Weighty Matters

Weighty and controversial topics time. A long time ago, when communication was much more primitive, churches provided a basis for unification and community building. People could feel good because their differences were made smaller. Now, in the world of mass communication, the opposite is true. In the pre-literate society a codification of faith was helpful, but now in a world where people struggle for identity in a mass of interconnectedness that codification actually stifles faith, solidifies religious blocs and fortifies the differences and frictions between between different faiths.

Codification actually stifles what we really need, a continuous spectrum of ideas and beliefs. I don't mind faith, despite being an atheist/agnostic, but the organisation of faith and churches is more of a hindrance to tolerance than anything else. As long as we all get behind tolerance and being good to people do we need to compromise on our personal beliefs just so we can go in and believe a standard 'approved' set of principles together? 'Love and tolerance', that's all we need. Everything else is detail. Perhaps in the future, and I rather hope it ends up like this, churches will be replaced by contemplation areas where everyone can go to believe whatever it is they believe and have a cup of tea afterwards? I imagine human scepticism and prejudice would rule this out but it wouldn't it be nice. What if we could get to that point?

The only we could get to that future, that world of people not minding others and having their own beliefs, is if evangelism dies away. That stubborn impulse to imprint other people with our beliefs is one of the scourges on society, a negative facet of belief that spreads disrepute on the whole concept of faith. It's fascinating to me that people, atheists included, simply can't handle the fact that other people don't believe the same things as them. Perhaps it's a deeply ingrained and natural issue of the human ego, but is it really hard to accept that you believe A truth rather than THE truth. I'll happily get on with many people and not make a fuss, and still people will attempt to save my soul from tarnation and torment. Yes, they think they're doing the right thing, but if a good and true person can go to the hot place only for not believing in a God then is that a God worth believing in? Oh, doctrine, you are too simple.

I do have one belief, and it's a simple one: We will never demonstrably know for certain the veracity or validity of any one person or group's faith or beliefs. As a result the only reasonable point of view, as it seems to me (perhaps naively) is to believe what we believe but not hit each other over the head about it. Some people would view that as a scientific point of view, but any exposure to scientists would destroy that opinion. Some scientists can be so deeply ingrained in their own doctrine as to be indistinguishable from fanatics. Well, that's a little strong.

Hereth end the tract on open mindedness and utopian futures. Next time more silly stories about triangles and the endless routine of a man going slowly insane.

O.