One may question how and why do religions and faiths explain existence, and is the evidence that supports them rational and solid; if ones proof is just based upon a personal experience another has claimed, feeling or another’s scriptures then surely it is completely uncertain and unproven. Therefore it seem illogical to base an entire existence of faith into a religion, when one cannot state why they believe in it as there are no world wide renowned arguments and facts to back up an inquisition.
If a particular person believes that they have experienced a miracle, or been visited or spoken to by God, then they can be definite in saying why they believe in their religion, and to them this argument seems completely rational and no matter what another being may say or do to alter the persons believes then person will still hold their faith and deem it to be completely cogent. A problem arises when this person is asked to show some hard evidence in their belief. They simply cannot; they cannot prove in any way that God had spoken to them, and therefore to the questioner this person could be completely absurd. And if it cannot to proven, it cannot be rational and a whole nation cannot hold a faith on one or two person’s alones claims.
Then again, imagine that this person was you, and you genuinely believed that God had came to you, and told you what religion to follow but of course you could never prove to any one else that you are not lying, or a fool. To you, no matter how much you were argued against your feelings and opinions wouldn’t changed because it is your personal experience, therefore surely you would never need a rational argument to prove your religious belief as it is an impossibility to acquire one.
On the other hand, religious faiths nearly all conduct an adequate way to live and behave. Many people follow religions because of faith, upbringing, personal experience and many other reasons and live by the commandments given to them. If suddenly, there beliefs where proved as wrong then perhaps there fundamental way of living would change and there would be an increase of havoc in the world. So surely, religion holds many moral and ethical values and it would be unnecessary to demand a more rational argument for religions to be based upon. And if you feel that this alone is not a rational argument, surely it would be ludicrous to jeopardize a code of living.
It's not that one would say atheists are evil or immoral. But if morals are merely adaptive or maladaptive, they cannot be either good or evil, right or wrong -- just better towards preserving the species of humans. It depends upon the individual who have a revealed religious faith to determine one’s morals; an atheist or sceptic would also have individual determination of morals and code of living. So, it would seem to be that atheists and sceptics have as valid a claim to morals as does someone with faith. This shows that with or without religious faith most people would all be in agreement with having for example morals and a code of living, they have come to the same conclusions in very different ways.
Therefore in this case surely if it makes the world tilt towards being a better place then having a religious faith may not need to back backed up by a proven rational argument.
