I think this an extremely important question as I see it as the next 'quantum leap' in the human view of themselves and their place in a vast universe.

If there is an enduring characteristic in humans it's that of intense curiosity and a singular 'need' to posit a 'reason' for events. We seem to have this ineffable longing to label the subjective feelings we experience: joy, sorrow, bafflement etc. in some kind of easily defined and recognizable box. After all, that is how we generally deal with and recognize the world : this is this, that is that so I know where I stand in relation to it.

The trouble is, it is subjective. Emotion, regardless of the causal events that precede them, always are. Show me 'joy' so that it means the same to myself as it does to you - you can't. This does not mean your joy is not actual, it is just something you cannot fundamentally share with me ( lacking a vulcan mind-meld ).

Humans do not do well in situations which contain 'unknowns'. And really, this need to label is part of an integral part of the social contract and fabric ala: please stop at a red light - red lights mean stop your car, not 'try to figure out if you should based on how you are feeling'.

When the world was 'smaller' in terms of there being more unknowns than knowns, the need was commensurately greater to garner an understanding of what we were being subject to: Zeus threw lightening, obviously. What other answer could there be for something that can kill seemingly randomly. Humans don't like randomness , it takes away our feelings of control.

Well, we can put our faith, trust , belief in something which DOES control things which we cannot. It would be simplistic to say that when we leave our parents control, we then turn it over to a meta being as parental substitutes yet I feel many do exactly this ( not all by a long chalk ).

I am basically an atheist ( and no, I'm not a Stalinist, Leninist or anything of the sort. People HAVE wanted to send me to a Gulag, but that was personal ). However, I also realize I could be wrong - the difference between a 'soft' and a 'hard' atheist, if you will

When the (interestingly chosen name ) 'Age of Enlightenment' came 'round, people were simply offered more choices. The concept of science finding all those illusive 'answers' was intoxicating. Doomed to failure, but at least it freed people from some of the kinds of fear that some religions could impose on the social order. Being a scientist myself, I know that science vs. religion is meaningless: science only examines relationships, not causality. Also, it has to be seen to be ( yes, I choose my words with care ) empirically based, not subjective.

Atheism is also not the 'enemy' , as it is simply a rejection of the concept of deity, nothing more . All too often this degenerates into a futile game of "well, you can't prove it!" and "Well, neither can you!"

Very few subjective experiences and feelings can be 'proven' - only shown to exist by behavior either self generated or replicated by inducement.

For myself , I would like religion to stop being a divisive force, a sometimes destructive and controlling force for the simple reason that outside of maintaining a prescribed social contract, it's not necessary.

And yet look at the world. Politics and Religion ( or, religion used as a political tool , either for or against ) cause so much divisiveness and pain.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is ' How to be human in the most harmless way possible'. I don't think there is an answer as to why a hurricane, drought or earthquake kills someone's baby or other loved ones while somewhere else in the world someone is sipping Mai Tais on the beach and secure in both their person and family. And truth be known, that very assumption of security can be wiped out in a city-second by natural forces ( however you want to define that - a shark, a person throwing a bomb ( people are 'natural'), a mugger, a horrible disease, etc..

Yet we will always seek 'attribution'. It is my opinion we always will -why, why oh why!!. Without 'answers', there is not even the spurious notion of control left to us. It is this very thing that makes us both as strong and wonderful as we can be, as well as how horrible and cruel we can also be.We MUST reach a place where we can honestly say " If what you believe makes you the best person you can be and doesn't demonize others and allows them to find their own path to being the best they can be, we may have made a start. This endless comparing of and 'upping' of one belief set over another has got to stop if for no other reason than it's a game that has no winners.

I am in love with the wonders of the universe. I find great joy in simply being and feel lucky I am not watching my child starve in Darfur.

There are no 'enemies' in this arena -only diverse peoples search for answers , an activity humans have always seemingly engaged in. Your answer may not work for me or mine work for you - no need to fall out over it.

Unless you try to rule others in the name of what you believe, be it religion, science, politics or what have you. We can only control ( and even that can be an illusion) a very small part of where we find ourselves. Can we not accept that?

open