Allow me to preface the following content with a note. I’m not incensed so much as curious. This article deals with the big “R” word. Religion is a delicate subject and as such is a hard discussion to broach. My mind as always is open to your esteemed criticism so read on and if compelled fire away.

Tonight, I asked a close friend out to dinner. Not platonic dinner but romantic date dinner. I’m not that cheesy in real life, give me a bit more credit. The way I posed it was, “Hey we should do dinner sometime.” It was implied the type of dinner. Let’s not get tied up on the wrong part of the story.

So the question was placed gently on the table and a discussion resulted. I’ll give you the abridged version.

I can’t, because I don’t want to date someone I can’t have a future with. We aren’t on the same spiritual level.

This wasn’t simply a ploy to shake me out. She whole heartedly felt this way which I completely respect. Let me stop for a moment and say that this woman is someone whom I have a great admiration for. I consider her to be incredibly intelligent and talented which made the comment all the more scathing. In the end it raised many questions in my mind.

What hurt most was the insinuation that since I was not of the same organized faith I lacked the ability to feel a mutual level of emotional complexity. I’m baffled by the notion that although I might be willing to accept her faith the reflexive does not hold true.

Is religion meant to be an enabler or limiter? I appreciate religion for it’s empowering qualities. I’m a true believer in mind over matter and religion has a way of compelling people to do great things that they wouldn’t usually think possible. It’s hard to live without that kind of support.

If you were to give me the assignment of designing a religion naturally the first thing on my list would be “self preservation”. After all, this especially complex stipulation is one that occurs in nature. Self preservation is of the utmost importance to the survival of any species. I can see how exclusive inter-religious dating would contribute to the preservation of an organized faith.

Where in organized religion is free thought? Through the years it’s been observed that at the cost of rationality there is absolute solidarity. Religion is the great authority of the world and all that circles around it. Carl Sagen in his book The Varieties of Scientific Experiences, made a fascinating case when he pointed out that the history of religion has fallen victim to a series of diminishing truths. It is science that has caused this rift between decisive fact and reality. Stated by the great authorities, man was the center of the universe. When science disproved this belief, man became the center of the solar system. Once again disproved, man became the only unique sentient being in all of time and space. We are God’s only children. Religion describes so much yet explains so little.

The reason that I’ve never been religious is because religion does not promote curiosity. In school I was known as the arrogant kid who questioned everything that my professors tried to teach me. It was the lessons that stood up to my rigorous scrutiny that really stuck. If something is given to me as an absolute I want to understand it completely. If that thing defies rationality then I’m willing to believe only so far as it’s logic allows.

I’m told that gravity is a law of the universe - prove it to me. I can see it affecting everything from the mountains to the oceans. I can peer out towards the distant stars and see gravitation keeping galaxies intact. I believe in it because it fits like a perfect jigsaw piece in a grand puzzle.

Perhaps I overanalyze things. Maybe, it’s my neurotic tendencies. If god is as truly perfect as we make him out to be, why then does he bother himself with such superficial concerns?