Since I met the devil I ain't been the same, oh no....

I have promised INCraig that I would shut up on his posts about religion, god and spirituality and write my own.

This has been a complicated process, because I find myself often tangled up while trying to deconstruct my real, actual, honest-to-goodness views on these things. Faith is, to me, a very complicated notion. And spirituality, more complicated again.

So here goes….

Let’s start with this:

I don’t believe in God

I would like to. I think it would be comforting in some ways (which may or may not be the point). But any which way I try to spin it, I just don’t believe. I’ve read the texts of various religions. I’ve studied religious belief. I’ve had a couple of really serious incidents in my life where religious consolation might have been the answer. But it’s just not for me. I cannot reconcile the idea of God into my view of life, the universe and everything. However….

I don’t mind if other people do believe in God

Having said all of that, I can’t bring myself to out and out hate all, for example, Christians. Or Muslims. Or Buddhists. Because, notwithstanding the God bit, I believe that most of what the major religions teach is pretty universal in its goodness, what with the whole “do unto others” business. I have some major beefs with each and every one of these religions. There is a contradiction, in my opinion, in the view that women cannot attain Nirvana, and the practice of a feminist philosophy. Because I cannot put my grievances aside for the practice of a faith within their religion, I don’t wish to pursue them myself. Which leads me neatly to….

I think that religious institutions have been known to get it wrong

I think that there is a big difference between the ethical pursuit of religion and the way in which religious institutions have behaved in the past/present/and let’s face it, probably the future. If you can think of religious institutions as great big political institutions where factionalism is rife and competing viewpoints battle for supremacy, then you understand religious institutions. If you think that religious institutions exist primarily to spread the word of God, you are possibly going to find yourself disappointed.

I am a great reader of all things Renaissance Catholicism*, so the pursuit of political gain through religion is, for me, something that appears to come naturally to many religious institutions. I understand it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not cynical about it. I think it's a reality, particularly for the older religions that have spent a lot of time accumulating their wealth and now find themselves in need of a means to manage it. But it is again at odds with the central messages of most spiritual texts.

I don’t believe you have to be a supporter of a religious institution in order to maintain a faith. I also believe it is possible for some people to pursue their faith without agreeing with everything the religious institutions governing their faith have to say about it. I have friends who are Catholic who are pro-choice and/or gay. There is no contradiction in that for them. I say they have a religious life that is better-examined than most, because they have sought to reconcile their personal views with the views of the Church and their belief is that their God is one who recognises some agency in individuals to take a differing spiritual path. And another neat segue into….

I believe that doubt is a necessary counter-point to faith.

One of the things I continue to harp on about to anyone who will listen is a contemporary drive to abolish doubt from the practice of faith. I find this very disturbing. I worry that a faith unexamined is a faith unfulfilled (to paraphrase some other dude).

I think that what the stories and lessons of many major religions teach us (and here I make specific reference to the lives of the Catholic Saints) is that a questioning of faith can lead to both increased faith and should be offered as an opportunity to examine the truths we accept, for the most part, without question. Even Jesus’ doubt is a matter of record in Christianity. Which leads me to my least favourite incarnation of religious pursuit….

I don’t like being patronised for being a non-believer

I don’t think that people are stupid or dense or were “holding the door open when they handed out the brains” because they believe in God. So perhaps a little bit of respect wouldn’t go astray in the other direction? Also, it would be better (for me) if you didn’t come to my door while I’m holding a five month old screaming child and offer to do some house cleaning during which you will no doubt just happen to mention the eternal salvation that awaits me. My messy house is not a recruitment opportunity. I have a spiritual life that’s a little bit more developed than that. Sorry. Although offering to clean my house is better than offering me a back seat in the burning bus on its way to Hell, which is my next point….

I believe that fear is a bad motivator

If there was one thing I agreed with in Richard Dawkins’ documentary, it was the assessment that kids take fire, brimstone and hell very seriously. They do not have a command of metaphor. As a result, anyone who seeks to create an life-after-death in which pain and physical suffering are the necessary result for people who have a) lived a good life but b) happen not to believe in God, have kind of lost me. Which might be a chicken and egg argument with my next point....

I believe that life is here to be lived now, today

One of the elements of many religions is an inherently class-based system which seeks to keep people in their place. This was one of Catholicism’s major issues with socialism – that the poor should not seek to level society, because their reward would be in the next world. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with other people believing in heaven. I just think that the way in which some people choose to live their lives as a result of a reward in the next one (be it Al-Jannah, Heaven or Nirvana, or any of the myriad other afterlives held by alternative faiths) means that they aren’t getting the best out of this one. It’s a bit of an Epicurean philosophy on my behalf, but I make no apologies for that. Well, okay one. No, two, if you really insist.


Having said all this, Puppevangelism** = hilarious. I have been pointing out to people ALL WEEK that people retain 50 per cent of what puppets say, and only 20 per cent of what preachers say. Thereby proving the Puppevangelist’s point, I suspect.

Not sure this will be the last of my rantings on religion and faith. But it’s a start.

And I did promise.


* For me, some one very interested in politics, the question “Are you interested in the wranglings of Italian factions seeking to attain the massive wealth of the Catholic Church during the Renaissance?” can be answered using the counter-question, “Was the Pope a Medici stooge intent on driving the value of the florin through the roof while bankrupting his business rivals?”

** See 'God on my side', Andrew Denton.