Archive (7/4/2009): To Believe or Not to Believe...

I am not religious. Hell (pun intended), I’m the first to advocate against the support of the invisible deity whose existence lies upon one’s ability to set aside good old fashion common sense in favour of devoting their lives to an institution based entirely on theory without extenuating evidence *takes breath*. Wittgenstein was a famous philosopher who, before going senile and almost completely contradicting and therefore making redundant his earlier theories, proposed the idea that if, for example, someone was able to honestly try and tell you there was a chair on the other side of a solid brick wall, could you believe them? It may nor may not be true; you cannot prove it either way. You have not seen this chair and only have the word of a complete stranger to convince you of its existence. Do you trust they are being truthful? Would you devote your entire life to the theory that this chair exists? Would you lay down your life for this chair? Would you fight wars for this chair? Of course not. It’s a chair.

I came across that theory when I was 16 when my semi-insane English Literature teacher explained the theories of the Enlightenment and the inspiration behind the Australian poet Gwen Harwood. I was particularly interested in the idea, so I researched Wittgenstein and discovered Agnosticism. Now, for the few who are unaware of Agnosticism, it is, in a nutshell, the idea that there may be a God, but you essentially haven’t seen enough evidence to prove it. Then again, you refuse to believe there isn’t a God because there isn’t enough evidence to prove that either (even though the bias of Richard Dawkins is starting to convince me otherwise). To put it crudely, they are fence sitters. I am one too – I refuse to believe in God, but I refuse to go to hell (just in case there is one), so I won’t toss the idea out completely. What has started to annoy me, however, is the fact that ironically enough, the Atheists and the crazy-Christians have teamed up against me, placing barbed wire and spokes on my comfy asbestos fence. Apparently they don’t like it; apparently I have to choose a side.

Okay, in the words of the great Dawkins himself, he described people like me as “namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitters”. The idea is the effigy of indecisiveness, of bailing out, of drinking white wine rather than red or some form of virulent vodka Alco-pop. I can understand why Atheists and Christians think we’re sell-outs – it really is the lazy path. No fighting against God, no wasting every Sunday morning in Church. No ideological sacrificing, no ideological slandering. Nothing. We are looked down upon for being quasi-Nihilistic; easily moulded, easily led, easily dominated. We don’t essentially believe in much at all; at least Atheists believe in believing in nothing; that has to count for something.

I dislike Atheism for the fact it is too critical. I am critical, but not when it comes to human emotion and their capacity to be swayed by them over reason. It’s the old Political debate: Emotionalism vs. Rationalism; people adhere to their emotions before they adhere to sense. Good Politicians are aware of it, cleverer Politicians use it, but greater Politicians shape it. Look at Martin Luther, then look at Hitler. Hitler was clever; he saw the people’s capacity for emotion and stirred it into fanatical Nationalism. I do not underestimate man’s emotional extent, and neither should anyone devote their lives to ignoring it.

I do not hate the idea of believing in something. I think it is the healthiest thing in the world to be able to fixate all hope into the idea that there is something out there working for the greater good of mankind. I think it is important for humans to have an outlet to vent that emotion, to have something to work for, to push them to become a better person. I don’t hate Christianity as a institution which instils hope into the lives of those who have nothing, I dislike it for the rules, for the wars fought in its honour, for the bloodshed, for the moral and ethical implications, and for the cult-like fanaticals who dedicate their lives to the destruction of all non-believers. But, having said that, I also dislike the religion for the idea that someone else will give you hope, that only with the support of God can you truly see yourself. I think that, above all is bullshit. Why is that people see the need to look higher to find happiness? Why can’t you be the one working for the greater good? Why is it that people need to assimilate the life of God to truly be able to live your own? Why is it that people find it so difficult to reach into themselves to find this higher ground, this insatiable hope that someday things will be alright. Why do people need an invisible man sitting upon a cloud, whose existence still in the midst of ambiguity, to be able to have faith in their own ability to get up every morning, to make a difference? Look to your friends, family – look to yourself.

I think it’s time we all start being a little narcissistic. There’s nothing wrong with believing you will someday change the world.

And now for the retaliation of all Christians (don't worry...I expected it - I think I can handle it)...

xx