Much verbiage has been lost over whether ‘religion’ is good or bad, whether god exists or not, and whether science disproves god or not. Even though I make no secret out of my atheistic beliefs, I fundamentally disagree with the binary nature of the public debate. Is it not crucial to realise that a belief or disbelief in god does not force one to adhere to any group or share any particular characteristic? As much as I wish not being equated with Stalin, my Christian friends wish not being equated with crusaders and my Muslim friends not with suicide bombers. Neither religion nor atheism or agnosticism are ‘the root of all evil’, and similarly neither is the root of all good. How easily would world peace be achieved if we only had to uproot one.
A world view that postulates either as universally ‘better’ dropped a crucial ingredient during its construction – that is reality. We significantly underestimate our sisters and brothers’ power to think, feel and act freely if we hold that adherence to one particular belief or disbelief causes them to be immoral. Can we imagine our own selves turning into a violent fanatic just because of one belief or disbelief? If yes, do we not underestimate our own moral capacity? And if not, why should ‘the Others’ be different? Making a distinction between Us the Enlightened and Them the Ignorant seems to bear the stigma of arrogance for it is effectively saying our own belief is the only valid one. It claims certainty where there should be doubt.
And thus I conclude: Doubt is the ally of moderation and peace. War happens where people are certain.