I'm intrigued by the idea that God must be something one can see or touch in order to believe in, rather than say as a concept which exists only in the mind (for that is where concepts can only exist).
It isn't possible to see sub-atomic particles, but much of science – certainly physics – is based on their existence and behaviour. Must I deny them until I can see them with my own eye, and even if I can see them, what should I do with them?
Dwakins: intelligent man, but simplistic evangelist.
I have no faith, nor any desire or need for faith. But I do not dismiss those who do on the basis of their having faith alone. I judge others by their behaviour toward their fellow man. I might, say, follow a Mills-ian approach, and view the World in an entirely utiliarian way, or I might apply the Leviathan and the concept – look, there it is again – of the war of all against all.
I shall, irrespective of the religious beliefs of any, look at human behaviour on the basis of what it does to others before I decry the faith, atheism or agnosticism of those people. We are often little more than what we do, and so adopting the playground mindset of "prove it", either way, does not move any of this forward in the context of human relations, other than to demonstrate that unwavering belief in anything or nothing is of little use when, for example, I come to mourn the passing of a loved one or celebrate the joy of a newborn child.
So, returning to the OP's question, should he go on the Alpha Course. Naturally, but also stop by the nearest mosque, synagogue, greyhound track and pub. Tell us which helped you, in your situation, the most.
Good luck.
