That’s the topic for debate tonight.

I’m going to give a clear, resounding “No”… with plenty of qualifications.

Religion, as a series of unquestioned, unchanging beliefs, has consistently been used to justify and perpetuate evil throughout history. As an institution, it has often reflected the uglier side of the human race.

But when used not as a tool of oppression but rather as a vehicle for exploring the mysteries of life, religion has great value. The problem is when literal-mindedness comes into play.

The “truth” of so many of the world’s religions lies not in how factual they may be, but rather in their statements on the experience of living life itself, as expressed through metaphorical language. This is what makes these stories resonate in the soul—that’s where their truth resides.

Think of it this way: each religion is like a different lens with which to view the transcendent (i.e. what some of us call “God”). We’re all blind men grasping parts of the same elephant, in other words. So what ends up happening? The blind men begin arguing over exactly what it was they were all holding onto. Wars occur over this sort of nonsense, and real people end up dying over dogmatic minutiae.

Does any of that invalidate the reality of the elephant? Religion is the expression of the human psyche at its most profound, which necessarily means both the sublime and the corruptible. Would the world be better of without religion? Only if it would also be better off without humanity as a whole.

Tonight I went out to The Factory (an Anglican church whose name puts in mind a certain scene from Pink Floyd The Wall) to see the Easter debate between sceptics and Christians.

I had low expectations. I expected two people who were talking past each other. The topic was “The resurrection: long on faith, short on evidence”, and the only question that came to my mind upon hearing it was, “Where’s the debate?”

But I was pleasantly surprised. The Anglican pastor, Sandy Grant, approached the topic intellectually and honestly, and was fairly compelling to listen to.

On the other hand, the sceptic, whose position I’m more sympathetic to, was scattered, awkward, and quite boring, frankly. His opening argument, running 15 excruciating minutes, seemed to bounce around the general topics of scepticism and how badly atheists are often mischaracterised without actually addressing the topic of debate. This was Martin Hadley, the President of the NSW Branch of Australian Skeptics and a barrister, no less.

Overall, the night felt like a great opportunity squandered. I had a better time socialising after the actual event.

So despite my low expectations, I still managed to be disappointed.

On Monday, the Sydney Morning Herald published a feature article on Benny Hinn by David Millikan. It’s a fascinating read, if only because it gives a glimpse into how Hinn really operates.

I submit that the Charismatic Pentacostal movement, with its emphasis on prosperity and wealth-generation, bares so little resemblance to the Christian philosophy of the Gospels that it is Christianity in name only. And Hinn, being at the forefront of that movement, uses faith merely as a means to an end in order to fuel a lifestyle overflowing with excess.

When a man asks a crowd of hopefuls for thousands of dollars in the Lord’s name, promising an abundance of wealth in return (only to then buy a mansion and private jet with the funds), is this not more blasphemous than any act committed outside the sphere of Christianity?

I’m not old — I’m still in my 20s, after all — but I’ve definitely reached a new stage in life. I’m less driven by fear, more assertive, more confident, more sure of who I am. The flow-on effect is that I’m not afraid to try new things that would clash with the persona I’ve developed for myself.

As what some might call a rationalist intellectual, the last two places you’d expect to find me would be in church or at a football game. Yet last month I was indeed at church, and next month I’ll be at the Eels vs. Bulldogs game, and yet I’m not at all concerned about losing my sense of self in all of this. I already know who I am, quite separate to what activities I might choose to engage in.

When you’re still a teenager/young adult, your identity is formed in the same way that a baby might start to learn to walk. At first, you’re quite unsure of yourself, and you need to grab onto external objects to help prop you up. I called myself a Star Wars fan and a Peter Gabriel fan, for example, when I was in my early 20s, and if you took those away, I might not have been me anymore.

But now I’m standing on my own two feet quite confidently — I’m not anything other than simply Dion. Tomorrow I might be a sport-watching, church-going maniac, but I’d still be who I am. And frankly, I’m not going to stick with anything if I have to twist myself to fit it, but neither will I shy away from something because it’s outside my traditional comfort zone. In time, such things will either stick or be shrugged off.

Incidentally, yesterday was the Sunday of the Prodigal Son in the Orthodox calendar. It just seemed fitting to use such a day to put my icons back up after surrendering them years ago (in my final act of non-belief). Whether on not they’ll stay there remains to be seen.

I was updating my OkCupid profile today when I noticed that under “Religion”, Catholics get their own category separate to Christians.

Obviously, many Protestants see Catholics as quite different (i.e. hell-bound), and many Catholics see themselves as part of perhaps a more authentic form of Christianity, but why stop there? Isn’t this also true for Orthodox Christians? Indeed, what about Mormons? Or Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or Branch Davidians?

(Okay, the last one was a joke… or was it?)

Tom Cruise’s Scientology interview is now infamous, but this video is the best thing to come out of it.

P.S. Less than 24 hours ’til I see The Police. I can’t believe it!