[3] Reflecting on Religion / Brother in Christ.

An Op-Ed that provides a look into my relationship with religion with respect to my complicated family backgrounds of Catholics, Buddhists, and atheists.

The origins of religion date back centuries, yet scholars fail to agree on a distinct definition of religion. Instead, they offer two loose translations that illustrate the impact of religion.

The sociological approach asserts that religion is an essential foundation of a functional society, as it ensures that all members of the community uphold morality in their treatment of others.

'

On the other hand, the philosophical approach opines that religion exists as a means to answer our existential questions; this viewpoint is often corroborated by an omnipotent deity, divine sanctuaries that await us in the afterlife, or the promise of otherworldly rewards.

Yet, these definitions don't help us quantify the influence that religion possesses. This is because different people have different relationships with religion. Religion can be the spiritual system of support that counteracts the invasive infection of hopelessness and loneliness. Religion can be the framework that guides attitudes toward how people live their lives. Religion can be the tool that fosters introspection and self-improvement through the assimilation of virtues. Religion can be the fellowship offered to those who share a common faith in a particular denomination. Religion can be the cultural heritage that people find intertwined within their familial traditions or structure.

As for myself, my relationship with religion was often muddled. The maternal side of my family was composed of devout Catholics, but my father was an atheist, and my remaining paternal relatives were Buddhists.

Due to the religious ambiguity in my household, I strayed away from religious affiliation altogether. Though my parents hadn’t necessarily enforced their faith onto me, I felt an innate pressure to choose a side. And so I decided to choose neither.

One argument I used against religion is the claim that sacred stories are inconsistent with historical records and scientific knowledge. For a long time, I was a proponent of this critique. There is no proof that Jesus reincarnated himself. It’s impossible for Moses to have split the Red Sea. These sacred stories, as far as I was concerned, were fictional.

Having been given the privilege of exceptional schooling, it makes sense that I wanted to align my worldview with the curriculum that was offered to me. Atheism provided me with a straightforward, pragmatic approach to life that religious nuances did not.

What I failed to realize back then was that these sacred stories do not aim to assert an exaggerated depiction of human history; instead, they were created to explain moral ideas through lore. Religion, though emphasizing faith in a particular deity (or deities) and compelling its followers to practice certain traditions, is ultimately a guide on how to live an altruistic and noble life.

Still, it’s not unusual to see my peers denounce religion, blaming the familial pressure and inherent restrictions that religion may have placed on their lives. And to be honest, I get it.

While religious institutions first emerged as the answer to our existential questions, they soon evolved into a means of spreading restrictive ideologies and justifying selfish convictions. Over time, followers began to slur those with variant affiliations by punishing heretics and waging wars. Instead of practicing the religious teachings of morality, some theists decide to police the beliefs of others.

Likewise, many contemporary religious institutions are notorious for their intolerance of dissenting beliefs. For instance, the controversial debate surrounding abortion is often crowded by moral convictions driven by ensoulment; in other words, many Christians believe that life begins at conception and that abortion constitutes murder. As such, followers have turned to vague, inapt scripture to fuel dissent instead of abiding by the fundamental teaching to nurture virtue and compassion for others.

It’s difficult to defend an institution responsible for centuries of violence and hate, but I believe there needs to be a distinction between the institution and the follower, between the institution and the core ideals of the religion. It would be ignorant to deny the sins of our ancestors, but it would be equally as insensible to deny the foundations upon which these institutions are established. In other words, though not all followers are good, they still have the capacity for good. They are simply misguided by dishonorable institutions that fail to deliver on the noble intentions of religion.

I used to tell people that I don't like religious institutions, but that's not entirely true; rather, I'm not particularly keen on the labels that are associated with particular religious beliefs. Theists often get preoccupied with denominations that oppose their own. They forget that they are meant to prioritize their personal connection to religion; instead, they police the beliefs of others and attempt to forcefully spread their ideologies.

I can recollect times of condemning religion, especially when I felt enslaved by religion in my youth. Maybe I acted this way because my friends were evidently atheists. Maybe it’s because stories of men walking on water and princes surviving months of fasting were scientifically incomprehensible. Maybe it’s because I simply wanted to rebel against my parents during my pubescent years.

Whatever the reason for my separation from religion could have been, I was only able to demonstrate a genuine care for religion once the choice to reconnect with my faith was my own decision.

I still don’t really believe in the mystical stories of the Bible, but I follow its teachings. Religion, to me, is not a means to justify the existence of God; instead, it depicts a set of moral values that I strive to live by. I don’t question the existence of God because religion dictates that I accept this fact. Perhaps his existence does not stay consistent with the scientific or historical evidence that humans have accumulated, but God is all-powerful, and his presence cannot be fully understood by us mortals.

The Bible is the scripture of human beings who are imperfect in nature, and thus, the recollection of these stories is imperfect by nature. Even though I consider myself a Catholic, I don’t necessarily comprehend the paranormal tales of this scripture. Yet that doesn’t mean that the values and the virtues of the Bible are foreign to me. In fact, the teachings of the Bible have given me the strength and the determination to continue despite the hardships in my life.

Religion offers me a sense of comfort; the fact that an otherworldly being is looking out for me compels me to pray and demonstrate hope. Furthermore, religion has forced me to stay accountable, as the last thing that I would want to do as a follower of Catholicism would be to disappoint God. When you designate spiritual consequences to your actions, you are more inclined to ensure a positive externality through religious obedience.

Despite being religious, I have no quarrel with atheists or those with differing creeds. I believe that as long as you ensure the capability to be considerate and ethical in your life, your connection to one particular religion is ultimately inconsequential. The purpose of religion is not to verify the validity of a particular role but rather to learn from scripture for the betterment of others and ourselves.

In nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti, Amen.