Agnostics and the Right Question

While the evident rise in spiritual self-expression hasn’t left atheists behind, even their statements are made to seem conditional – “There is probably no God . . .” Probably? From an atheist?

This essay was prompted by seeing a BBC HardTalk interview of Brian May, lead guitarist of Queen. Intelligent, educated and introspective, as a physicist he was asked about Stephen Hawking’s recent statement that he is “confident he can say that a god was not necessary for the creation of the universe.” May didn’t think it was Hawking’s right to speak on matters of belief. “I don’t think any scientist has the right to say whether there is a god or not. I really don’t think science has any bearing on whether there is a god or not. I think it stops at that boundary; you have physics up to this point and metaphysics beyond that point. I don’t see how you can possibly prove the existence or non-existence of something which is outside the bounds of your logic.” He described himself as a ‘spiritual person’ who believes in a higher power, which he subsequently refers to as a ‘he’.

That’s all right; he’s a believer and can make such statements. But it struck me that agnostics make similar statements about gods’ existence. AND THEY ARE ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION!

It’s not a question at all about whether God [for it is only He about whom the question is asked!] exists or does not exist. The question needs be stated, “Was God invented by man?” This leads down three paths.

Firstly, what is the evidence for a singular god emerging from the plethora of pantheons, and especially one who could be detached from the system of human existence? For this we can consider the path of Akhenaten’s creation, in the early 14th century BC for political reasons, of Aten as a transcendent and spiritual god superior to others. The concept was carried by Moses to Israel and set the stage for the creation of monotheism.

Secondly, consider the vast tracts of literature explaining God in terms of vicissitude. This is the word I use to describe the misfortunes, and they are almost invariably ‘mis-’, that befall people, from causes as divers as weather, geological events, other species including agents of disease, and the evil actions of other humans, whether it be individuals, groups, or ruling elites. Is this more easily explicable in the absence of a transcendent deity? The answer is un-blindingly obvious.

Thirdly, we can look at the societal requirement for gods, and the religions that convey them. Gods have traditionally been used to explain the unknown, but scientific progress is leaving less and less to the spiritual imagination. Religion is used as a vehicle for morality, and its gods as judges and punishers of transgressors. But secular society has proved its ability to act in place of these gods, and furthermore, allow for change where society requires it. One of the major problems for religions is to balance ancient ‘truths’ with social progress. While mainstream Christianity is sufficiently integrated into Western culture to allow, usually belatedly, for such change, Islam is not. The rise in the West of a religion based on immutable 7th century principles is a recipe for disaster.

An agnostic could say that the existence of God is a Rumsfeldian 'unknown unknown', but this is manifestly untrue for an obvious reason. God as a human construct is thus ‘known’.

Doubts about the existence of God therefore fall into an ‘unknown knowns’ category. What resides in the ‘unknown unknowns’ of the cosmos are, well, unknown.

A thinker is a person whose part it is to symbolise time according to his vision and understanding. He has no choice; he thinks as he has to think. Truth in the long run is to him the picture of the world which was born at his birth. It is that which he does not invent but rather discovers within himself. It is himself over again: his being expressed in words; the meaning of his personality formed into a doctrine which so far as concerns his life is unalterable, because truth and his life are identical. This symbolism is the one essential, the vessel and the expression of human history. Spengler

Taste and its Enemies

At three score years plus some, it’s comforting to know that despite losses in hearing and sight, my sense of smell is unimpaired. Referencing memories of common tastes (using taste and smell interchangeably here) such as orange juice, Coca-Cola, and childhood sweets indicates no change to flavour or intensity, but at the same time I have become aware of other factors. These include fillers, which dilute flavour, and artificial products such as sweeteners. Age brings with it discrimination.

But all is not well in taste-land. One becomes aware of changes in food preparation, and often these are not good. An example is that many cafés have stopped salting food and buttering bread. The result for someone brought up with different standards is that such food is bland and stodgy. Most cafés offer salt and butter as add-ons, though I note the start of a trend to charge 50c for a butter pat. Food preparers are unaware that white meat needs more salt than red meat, or that bread and butter go together like, well, bread-and-butter.

Tea is another product that cafés fail on, because those who serve it no longer drink it and have no idea how it is made. This will result in extremely weak tea, or staleness through poor storage, or thinking a teabag floating on top of fairly hot water will do, or brown sugar only - why should that matter. Wet-tea providers are killing the market for one of the most subtle and varied products available, and replacing it with lower-margin, less varied products like coffee and soft-drinks.

Evidently most people care little about taste, and cafés care little about providing it. Those who do care need to be as discriminating about the cafés they visit as about the food they are fond of.