First off, we’re not really answering any religious questions with this one, but asking a lot of them instead. Second, while I have tried (with varying success) to avoid going on the offensive with posts within this topic, this one is disregarding that restriction entirely, because we’re going hard on the offensive now. I’ve broached aspects of this in one form or another several times before, but now it’s time to get as many of them together into one place. So let’s ask, What kind of game is being played here?

We’ll start with a basic tenet of the abrahamic religions, that only applies in related ways to a few of the others: the concept of eternal reward or punishment – heaven and hell. On the face of it, these seem to make sense: any individual is rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad, until you ask why these are useful and implemented, which always comes down to, it influences future behavior. You cleaned your room when asked, you get a new videogame, or you hit your brother with a pinecone, you lose internet privileges for two days. Whatever. The idea is to promote future behavior that’s beneficial. But let’s face it: if you don’t want something to happen again, boom, kill the child. Done deal. Horrifying, right? Not even a fraction as horrifying as tormenting someone eternally for whatever misdeeds they might have done. What purpose could that possibly serve? And isn’t it enormously sadistic, I mean, really sicko behavior? Further, what use is a perpetually expanding realm of either ultimately happy or ultimately miserable souls? Are they currency of some kind, and for what? Is the supreme being trying to score certain points?

There’s also the bare fact that we only recognize ‘good’ and ‘bad’ living conditions or circumstances in relation to those that aren’t. Is it even possible to be perpetually happy, and if so, how would you know? Is it, like, a constant orgasm? What do you do all day, anyway? Is there any longer such a thing as anticipation or dread? Are there goals? Are there, to be blunt, any of the aspects that we view as ‘life’ in the first place? If you think about it, everything that we experience right now (provided that you’re living while reading this, and not a ghost or something,) reflects on not just the biological needs and desires of a living organism, but a social and finite one at that. We try to get along, we try to perpetuate our genes, we strive to accomplish things and/or be remembered, we even enjoy food that fulfills the evolved desires for proper sustenance. None of those apply to perpetual souls, or indeed have any meaning to such. Even people that have retired from their careers, successful at the primary goal of their survival, end up finding ways to occupy their time – new hobbies, new goals, new challenges, because that’s how our minds work. Does traveling the world or carving more elaborate statues have any meaning in heaven? How about regretting taking the lord’s name in vain, or planting two different crops in the same furrow, while burning in hell?

Oh, the afterlife isn’t actually perpetual, but temporary, a stage before the rebirth cycle, like in hinduism? Sure, whatever; what was it you did in the past life that you now know you shouldn’t do again? You don’t remember? Well, that’s certainly functional. Worse, if you follow the ‘greater/lesser beings’ idea and are reborn a cockroach or something, what, exactly are your choices for behavior now? “I probably shouldn’t have robbed all those people – I’ll be sure to be a good little cockroach now and – “… um, do what? Plant fucking trees? Maybe avoid eating or infecting human food? Sure, I’ll buy that; show me the reborn cockroaches that refuse to get into the breakfast cereal. Or perhaps the ones that recall just enough about their previous existences to hold still and let the shoe slam them back into the cycle to be reborn a step higher…

Which also leads to the question of what point a rebirth cycle has. I mean, it makes slightly more sense than the idea of perpetual good/bad afterlife – but only slightly. Again, where are we going with this – what’s the goal? Ultimate enlightenment, like in buddhism? Sure, what’s that? Does it mean omniscience? Fantastic – and what do we do with that? Knowledge is great, when it can be applied to improve something in our lives. But just to have it? And imagine trying to have a conversation between two omniscient people…

Underlying all of this is the basic tenet that religion overall is intended to guide us towards good behavior, which is fine and commendable, but ultimately unnecessary – we’re actually quite capable of determining what’s beneficial and detrimental, because it’s not actually hard at all. The biggest stumbling block is that we’re too often conflicted between what’s personally beneficial (or desirable) and what’s socially beneficial, or short-term versus long-term benefits, or the fact that winning some form of competition, real or imagined, usually does not actually equate with benefit in any form. It would be far easier if we couldn’t become this confused, since it’s mostly emotional/glandular, but again, that’s the way we were made, right? Though at least, the acceptance and active practice of religion is so adept at thwarting most of these ills, which is why we never, ever hear that religious people commit crimes, or take advantage of others, or engage in bloodshed, or [absolutely fucking huge list of social ills from a long history of religious persecution and abuse.] This is also why the cultures and countries that are the most religious are also the happiest and the most advanced. I’m sorry – did that sound like sarcasm? I do so try to avoid using that…

At this point, by the way, there’s never any shortage of people who protest that none of these heinous acts were committed by those who were really religious, but the nasty question is, could you tell that before they committed these acts? Because, you know, a hell of a lot of people could have used that guidance before the thefts, abuses, and murders occurred…

I’ve covered the inherent flaws in omniscience and omnipotence before, because they’re mutually exclusive (if you know everything, you already know what you’re about to do and thus have no power to do anything else,) but if we admit that maybe the scriptural chroniclers got that bit wrong and the supreme being isn’t ultimately knowledgeable or powerful, we still come back to the idea that we were created to be exactly this way – including our ability to make mistakes. Now, the idea of any master plan thwarts our behavior entirely and eradicates the very concept of free will, because we’re only players in this plan, automatons. Or, okay, said supreme being is only watching to see what we do, because, why? What’s the point? They could create what they wanted, do anything they wanted, with or without our participation, so…? What could possibly motivate a being – a perpetual being, mind you – to accomplish anything? Can they be bored? Can they gain any kind of fulfillment when it’s virtually guaranteed that they’ll succeed in everything because they can make it so instantaneously? Not to mention that there’s evidence in nearly every form of scripture that said being is capricious and capable of changing their mind, but also (much more alarmingly,) often quite emotional and petulant when its creation performs as it was created to be! What kind of a mental case would I be if I made a toaster that could also blow the roof off, by design, and then get mad when it happens? I mean, we know why we have emotions, and still don’t have very good control of them, but why would an infinite being have or need such a thing?

Not to mention that, while this supreme being loves us, it sure has a wicked history of being quite vicious about it. Pardon me for referring once again to the abrahamic scriptures, since I’m far more familiar with those, but we have lots of accounts of god playing obvious favorites when it comes to conflicts and wars, including stopping the sun in the sky (and not the planet from turning,) to provide enough daylight hours for the chosen portions of its creation to slaughter the unchosen bits. Lovingly, of course. Or we have the expulsion from the garden of eden, because this being planted a tree right there and said, “Don’t eat the fruit,” (all-knowing, of course, that it was going to happen anyway,) and then in retribution, made its creation susceptible to sinning. Like they weren’t susceptible to it beforehand when they were tempted by the fruit? And what was the tree, we ask? The tree of knowledge, often given as the knowledge of good and evil. Seriously, what’s the scattered and nonsensical message here?

Notice, too, that all of the animals (in this case meaning non-human) were expelled too, and then learned to prey on one another, because, um, they were complicit in this act? Because god doesn’t love them and so they might as well suffer the consequences too? Because god just likes burdening mankind with guilt? This plays out again in the noachian flood, when the vast majority of the world population (human and non) gets slaughtered too, save for a breeding set, because I guess the act of creating the entire universe made god too tired to do something millions of times easier and target simply the sinners.

We’ll broaden our scope now, and point out that not one of the creation stories, from any of the hundreds of different religions that have peppered the Earth, manages to fit in even slightly with all of the evidence that we have (intermeshing and corroborating as well,) of how the sun and planets started, of how life evolved, how old things are, and so on and so on. Now, the trait of studying cause-and-effect, of figuring out just about every mystery that comes in front of our eyes, is deeply ingrained – and has proven to be enormously useful as well, responsible for every last advancement we’ve ever made as a species. But, this fails when it comes to understanding our origins? It’s, as countless religious pundits have maintained over the centuries, all misleading, “testing our faith,” as it is so often put? First off, why? Seems like a hell of a lot of trouble to go through for a simple test, not to mention that the supreme being already knows what’s in our heads, not to mention that it already knows how it will all play out (oh, wait, we have to ignore that omniscience angle.) And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this make it all a huge lie? I thought that was one of those bad things, but I suppose only for us to do, and not the perfect being. So what else is it lying about? I mean, we read or hear about scripture through the same eyes and ears that tell us about fossils and geological deposition and atomic forces, so where does that leave us?

The especially amusing bit about all of this is, religion is repeatedly claimed to provide “all of the answers,” and I cannot count the times that I’ve heard that science can tell us how, but religion tells us why. Feel free to pose any of the above questions to any religious authority that you like and see what kind of answers you actually receive. I’ve been on enough forums to see what they consist of, which is always a dodge along the lines of, “we’re not meant to know,” making the claim of providing answers rather hypocritical of course. I’ve also been on enough forums to hear the countless stories of people who, in their youth, posed such questions honestly and earnestly to their religious instructors, only to be chastised or punished for even asking (which naturally started that distrust and resentment rolling.) Even the explanation of what jesus’ sacrifice (is it a sacrifice if it was all planned, and he went to heaven afterward?) was supposed to provide for mankind somehow isn’t agreed upon by the devout; I’ve heard at least seven different variations personally, none of which made any sense.

Now, I can easily accept that cultures long past were attempting to provide answers, and that’s what most scripture (of any kind) consists of. It is, in fact, the only way that any of this makes sense at all. But to claim that this is how any supernatural being(s) communicated with mankind in order to guide, or inform, or enlighten us? It’s remarkably inept and pathetic, really, hardly the efforts of even average intelligence, much less an enormous intellect, or even one that created the game in the first place.

It’s often maintained that science doesn’t have all of the answers either, but this ignores the bare fact that it never proposed to in the first place, or even proposed anything at all; science is only a methodical process of learning, not any form of pronouncement nor any attempt to guide mankind. That said, using science to understand the origins of this planet and life thereon, as well as the odd and seemingly conflicting emotions that form our motivations, has produced thousands of times more answers than all religious ‘information’ put together, even as our understanding remains incomplete. Yet, this is a misleading comparison, since it’s not an “either/or” situation, a competition between two choices. Even without what science has demonstrated for us, religion does not serve to move us forward or explain our origins or actions or how to behave properly, especially if we take the myriad examples provided within scripture. The moment that anyone feels the motivation for it to make sense and “fit,” it is revealed as sorely lacking in such regards, and the only thing that can be obtained from it is self-indulgence – provided, of course, that one purposefully ignores all of the portions that fail to support such indulgence, or openly contradict it. But answers? Don’t be foolish.