Ian O'Doherty: My idea for a new faith? It's called ... Common Sense
Hi, my name is Ian and I have a confession to make: I don't believe in an afterlife.
I don't believe that there is a Higher Power; I don't think that there is someone up there watching over me and, to be quite frank, nor do I believe that that there is one watching over you, either.
Sorry.
So, am I a "militant atheist?" As some people would have it?
Am I a so called "secular progressive" as they are now known in the States?
Or am I one of those zealots who wants to force their opinions upon you?
Perhaps I'm merely a lapsed Catholic (or Jew or Muslim or Mormon, take your pick or add one of your own) secretly waiting for redemption and simply hedging my bets?
Well, duh! None of the above -- despite what Fox News, The Catholic Telegraph, The Guardian or whoever would have us reading and watching and believing and buying whatever snakeoil they're trying to sell the rest of us.
That is the increasingly nasty question that has been recently concentrating the minds of people who should really know better -- on both sides of this debate -- for the last few weeks.
We have in recent times witnessed a rise of belligerence and accusations, with counter accusations, between people who call themselves religious and those who pride themselves on being non-religious and to be honest it shames both sides of the argument -- a simple case of, to paraphrase a couple of recent books: God Is Good versus No God Is Even better.
And, guys, it's time we grew up a bit -- on both sides.
Anyone who has ever spent any time in America will understand how important, how divisive and, at the same time, how constructive a belief in a Higher Power can possibly be. And here in Ireland and Britain we have really started to import that unfortunate siege mentality -- is belief or, indeed, non-belief, under genuine threat from bigots?
The obvious and most topical talking points on this thorny (if you can forgive the Catholic terminology) issue is the fact that we have recently seen certain local authorities in Britain disband the idea of a communal prayer before council meetings, while at the same time we watched on as Baroness Warsi left her Ermine hallows of the House Of Lords to pay a quick and conveniently publicised visit to the Vatican to warn against the dangers of us so-called "militant atheists."
Now, as a piece of cross- cultural religious ecumenism, the idea of a Muslim woman going to the heart of Catholicism to issue a rallying cry for solidarity against the onslaught of non-belief was, in its own way, really quite sweet. Y'know, all religions being equal and wanting the same thing and keeping an eye on their common enemy -- those mean nasty "aggressive secularists" and all that.
And for doing what she did, and risking the wrath of some her less tolerant brethren, she undeniably deserves our praise and our respect.
But here's the bit where I immediately rear up and feel as a card-carrrying non-believer... the only problem is that she is wrong.
Except she's not.
Well, not entirely.
I've spent the last week, nay, the last few years of my life, having a similar argument with numerous colleagues/friends/loved ones about this issue and I've become something of a hate figure in certain circles for pointing this out -- and here it is -- actually ... wait for it ... it is possible to share different so-called 'religious' beliefs, without believing in the same religion itself.
Actually, maybe this could be the new faith -- the one called Common Sense.
After all, I know some devout Catholic friends of mine who are more instinctively amenable to gay rights than some of my non-religious friends; equally, I know people who have no faith who are as virulently anti-pro choice as some religious fundamentalist who abhors abortion -- they just came to the same destination through a different direction, that's all.
Now there's a crazy thought: People of different beliefs can actually agree on certain issues. For while religion in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular has, both in our nation's objective view and my own personal experience, been a force for almost irreparable damage, it should not be immediately discarded.
Let me put this in context -- I have never received comfort from a religious ceremony.
In fact, there have been times when I have wished that God, ironically, did actually exist after all -- simply so that when I did finally meet Him I would get an opportunity to berate Him for the things that he has visited upon those I know and love (and there's been a lot of that).
But while I might derive a certain weird comfort from such a sentiment I most certainly don't have the right to try to deprive or belittle or somehow sneer at someone who finds that very same ceremony that I feel nothing from to be the very, exact same thing that gets them through the night when they are at their lowest ebb.
And you know what?
At the end of the day, theists or non-theists, it all boils down to this -- you might believe in something that keeps you strong, you might believe in something that your peer group sneers at.
Either way, as long as you're being true to yourself, you can never, ever let someone take that away from you.
Still, having said that, I think we can all agree that Richard Dawkins is a bit of a pain in the arse.
Irish Independent
