Ramblings on Religion

Clarification: When I refer to religion in this post I’m usually referring to Catholicism, Christianity, and for the most part similar branches that initially came about from the Bible. Naturally one who’s well read will be aware that many other religions exist in the world, South Asia has many different religions (e.g. Hindu, Muslim), and undoubtedly other minor communities have their own independently developed beliefs.

My religious “history”

Both my parents are Catholic and interestingly met during their university study through their Catholic prayer group, so it was only natural that me and my younger brother were given Bible-inspired names. I do recall regularly attending Sunday morning mass and found it extremely boring given that I couldn’t hear the priest delivering his sermons; a very old picture shows a very young me sleeping not while seated, but length-wise on the pews.

At around 10 years old there was some kind of ceremony called a ‘Confirmation’ where the only parts I remember was having to study a bit of Catholic history and being given a ‘confirmation name’, which acted like a second middle name. Understandably (or much rather naively) I was quite happy to go with the flow at the time.

The moment that led to me doubting Catholicism (and I guess by extension, related monotheistic religions such as Christianity) was a few years later when I asked my dad one afternoon “How do we know that God exists?” He awkwardly shook his head and responded something along the lines of “We don’t ask that question.” I implicitly knew then that religion was not something that I wanted to be part of, and over the following years I turned my attention towards things I found more interesting.

One would argue that perhaps I shouldn’t have taken it at the word of a single person, and now I’d agree with you, but it’s worth remembering that the internet back then was not the most easily accessible wealth of information as it is today; we’re talking the noisy dial-up 56k modem that was only available on a single family computer.

My current position

For the most part I’m an atheist agnostic: I don’t believe that a god exists, but I don’t believe it’s something that’s provable/verifiable with current evidence and human understanding.

That single “but” is why I do occasionally entertain the idea of some supernatural/divine being out there that just doesn’t have any involvement in our day-to-day lives, mostly out of a personal fantasy given how bare and grey reality can feel at times.

It naturally follows (at least for me) that it’s best to lead life without assuming that there is some supernatural force at play that’ll be some kind of saving grace for the shitty situations in my life, or that there’s some bright future ahead. That for the most part, so long as I invested in my resources in the right places there should be some kind of reasonable payback, and that any situations that seemed like a lucky break (or utter shitfest) was more out of sheer coincidence/probability (with the caveat that it is most definitely possible to improve one’s chances).

One question that I found interesting to consider while figuring things out was “What would it take for you to believe?” While it wouldn’t stray me towards Catholicism/Christianity specifically, if I ever experienced some big striking event (e.g. being struck by lightning, being dead for a bit, then coming back to life) and experiencing something that could be described as ‘spiritual’ of which the circumstances are not completely explainable by science, then the needle would definitely tip a little towards the other direction.

The friend that found respite in Christianity

While studying my Masters in mathematics, within my cohort there was a person who was very good at rounding up the rest of us introverts; a motivating inertia force that enabled the rest of the cohort to be able to do things that we’d otherwise wouldn’t do.

Yet privately they admitted to me that they were struggling with feeling very lost in life and not knowing how to view the world. I honestly don’t remember if I did much, if anything to help them through it, but was always happy to listen and provide my perspective.

I don’t think I ever asked them how they found Christianity but the more they explored, the more it felt like to them that they’d finally found a place of belonging. I’ll admit I was a bit conflicted at the time, but felt that as a friend it wasn’t fair for me to strongly object to their choosing Christianity – at their core they’re a very kind person who I couldn’t feasibly see being corrupted by the bad eggs.

In addition, out of personal curiosity and wanting to revisit my much-earlier-questioning-of-religion I joined said friend in a couple of Bible study sessions which on the whole were pretty arduous for me. That said, I persisted more out of hearing (my friend’s account) on how they’re interpreted and perhaps what the implied/hidden/contextual meaning may be, as opposed to my straightforward literal interpretations.

Said friend is now married and recently birthed a little one, and from the little that I know of their current lives they’re happily settled in a place of their own and are involved with mostly the Christian community around them. The friend’s partner was someone I was very initially wary of, but have concluded that he’s a genuinely kind person as well.

Despite my initial wariness about Christianity and my friend possibly heading down a wrong path, I’ve come to realise that this was probably one of the best possible outcomes that could’ve happened for my friend. They now have a solid foundation upon which to view the world around them, thus enabling them to do good things for themselves and the people around them.

To me, Christianity is/was a good delusion for them, but it also helps that their core morals are that of genuinely kind and inclusive people to begin with. For the most part, I can say the same about the majority of acquaintances/colleagues that I willingly interact with.

Christianity (and related religions) in today’s Western progressive society

Most people within my current social circles and politically-left-leaning people in touch with at least Australian and US news will be aware that a subset of actions/beliefs of the far right are motivated by flawed Christian beliefs. Through confirmation bias these people cherry-pick specific Bible phrases that are consistent with their view of the world and dismiss any criticism/inconsistency. That’s where I’d say Christianity is a bad delusion.

The fact that such things are now happening on a much larger scale undoubtedly has motivated the younger (Western) generation’s turning away from religion, as can be seen on the occasional census/poll/news report over the years. Continuing down that same trajectory it’ll be very interesting to see if there’ll be a bounce back of some kind not necessarily back into the same religions, but possibly or potentially new/invented ones, as well as the motivating events/factors behind said bounce-back.

This is all great and all, Matt, but why are you randomly writing a post on religion?

While attempting to clean out my browser tabs I re-stumbled upon this book, Unbelievable by Rob J. Hyndman (which you can read for free on his website!) and really wanted to finish reading it (and thus have put my tab cleaning on hold). Hyndman is a Professor of Statistics, but was previously very involved in the Christian faith. However further investigation in a bid to supplement his faith with solid evidence resulted in his finding out that said evidence was not sufficient nor consistent, and thus has lost his faith in the religion.

Naturally as a fellow mathematician I was very curious to see his writings and perspective, and can comfortably say that his writing has clarified a lot of conclusions I’ve had but not necessarily had put words to. Some snippets I really enjoyed:

From Chapter 7, under ‘Cruel Randomness’:

Car accidents, diseases, and industrial accidents all follow the same probability distribution, known as the “Poisson distribution”. The Poisson probability distribution is based on the assumption that accidents happen randomly. It is simply not possible for tragedies to appear to follow the Poisson probability distribution while actually being controlled by God. Any interventions of God that interfere in the random processes would be detectable. If they are not detectable, then they are random and God is not involved.

If we accept that the world is random, and that bad things happen to everyone by chance, where does that leave God? Either he does not exist, or he has no power, or he does not care. 

From Chapter 8, under ‘Probabilities and prophecies’:

Sometimes people try to assign probabilities to prophecies, and arrive at a tiny number which is then claimed to be evidence for the prophecy being divinely inspired. I have never used this argument because there are serious mathematical problems with it. First, you have to be able to quantify the probability of each aspect of the prophecy. Second, you must then assume that all elements of the prophecy are independent of each other. Both steps are problematic.
...
I once saw some Bible course notes that used this probabilistic argument for prophecy. So I raised the above objections and asked that the offending section of notes be removed. I was told that the argument should be retained because it was impressive, even if it was wrong, and that the people attending the course would not know the argument made no mathematical sense in any case. I was shocked that believers would knowingly lie for the sake of conversion. Sadly, the notes are still in use, and the argument is still being used.

From Chapter 15, under ‘Good without God’:

In summary, a consistent and objective foundation of morality is this: Behaviour that contributes to total human happiness is right, while anything that diminishes total human happiness is wrong. As a result, I think we should seek, whenever possible, to increase the happiness and decrease the suffering of other human beings. I do not need a God, or a holy book, to tell me that. I can be good without God.

This last one resonates with me a lot because I’d basically come towards a similar conclusion as to why I try to be kind and be a good person: to improve and contribute to overall human happiness, and to raise the energy, spirit and morale of those around me. Who knew I’d find a fellow mathematician who’d arrive at a similar conclusion while searching for an overarching guiding principle of (good) morality.

Anyway, be good, be kind, within reason. Keep an open mind, interact with many different people as you can, especially those outside of your local community every once in a while. I know I’m a better person for doing so, and I can only hope the same applies to everyone else following these general principles for life, regardless of their religious beliefs.