Check out the articulate author of The Parish blog and his reasoning behind his newfound agnosticism/atheism(?). I can soooooooo relate to this. Here’s an excerpt:
Let me be clear, I’m not saying “I’m a good Christian and I’m disillusioned because the church is full of hypocrites.” I’m not a good person. I find Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism or any other serious attempt at faith or ethics to be exceedingly difficult. I am saying that there might be a God, and there might not be a god, but until and unless something impinges upon my senses, I’m prepared to disbelieve almost any claim at this point. Why would I believe if there is no demonstrable difference between believing and disbelieving? If the answer to the question of “who is Jesus?” is a matter of heaven or hell, it’s a God not worthy of worship (leaving aside the absurd idea of worship). The hot, hairdresser wife asked me the other day about this newfound disbelief. She wanted to know why I felt free to disbelieve and construct a humanistic ethic. “Because, if there is a God, he has far more to answer for than we do,” I said, somewhat glibly. On reflection though, I think it’s true–at least it’s true if theists are correct about God. I also think I borrowed the phrase, but I can’t remember from whom.
And there’s the rub in a nutshell. IF there is a God, He (sic) does have far more to answer for than we do.