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.
