Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do.1
- Voltaire2
................3
It appears that religion places a higher value on an interaction with God than on one with another human being:4
If I were alone and abandoned, say, in a desert, and knew that I was going to die, would I feel worse for being 'abandoned' by (or abandoning) God than I would be for being separate from those I loved, and still do love?5
Atheists, or those who abandon the notion of God, are often derided (especially in the world's Holy Books) as being prideful and arrogant. True, if you strip someone of everything that that person possesses and needs, then they will surely realise that their attempts to establish an identity are at the mercy of that which the universe (or even that which lies beyond it) can provide. For example, I could not be expressing these views if it were not for the Internet and all of its components (human-made, although it was the cosmos that made it possible...but then that is the point). For when we are stripped of an ability to rely on 'ourselves', we become nothing.6
Now at the time of writing I was not thirsty, but if it were true that I were out in the desert, a glass of water would begin to appear as a divine notion. It is relative - as is all - to our needs at a point in (or out of) time. I have mentioned 'out of' in an attempt to include Eternity.7
It is perhaps impossible to determine the exact nature of our cosmos’s ‘creation’. Science can assist us to grasp the scale of what is an uncertain entity. The only alternatives (amongst other Books): a Bible or the Torah. Now they are merely conceptions alongside science of the nature of Existence. The underlying difference between religion and science is that religion offers an invitation at once to indulge in the Meaning and devaluation of life by adding onto it the possibility of eternal Penalty, or Paradise. Science proposes neither Value nor Price. Instead it looks for a function and purpose – both absent in the religions. Therefore, science and religion need not conflict. They are there for the ones who choose them, as both provide.8
To me, the understanding of the limitations of our existence provides infinitely more Meaning to our loves and lives than does proclaiming that they are unending.9
Religiosity is an inevitably human trait. What would be unnatural is for the whole of a human race to share the same Religion. I can say this because each religion requires a particular effort on the part of the practitioner to adhere to its own unique principles. From order comes chaos. Just look at the world and its struggle for constancy. Religiosity has caused less pain on a personal level than on a practical one. Personally, it provides in an emotional sense the same comfort as a crackling fire on a winter’s night. Practically, it is as helpful as a fundamentalist government. Religiosity at its purest peak observes Right Individuals as the means and end of life: What is right within us is more noble than the highest virtue. What is wrong within us is worse than the most vile sin.10
For example:11
1) Someone with a ‘love of life’ may eat what is bad for them despite knowing (with thanks to science) that the detriment is greater than the benefit. What is more, they are aware of an healthier alternative.12
2) A Muslim mightn't pray despite knowing it is a requirement of the Koran. For if one can speak to their heart, then they may learn that its words are the mirror of love.13
The interpretation of religion as empire will never survive while empires require influence and power. Look at the empires past. Were they not religious?14
In the global environment of today, we can see the whole of the Earth. To my eyes, cultures become tribes, and flowers become screens. A religion (like passion) ignites, but cannot sustain itself. As a micro-organism it evolves, surviving through the lives of those it enhances. The people become the religion, and hence are not bound to it more than the free are bound to the slaves. They follow their hearts.15
Adding your comment: