Atheists, agnostics and religious types = hypocrites

I know that religion is one of the hot topics that journalists are warned to stay away from. I'm pretty sure one of my university lecturers might have even said "if somebody asks you to write about religion and you have a stapler handy, unless you want to lose clients attack your face with it."...perhaps not in those exact words, but the message was clear -- stay away from religion. Despite this sage advice, I've seen too many lunatics -- both religious and atheist -- to stay quiet, so I've decided to commit journalistic suicide...

Having been born in Poland, which is one of the world's most Catholic nations and even lays claim to a former pope*, my early education was highly instructed by religion. But, as it happens, while my mother's side of the family could just about set up a convent, my father's side is highly scientific and non-believing (or rather non-religiously-inclined)**. This gave me an interesting point of origin while growing up.

While my mother saw to it that both my sister and I were christened, given our first holy communion and confirmed, my father made sure that we were aware that there was a different way to think and it was acceptable to question popular belief. My mother, who is an incredibly open-minded person, seconded this point of view and never questioned what we chose to believe as adults. So while inheriting some faith in religion, we were free to ponder the ways of the world.

So now that I'm all grown up and free to make up my mind, I find it puzzlingly hard to do so. I find it hard to discount the existence of a greater power all together, without having the necessary proof, but I do not believe in the Bible or any real organised religion. I am what most religious people would classify as a "fallen Catholic". In theoretical terms I guess this would make me agnostic -- a fence sitter.

There are so many problems with this assertion that I do not even know where to start. Firstly I am a very selective agnostic -- that is I am constantly in a battle of the logical and the non-discountable and I am highly aware that I do not possess even near-full knowledge of religion and the religious argument. There are some things that I find impossible to believe, like that "God" allows children to starve to death as part of an unexplainable, "larger-than-us" master plan. It just sounds like a poor excuse by someone who has run out of answers. The concept that humans are put through some kind of earthly trial and judged based on how they react also makes this type of God sound more like the producer of the latest Big Brother or Survivor reality TV show rather than something that created the universe. Deeply troubling and frankly a little absurd.

On the other hand, I have been subject to strange coincidences and, although just as illogical, I find them hard to equate with mere probability. My fall-back is that there exists some sort of something - some may call it fate. I cannot say that this something exists and I cannot say that it is some sort of God...but I find it really hard to discount. I realise this makes me a hypocrite, but when it comes to religious or anti-religious thought I don't think that it is possible not to be a hypocrite.

All religious texts are hypocritical and paradoxical*** - so we are safe to say that in the act of believing, believers are hypocritical. Atheism is more or less based on the science-motivated belief that there is/are no supernatural God/s out there and that believing in something without proof is pointless, even ignorant. Yet until there is proof that there is/are no God/s -- something that is beyond our ability to ever prove -- atheism remains a belief in something that is not 100 per cent factual. A belief that discounts the validity of belief = hypocrite. And then there's agnostics, people like me, who pick and choose what they want to believe and disbelieve, mostly doubting everything religious, but leaving some wiggle room for doubt -- that in itself is hypocritical.

It seems that when it comes to this topic we should accept that we are in an endless catch 22, pick what feels right and go with it. I once met a man who was doing a doctorate in theology. His theory was that religion/non-religion was an individual experience and was increasingly becoming recognised as being so. On this point I agree -- whether you believe in a harsh God, in no God or in a God that dresses up in purple on Thursdays, it is something that you are entitled to and it is not something that anybody has any real authority to discount -- after all they technically know no better.

As such I have an immense respect for both atheists and religious folk, so long as they are not fundamentalists.

Where I have trouble is when religious people use their faith as a shield against prosecution; for example religious leadres who infringe human rights but are excused because of their beliefs. That's not right. If you rape a child, kill another human being etc. you should be prosecuted for those actions - I don't care which talking cloud or dancing rock made you do it. On the other hand, if somebody wants to live out a peaceful life believing in Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or TukTuk the All-Mighty Parrot, then let them.

The same goes for atheism -- particularly something that I believe is called "active atheism" or, in other words, people who, in trying to refute religion, ram their beliefs down the throats of anyone who is willing or not willing to listen. This is just the anti-matter of religious fundamentalism and just as oppressing.

Regardless what you believe -- whether it is that God does or doesn't exist -- I think you have to be aware that it is to one extent or another a belief and not absolute fact. You are welcome to it, but let people believe what they want to believe. Since faith is not something that can be controlled by reason and since there is no way to prove or disprove faith (for we are destined to never know the complete truth about anything), why not let people live in peace? And that's my two bits...

NOTE:

Here's another hypocritical belief/note of mine. When I refer to religious belief in the above text I'm talking about actual recognised religions, not weird psycho-babbling sects like The Church of Scientology etc. I'm talking about religions which have a premise of "God" as something so metaphysical that His/Her existence is impossible to prove or disprove by scientific measures available to us. And while I think peaceful people who believe in absurd things should be allowed to do so, I am very prepared to judge them for it.

*John Paul II -- whole streets of Poland actually shut down and went into mourning when he died.

** they actually believe in all sorts of things - family camping trips, that shoes do not belong in the house, that dressing children in matching outfits up to the age of ten is acceptable etc.

*** Naturally I haven't really read all religious texts, but show me one that isn't and I'll call the Guiness Book of World Records.