Nick Guarino

My basic convictions about life are rather fluid at this point. As I grow older
and change, my beliefs about life also change. Concerning the meaning of life, my
view has changed considerably. When I was a child I believed in what my parents
told me. I believed there was a God, Heaven, and Hell, and that when we died are
souls endured in another plane of existence. It was a time in my life before I truly
learned to evaluate claims for validity. As I aged I eventually came to question this
view and then abandon it. This was the result of two things I experienced. The first
was my exposure to the immense amount of suffering that other humans have
experienced. The second was my experience with science and its ability to
demystify phenomenon that seemed inexplicable to me at the time. Tolstoy does
provide a good response to the supposed conflict of God and suffering. He asserts
that the world we inhabit is one of evolution, and that within an evolutionary world
suffering is necessary and inevitable. However, this still does not resolve the conflict
in my eyes. I agree that in this world suffering is inevitable, but I dont understand
why God would design such a world. If hes truly omnipotent surely he could design
an alternative world where suffering is not necessary for development of the
species. The only reply to this I can think of is that perhaps if there was no suffering
in the world, life itself would be pointless. Suffering is a key teacher and without
suffering it is likely that a large number of us would be ignorant. So in that regard
perhaps it is for the best that suffering exists in the world. Still to this a satisfying
response is that while some suffering can be beneficial the amount of suffering that
has occurred on this planet surely has surpassed the point, and some have suffered
in ways that taught them nothing, but only tortured them with pain. To this, I have
no response. After having my initial belief in God and Christianity shaken, I existed
in a limbo of belief. I was adopted a pessimistic view of human nature and concluded
that life was pointless. I came to eventually abandon these beliefs as well. These
beliefs I relinquished primarily due to experience. It was easy to believe that life was
pointless and people inherently evil, but my experiences did not support it. I may
have learned and experienced great showings of human depravity, but I also
experienced acts of kindness and selflessness. From meeting a variety of good
people I came to conclude that people were not evil by nature. After this period in
my life, I eventually I came to believe in science, as providing an adequate
explanation to why life exists. The next system I came to have faith in was evolution.
I highly doubted the existence of God and I believed the purpose of life was simply
to reproduce, and pass on your genes. This made sense to me because the body
seemed to be designed for that purpose, and that is what generations of my
ancestors had done before me. In my opinion, humans were playing an evolutionary
game, and the point of being alive was to perform as well as you could at that game.
In time, I came to abandon this view. The chief reason for this was that the view is
very rather bleak and is an altogether unsatisfying answer. Additionally, when I
examine the belief closely I realize that perpetuating the species itself is
meaningless in the long run. Regardless, of how well you play the evolutionary game
eventually humanity will die out. The sun will supernova and the universe will
collapse or expand until all energy is lost and nothing will exist. So if the point of life
is to perpetuate the species then life itself is pointless. Additionally, I noticed a
disparity between my actions and my belief in an evolutionary game. If I truly
believed that the point of life was to pass on your genes, then the optimal strategy
for winning at such a game would be to exert the majority of your effort into
producing progeny. There would be no room for empathy, or love, or even fun in
such a game. As I do not live my life in such a manner, and I do exercise empathy and
compassion, I reveal myself to not be a true believer in perpetuating the species as
the meaning of life. My belief in the evolutionary game, I believe, is an example of
one of Ortegas ideas. Using thought, I deduced from what I had learned in biology
that humans and all life on Earth were designed for two purposes: to survive and to
reproduce. Using this lens I interpreted the meaning of life to solely be
reproduction, as after all the human body is clearly designed for the purpose.
However, the belief I hold about the meaning of life must lie opposed to that idea,
because my actions indicate moral values and a belief in some higher purpose. Im
not entirely certain what I believe about the meaning of life, but I do know that I
believe in obligations we have to ourselves and other humans, as well as the value of
morality. I lead my life trying to do what I believe is right, although the meaning of
life itself and the definition of what is right eludes me. I am unsure if God exists, but
if he does not exist then I believe that life is meaningless. Without God everything is
temporary and random, and chance is by definition meaningless. However, at the
level of beliefs, I suspect I may believe in God. When I was younger, around 14 or 15,
I was in a state of doubt. I was unsure what I believed, and I was seeking answers to
the question of the existence of a God. However, after a certain amount of time, I
stopped thinking about it. I believe that based on my actions I hold the belief God
exists, or at least I believe there is some higher order of moral rules that I must
follow. After all, if I truly believed there was no God then I would presumably feel no
need to behave morally. As I do, I must conclude I believe in something higher than
the physical world. On the level of ideas, I cannot assert that God exists, nor can I
assert the reasonability of morality.
I tend to distrust religion and there are a couple of reasons for this. One
reason is the existence of multiple religions. For one religion to be correct the others
must be mistaken. Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma cannot exist if there is only one god as
asserted by Christianity. You could argue that Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma are all
incarnations of the same God, and thus the Hindus, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all
worship. But if so, why the large discrepancy of lore between the Judeo-Christian
religions and Hinduism. Why arent Adam and Eve, or Abraham, or Moses, or Jesus
mentioned in Hinduism. It seems to me that the only point they both religions can
agree on is there is one God. If that s the only thing the religions can agree on, then
there are a still a plethora of contradictions between each. These contradictions
cause me to question, which religion is more accurate, are the bibles tales correct or
are the Vedas correct? If no reason can be provided, then why trust either? Even
comparing similar religions, irreconcilable beliefs exist. For instance the Christians
believe in Jesus as the savior but both Islam and Judaism reject this. People support
their religious beliefs by asserting that they have faith, but clearly faith isnt an
infallible justification, as one person could have faith in Jesus as the savior and one
could have faith he is not the savior and both could not be correct. If you believe
your religion to be completely correct you must assert that all the others are
mistaken, as there are beliefs between religions that are irreconcilable. In order for
a Christian to posit that Jesus is the savior he must also conclude that the Muslims
and Jews are incorrect in believing that Jesus is not the savior. It is because it is what
you are familiar with, as there is no other justification that can be used to assert that
one religion is superior to another. Furthermore, if Christianity is correct than all
the Hindus theoretically would be condemned for worshipping false gods. This
seems unfair considering the message of Jesus was never brought to the Hindus
because Jesus didnt live in India. The contradictions between the different religions
doctrines cast doubt on their legitimacy to me, because it shows that some religions
must be mistaken. The second reason I am distrustful of religion is historical. These
reasons are shown clearly in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, but similar
issues have presented themselves in all religions. The church has shown itself
capable of great corruption in the past, particularly in the Middle Ages. Many priests
and nuns were known to take lovers. This practice even spread to the pope himself
with Innocent VIII and Alexander VI fathering illegitimate children. The higher-level
clergymen lived more like princes than men of god, with some cardinals living in
palaces in Rome. The upper-echelon of the clergy supported this style of living by
using the threat of Hell to manipulate the people. Peasants paid large tithes to the
church because they were told if they did not they could not achieve salvation. Most
infamously, the church sold indulgences, which was essentially trading asylum from
Hell for currency. The church was using its power out of lust and greed, which is a
remarkably human way to act for an organization that is supposed to be spiritual.
These abuses do not show that the church is a purely evil organization, it only shows
that the church is an inherently human organization. The church is run at all levels
of the hierarchy by men, and as a result of this composition, corrupt clergymen are
inevitable. Realizing the nature of the church it becomes apparent that the is not
necessarily a force for good, but rather can be a force for either good or evil, just as
men are forces for either good or evil. The church is as good or as bad as the men
and women composing the institution. Additional evidence for this belief can be
seen by observing that the Churchs beliefs change with time. An example of this is
the Churchs position on homosexuality. The church has historically renounced the
practice of homosexuality and the act is condemned in the bible. However, recently
Pope Francis has stated, If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has
good will, who am I to judge? While this is statement is not a complete reversal of
opinion it shows a remarkable shift in the attitude of the church toward
homosexuality, as in the past the practice was openly condemned. Though, Pope
Francis does not shift the Churchs position on homosexuality, he certainly is more
accepting of it than his predecessors would have been. This shift in attitude is
mainly the result of a political climate that is more and more accepting of
homosexuality. I do not believe homosexuality to be wrong morally, what bothers
me about this attitude shift is that the pope is following the consensus of the
population. As the pope is the leader of the Church and its highest authority other
than God, this can be interpreted as shift in the attitude of the Church as well. This
kind of shifting of opinion based on what is accepted is characteristic of humanity,
and is another example of how the church behaves in a very human manner. If God
himself descended from the heavens and gave me an order, I would without
question obey. However, a human giving the same command claiming to speak of
Gods will, I would distrust. I choose to make my own decisions on what I believe the
divine order to be, rather than blindly accepted what is posited by others. Tyrants of
the past used God to justify their rule, and while I do not believe the Church is
pursuing such nefarious ends now, I will always be wary of the Churchs and any
organized religions ability to manipulate. However, in spite of these concerns about
the church, I do not believe organized religion to be a bad thing. I believe organized
religion has accomplished a great deal of good, and that perhaps it is even necessary
to a healthy society. The most ruthless dictators of our time destroyed the church
and anointed themselves as the highest authorities. What I believe is that there is a
distinction between organized religion and true divinity. I regard organized religion
as a man made institution, and as any organization involving men, it is worthy of
suspicion. In my personal experience I have encountered many individuals who
claim a certain level of fervor in their belief in God and Christianity but clearly
possessed selfish ulterior motives. The actions of these people and those like them,
combined with the transgressions of the church against humanity in earlier ages
makes me wary of all organized religion.
Regarding the existence of a God, I am conflicted. Science has provided more
and more evidence that it is possible that the universe is a self-contained system.
The big bang theory shows how the universe could have originated without the aid
of a supernatural being. Granted, I dont pretend to understand the big bang theory,
but the credentials of those purporting the theory are impeccable. Science has
accomplished many amazing things, and when you observe the ways understanding
the laws of nature have improved human life it inspires trust. Things like televisions,
and vaccinations, and cars seem completely impossible yet science has created
them. If the big bang theory is accepted by the community that provided us
commodities like these I think its safe to assume that there must be good reasoning
behind the theory. Even what science has created that is horrible such as the atomic
bomb, when viewed in terms of being able to exert control over matter, is incredible.
Even beyond the explanations of the universe provided by science. I also have
considered the possibility he merely is an idea of humanity. There are many reasons
to believe in a supreme being. The idea appeals to the desire of humanity for order
and justice within the universe. Its comforting to know that we will be awarded for
are actions and that those who act wrongly will be punished. One theory about the
origins of religion is that it is simply an adaption of man to cope with the knowledge
that one day we will die, a burden no other animal must deal with. People generally
believe in what they can either see or reason to exist. As we can neither see God nor
reason his existence the question must be posed as to why so many people believe
in God. Doesnt the possibility exist that belief in God is so widespread because it is
both comforting and deep rooted in the tradition of humanity. The evidence that
God is not necessary for the universe to exist combined with the ample motive to
believe in a God all make me think that it is possible the idea of God was simply
created by man. However, the case isnt clear-cut for the belief in a Godless universe.
The one thing that makes me think that there is a God is simply a matter of
probability. The planet Earth is in the perfect position to support life, with an
abundance of the perfect substance, water, and with the perfect temperature range.
The universe has only existed sixteen billion years, which is not enough time to
justify such an unlikely occurrence with chance. Additionally, studying cells in
biology and seeing how incredibly complex they are makes me doubt that such an
association of molecules could have arisen by chance alone. Even less likely than the
existence of life on Earth, is my own existence. In order for me to exist millions of
my ancestors, many of different species had to mate with precise partners, at
precise times. One disruption to this line and I would never have been born. The
staggering unlikelihood of my existence makes me consider that perhaps a God does
exist. You could argue that perhaps a universe existed prior the Big Bang, and thus
there may have been a time span greater than 16 billion years for life to occur that
perhaps was infinite. However, prior to the Big Bang theory everything existed as a
singularity, an infinitely small, infinitely dense point. According to Einsteins theory
of relativity such a point would have such an enormous gravitational pull time itself
did not exist. If time does not exist then life could not have arisen prior to the big
bang and thus life had could only arisen in the universe for the last 16 billion years.
Another occurrence I believe lends credence to the idea of God is that despite all of
humanities knowledge we still cannot artificially create life or intelligence. Perhaps
creating life and intelligence is an act that only the divine can achieve. To this
however, one could reply that the reason man cant create life is only that the
processes of cells and the brain are so complicated that we cannot understand them
yet. Theoretically, if we perfectly understood the processes of life and thought we
could create an organism. However, I find this reply to be lacking because I believe
the processes of the brain to be so complex we will never fully understand them.
However, departing from the scientific side, the main reason I have not rejected the
idea of God is simply because I realize that there is much that is unknown to me and
much I do not understand, and as such I do not feel equipped to definitively answer
the question. If God does exist, I doubt his nature is exactly as is described by any of
the religions. I also suspect that God does not intervene in the affairs of the Earth.
This is based on my observation that supernatural and miraculous things never
seem to happen. Granted Ive only lived 18 years, but it still seems to me that the
laws of nature are immutable. If God exists he does not moderate the affairs of
Earths. Another reason I am convinced of this is the numerous horrible events that
have occurred that God has done nothing to stop, like the Holocaust for example.
The plight of the Jews in the Holocaust is reminiscent of biblical times, yet God did
not lead the Jews to salvation. This makes me doubt Gods involvement in the affairs
of the Earth. I suppose in that way my views resemble a deist, where I believe that
God set the universe in motion, but that he does not play a role in it. I suppose, you
could argue that God works solely through human agents, but the question that
arises for me is why would a omnipotent God limit himself like that? Why not just
eliminate all the evil in the world and be done with it? The answer Ive been come to
believe is that God does not interfere. Concerning Gods nature, I cant believe in an
idea like Hell. In my opinion, there is no crime so heinous as to be worthy of eternal
torment. If God exists, I can only imagine him to be infinitely merciful. While I still
have doubts of Gods existence, I have realized some arguments exist that offer some
justification of his existence. I also acknowledge that I dont know a great deal about
the world. These things have pushed me from the atheist side of the spectrum I
inhabited earlier in my life to a position of uncertainty. I side with Pascals view in
regards to the existence of God. I do not believe reason can resolve the question of
his existence. Humanity has been trying to resolve the question through reason for
thousands of years. Still, all the proofs by even the most brilliant men inevitably fall
short. The logical inductive inference to make is that no proof will ever be sufficient.
However, I do not believe the only alternative left to us is to guess. Guessing does
not truly resolve the question of Gods existence; it is only an analysis of what belief
it is most beneficial to subscribe to. I believe the only way to resolve the dilemma of
Gods existence is to simply believe whatever appears to you to be the most true.
Reason is useless, so the only other alternative left is instinct and intuition.