The Problem of God

We live amidst a difficult period of human history, when a scientifically supported view of the universe is increasingly unable to dodge the broad grip of the theistic, particularly monotheistic religious movement of the past couple of thousand years. You would think that any contention over following theism or pursuing the development of something more ‘fact-friendly’ such as a religious naturalism, might simply be put to rest by reviewing the facts. Then it hit me.

The problem of god is not about facts, but beliefs.

Surprisingly, after science succeeds in eroding most of the foundations upon which the world’s faith-based monotheistic religions rest, which it is very likely to do unless these facts are able to be kept hidden, the issue will actually, not be whether there is a god or not! After all this chatter from Nietzsche to physics about the demise of god, the major religious conflict of the future is not going to rest on whether god(s) actually exist. After all, if there was one (or several), proof could be submitted and we would simply move onto the next matter.

However, an issue of god’s existence is not likely going to surface as the issue of contention, at least from the major stakeholders. This is because such groups and organizations (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) will shun submitting themselves to scientific inquiry, as such inquiry is a two-edged sword that would just as easily be turned back upon themselves. Much like kids in a schoolyard throwing taunts back and forth, such challenges to the existence of another's god might easily be slung back as a challenge to come up with some credible proof of one’s own. Plainly, such an approach could turn out to be hugely self-injurious. Although I may think that the leadership of these theistic groups may be deeply misguided, they are certainly not stupid, and will probably avoid walking towards such potential, mutual destruction. Much more likely will be a covert, unspoken agreement that the issue of god’s existence, simply will not be raised.

For religious zealots, challenging the existence of someone else’s gods was a commonplace in epochs past. However, this is a matter that in more recent times has been spoken of much less, and is an avoidance that will with all likelihood increase between theistic groups as our science-based ability to actually see into the universe continues to unfold. Why? For the obvious reason that it would undermine the very beliefs upon which such theistic faiths rest.

Which is actually a very interesting phenomenon: here, we have billions of human beings, all over the planet, who believe quite vehemently in different gods, yet because of the sensitive nature of any god’s actual existence, refuse to challenge each other to provide proof.

In such silence, we definitely have a problem. However, the problem is not the fact (or not) of god, but beliefs about he/she/it. The problem is this: if submitting proof is not going to be an acceptable way to determine validity, theistic religions are going to have to resort to alternative measures. Religious institutions, to survive in the face of increasing scientific secularity will have to choose a tactic other than challenging each other to whether the other god actually exists. Rather than choosing to do battle on what would be a minefield, they will turn to matters not of god’s existence, but of human behavior. For instance, competition to show superiority of one faith system or another will be around such challenges as whether one has enough faith or not, or whether one is living in a particular way or not, or bows in a certain direction, or mumbles some prayer or not, or does or does not do any of a number of human behaviors. In short, the matter will be about behavior, not god.

I find this troubling because history has demonstrated what has been successful in enforcing faith rather than fact systems in the past, has been the same tripartite strategy used by successful totalitarian governments: power/control, decree/law, and propaganda/education. By power and control, I mean the ability of an organization to dictate what actually happens in their jurisdiction. Such control can be accomplished through different methods that arrive at the same ends, such as a bristling police force or military, covert operatives and smaller, less formal bands, or through a skillfully or culturally guided self-righteous force of a community. The second part of this is decree and law: formulas by which particular instances of deviation from some norm are recognized and responded to, and that formally and ritually codify the broad injunctions and demands that socialize such norms. Finally, the use of propaganda and education to train the general populace to think and behave in general patterns, reassures the broader development of ideas, emotions and behavior to remain within general prescribed boundaries.