On the Practical Irrelevance of the God Question

One of my principle interests in philosophy, besides logic and ethics, is the very human struggle with ontology. There is no need to delineate the tremendous bulk of speculation about the manner and conditions of our existence, which can be plainly identified in even the oldest texts and oral traditions. I can see the way in which this question of our origin is an enticing one, a useful one to answer, and even a challenge to the brilliant minds which, should they conclude something fantastic about ontology, would be immortalized in the sparse canon of genius. But along with the limitless inquiry has come an equally immeasurable amount of disagreement, which has over the past several thousand years bordered on vitriolic. This is intolerable.

I have heard a dozen or more debates which feature paramount scholars of both sides: one who scoffs at the idea of the existence of a deity, against one who proclaims that at least One must exist. I openly admit that while I am decidedly a resident in the former camp, I have been impressed, on rare occasion, by the argumentation style--and, every once in a while, the content--of the faithful. Most often, debates of this manner seem to generate questions about the origin of the universe, each side asking the other how it is that they conceive of that pivotal moment, and demanding that his opponent prove the case or face falsification; the religious man questions the atheist's lack of a conclusive evidence and classifies his dismissal of divine influence as its own sort of leap of faith, whereas the atheist disregards the religious man's devotion as blind, unsubstantiated, or hypocritical. And reliably so. I do not recall seeing a debate over this issue in which these roles were not filled, and although the rhetorical style sometimes morphs and the quips are nuanced, the skeleton is recognizable. I therefore aim to break with the tradition a bit, to borrow a strain from Cartesian soliloquy, and to pose to the pious man the following thought experiment.

Let us presume that you are correct, and that some divine entity is responsible for authoring and generating the universe, or life on the Earth, or life in general, or any other iteration of "existence" that you wish to assert. I still perceive an extraordinary leap in the suggestion that the Being/s that governed this creation is caring, in two senses of the word. First, it seems to me that it is equally likely, considering the evidence of the whole of recorded human history and present condition, that the divine is a twisted and vindictive Thing, and not a loving or nurturing one at all. Second, it seems far more likely still that even if this creating Entity is omniscient and omnipotent, It is very likely apathetic to the result. In other words, I have no problem with conceding that some Designer created everything in existence, because I have no evidence which demonstrates that it either must be so or that it cannot have been so. I concede the point, in order to support an argument that it is entirely irrelevant whether or not we were created or we happened by chance, because this resolution does not answer the actual question behind this point of contention: how does this distinction matter, if it does at all?

I have labored over the issuance of my atheistic proclivity, and while I stand firmly by it, I actually believe that it is a case no more worth arguing from an evidential perspective, than is the case forwarded by the theists. Neither one of us has any irrefutable evidence that the other will agree is cogent and applicable, so I will let it alone as an argument and instead keep it simply as a stance. But just as life sometimes opens a window when it closes a door, so to say, I too will subvert my humble concession by posing what seems to be an even more daunting challenge: demonstrate, you believers in the unsubstantiated, that It is a Being that we should be glad to have around. It seems incomparably clear that this is an impossible task, so let me suggest this resolution: given that we can extract morality from some other construct, and given that we can still discover brilliant meaning in our lives without the divine to justify it, let the argument instead revolve around the consideration paid to religion in social movements, with specific reference to the extension of civil rights and liberties, for this is one truly measurable way in which deity does govern us, whether It exists or not.

I will concede that one explanation for the origin of the universe might be that some omnipotent being influenced it, to whatever degree. But imagine that you were certain that this is how things happened, that it were somehow provable and verifyable, and that there was nonetheless no holy writ to influence your perception of this being. I wonder if there would be any evidence prove that the diety was a good one, or if there might be evidence to suggest that wickedness or that indifference are at least equally likely. In other words, even with the certain knowledge of the existence of a First Mover, I do not see any evidence to support any inclination whatsoever to worship it any more than fear it, to love it any more than bemoan it. How, I wonder, can you men of faith bear to say that you will think, act, speak, or vote a certain way, which is in keeping with your holy text, when you cannot demonstrate that the holy text reflects a divinity that cares about what you do or that you do at all, to say nothing of whether or not a loving divinity would favor your particular mindset? How can you further suggest that acting in a way that is in keeping with a so-called holy writ, which is in some cases a centuries-old copiously-translated highly-edited text, resembles anything like what it is to act the way that the divine would wish, having already made the tremendous assumption that one exists? How can you know that you have the right god/s, how can you know that you have the right guidelines, and how can you know that you are reading them the correct way? 

And ultimately, what if there is no Creator, Governor, Mover? Surely we must take this to mean nothing, in the end, because the alternative would be that we all give up the lives we have so welcomed until now; this is no alternative at all. These are the important questions, I think--the ones which reflect the human decisions and understandings, not the sanctified ones. I assert that these are the meaningful intellectual pursuits in part because, as they are designed to be posited to other humans, they are answerable, even--and especially--with the admission of ignorance. Furthermore, I believe that these are the important questions to ask because the answers to them reveal the way that we each apply whatever opinion we have about holy writ, divine existence, and the ontological question. It is the application which is truly important, not just our respective opinions, or just the actual fact of the matter, because it is not some objective Truth which governs the way we act: at least, this must be true, or else this entire debate is moot in the first place. And what use can there be for debate answers which have no hope for verification; much better to concede one side or the other and to reorient the questioning, especially since the outcome of either answer to the God question is necessarily the same.