is a belief in a spirit that we all have that perhaps emanates from the 90% of our brain that scientists maintain is unused. It is a spirit/soul that unites with other spirits at death to form a greater spirit but has no "power" or desire to determine life or life's events.
3. Our souls grow through our choices made in coping with life. The spirit does not determine outcomes, but rather grows from the response we make to them. Only in this way can I explain murder and atrocities such as the holocaust. God did not determine such events because man in response to his environment and context created them. God/the spirit would not interfere in such events since to do so would remove the element of man's free will. Some religions maintain that god predetermines all. That doesn't make sense. Its like god playing draughts with him/her self. If god controls all the moves, then what value do we humans fulfil? If the soul only grows through our physical existence, and if we have free will, then the soul grows and changes through our experiences. Things like floods, famine, murder and other natural and unnatural events will happen without any interference from a soul/spirit/god. It is our response to these events that matters. Religions seems to have got this wrong because to admit to or accept this line of argument destroys their belief system and invalidates the rational of formal religion - so it won't happen.
4. Bottom line I suppose is that I don't accept or believe in formal religion of any type (despite the positive elements found in most religions), and I don't believe in god in its accepted form. I do believe in the soul and that we exist on earth to learn and thus grow the soul. You can call this my religion or my god if you really must give it a name but I haven't met anyone yet whose view on this is identical to mine - thus a religion of one. I don't believe in determinism and I strongly believe in free will. I firmly believe that we create our own destiny and that a person can choose to be "good" or "bad" without worrying about heaven or hell (neither of which exist according to my logic).

I look forward to the next iteration

September 2000