I was thinking that to put oneself into the mind-set of someone else without the background and upbringing that we had is very hard to do. If I could live several lives without knowing I was doing so, to then compare all of them at the end of those separately lived lives would pose an interesting set of questions. One of these would be regarding what I would believe after the comparison of numerously lived dispositions and cultural upbringings. What would I believe then? We are all different because of our parents and culture, the times in which we lived and genetic traits, circumstances and list continues on. In the same way and for overlapping reasons, what we believe is a result of these things. So take away all the things that vary between people and which make them think or believe differently, and what it left? Perhaps nothing is left but one could consider that a few things are going to be same no matter the upbringing and culture. These might include the laws of physics at least, unless one lives in the vicinity of a black hole which is unlikely but what else? Perhaps the way reason itself works, although this is a harder case to make because we all have reason, yet all have miner or major differences in opinion. There are rules to reason that not all adhere to of course, but I mean reason on a more profound level i.e what is reason, comprehension and understanding and experience and what do they have in common for all peoples and cultures and individuals? There must be something they have in common which makes we wonder why I believe the way I do and is it right? The million dollar question perhaps but a valid curiosity none the less!
Take away my atheist dad and theist mother. Take away my privileged western upbringing of the 20 th century and take away my own inbuilt biases that come about through DNA and culture. What then do I believe and why because I have no bible or Koran or any of those things? I could go in the other direction and not take these things away but compare my life to those of many others from different walks of life and distil my and their views down to a single strong thread, or would all the threads cancel themselves out like a neutralising solution leaving nothing? One can almost imagine a Shakespeare quote at this point. So here we are:
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
So knowing the futility of faculty or the perils and promise of reason, can one believe in God, perhaps not the biblical one of course but a God none the less and a monotheistic one at that? Well if a supreme being exists it does provide an effective rebuke against Macbeths negligent spirit does it not? Possibly it is more persuasive than any humanist argument for purpose, which to me feels like a toy that winds itself up only to break anyway.
So after all this rhetoric my question is simple and open to both believer and non-believer alike:
If there was no religion (organised that is) and no books like the bible, Koran or cultural stories of creation and nursery rhymes and so on, is there a basis for theism? I think there is of course being a believer in God but what do others think? This is not a question about should we believe or not? Nor is it a question about proof or not, rather it is a question about reasons for, aside from culture, the bible and what we have been told.