I saw Bill Maher on the Daily Show tonight. Great interview. He was promoting his new documentary, Religulous. A little bitter for my taste (who am I kidding?), but it really got me thinking about the question of God. If you know me, it won't surprise you to learn that I don't believe in God. Here's what BM had to say on the subject (I'm paraphrasing here): "I don't consider myself an atheist because atheism is a mirror of the same certainty that makes religious belief ridiculous." Listen, Bill. Can I personally prove the non-existence of God beyond all doubt? No. Does that make atheism as stupid as theism? No. Here's why:
Our epistemology isn't based on proving what doesn't exist. How can you even disprove something that doesn't exist? The proof of its non-existence is, as they say, in the pudding. The absence of any convincing argument for the proof of God is itself proof--or more safely, a strong suggestion--that there is simply no such thing.
Moreover, the idea of God's incomprehensibility can't save literal religious doctrine from the rational black holes haunting it. If you claim there's a ribbon inside of a book and the ribbon has the property of disappearing every time you leaf through the pages looking for it, how many times do you open the book before giving up in hopeless frustration? A holy man would say this hypothetically quantifiable dedication--or, faith--is what separates the righteous from the base. I would suggest that it separates the rational from the delusional, the independent from the meek and the intellectually curious from the blindly submissive. But perhaps most importantly, it alienates man from himself. The relationship between God and man is simply a guise for the power relationship that "holy" men exercise over the masses. Priests and politicians paint the comfort-giving God concept as unequivocal truth, exploiting its message in order to superficially relate to citizens and remain in power.
I'm all for comfort in a world largely defined by aimlessness. That's why we have culture. It's an expression of everything beyond our immediate biosocial needs. However, I think it's critical that dominant cultural concepts provide some social advantage. They must also be ethically sound in their conception, transmission and interpretation. I think that religion passes the first test and fails the second. The ethical function of religion is well known. But people rarely question whether religion is the best vehicle for developing their own moral nature. Unfortunately, God is an invention propagated by humans who, as is our nature, don't always make decisions from an altruistic vantage point. The Man Upstairs is inoffensive as a concept, but it doesn't do any real work. It's like the fifth wheel on a four wheel truck: present, comforting, but serving no role in the operation of the vehicle. Our ethical dilemmas must therefore be solved by means relevant to our actual social experience, not to the fantasies of religious men. It's time for a new ethics freed from the transcendent. Believe me: We can still coexist in a world where God has been reduced to his origins as myth and symbol. Once we realize the danger of blind faith, we can approach the dilemma of social harmony from a humanistic, natural-pragmatic perspective. And many social groups--women, scientists/intellectuals, homosexuals, gender benders, &c (any group that threatens the traditional elite's manipulative value system)--will benefit.
Amen!
