There’s an interaction in the new movie Tony where the Anthony Bourdain character tells his chef mentor he doesn’t believe in God, and the mentor replies, “What is that? That’s like saying you don’t believe in air, but you continue to breathe.”

What’s funny to me about this sentiment—which I hear plenty of similar-orbit shit constantly by just going to AA meetings—is that it works on paper, the same way any structure of authority does. (It is not lost on me that very religious conservative Americans will say communism only works on paper but the word of God, as it is written in the Bible, is indelible.) It’s pretty easy to conceptualize of the idea that there could be something that we, as humans, are incapable of truly grasping the all-encompassing nature of out in the universe.

But that isn’t the premise that the movie talks about, and that is so often confused in these theological debates. The idea posited isn’t Can you conceptualize of a god?—the question usually asks Do you believe in God?

There is a fundamental difference between these acts. I can understand the idea of capitalism the same way I can understand the idea of communism, but I will not believe in the former the way I will the latter. With the argument surrounding some kind of higher power, these understandings of ideas against beliefs become more abstracted but the premise remains—what does your individual relationship with reality allow you to feel aligned with at a spiritual level so much that you can have faith in it?

Looking at the world, both in this moment and throughout history, I can’t believe in any sort of god that centers humanity. We are a vile species hell-bent on self-destruction—at either a massive scale through balances of power or individual scale through vice and corruption. I certainly won’t lend my belief to any god that is talked of as representing countries like the United States or Israel. Does a god that created humans to create religion, and all the subsequent death and destruction in its name, exist? Maybe, but I don’t have to—and will not—believe in that.

So often people who adhere to organized religion cherry-pick what to believe in from a religious text and excuse incongruent ideas by the passive dismissal of, “It’s not for us to understand.” This feels like such a catch-all justification for perpetuating destructive behavior or ideas without feeling the need to improve (or, perhaps, the guilt for being associated with it).

Part of it is just being sick of an ongoing genocide and settler-colonial project being justified by ‘God’s promise,’ but it’s mostly how one-dimensional a lot of theological talk feels in general public discourse. Comprehension, imagination and faith are separate concepts that get conflated and then used as justification for the selfish deeds of humanity and it’s just so goddamn stupid.

Why even try to write about any of this now? There is so much happening on a daily basis that it’s difficult to keep track of, much less maintain a discourse on. The climate crisis? War? Artificial intelligence? Wealth disparity? Global fascism? Genocide? Wage stagnation? What’s the point?

I think right now that question—Why bother?—is more interesting to me than the sum total of all the issues being faced, because it points directly to the crux of the problem. There is a bottleneck between the outcry for necessary change and administrative action to set it in motion, and that stagnation leads to division, rage, and despair among the people. This does not feel unintentional.

In a 2017 town hall debate on CNN, Nancy Pelosi replied to a question regarding the popularity of a more socialist economic agenda with, “We’re capitalists.” When I watched that live, it felt like a real mask-off, with-us-or-against-us moment for the Democratic party. Regardless of who is in power, there will never be a political agenda that prioritizes the well-being of the people over that of economic growth (and, when it comes down to it, individual profits). Nearly ten years later and it feels like liberals still won’t acknowledge that when you play the tape of capitalism to the end of the line, you end up with a guy like Donald Trump in power every time.

But the fact is the Democrats have no interest in what their constituents want, regardless of what it costs them. Kamala Harris lost in 2024 due to her pro-Israel stance during a genocide. Instead of even acknowledging that, the DNC buried the campaign autopsy because it said just as much. The Democrats won’t admit why they lost, and by doing so, won’t have to change any policy that might prevent donations coming in from AIPAC. If they won’t change their tune on supporting a genocidal apartheid state, I can’t imagine they’ll turn against Wall Street.

And this is what we’re stuck with—a hyperactive social media machine, a lazy and dying fourth estate protecting corporate interests, and a government that could give a fuck about any of it. We’re just in a cycle of talking amongst ourselves ad nauseam while nothing changes—constantly gaslit into an echo of reacting to one crisis after another, being exhausted by the lack of response by anyone in power. This repetition can only go on so long before it breaks into fits of action, at which point I think we’ll see the iron fist of the state really begin to squeeze.

At the very best, it’s demoralizing and leaves a feeling of futility to any creative endeavor. If nothing else, all I can do is imagine that when the dust settles and whatever comes next finally arrives, there will be some kind of record on how it all went down. Sometimes bearing witness is all you can do.