The Vices and Triumphs of Atheism

One imagines that it is always difficult to both adhere to the truth as one cannot help but see (whenever it is clear) and remain polite about the religious and philosophical stances of others. For some time I was of the opinion that some considerations are best kept under wraps simply for the sake of civility and convenience in spite of whatever truths they may hold. The folly of adhering to such an oppressive directive is that an honest man finds more complications therein than whatever may have been originally sought escape from.

It is hard to see atheism as anything near 'revolutionary' (for the better or worse) given that it is not some grandiose ideological proposition but rather a rejection of a class of just such propositions. And yet, that it is seen that way is perhaps the best evidence that man derives some pleasure in prostrating himself before idols (regardless whether they be false or not). It cannot simply be a matter of desiring security in some spiritual sense, for man does not appear to be so modest a creature. Freeing oneself from the lure of something that one desires may well be admirable, but the real question is: what then? Atheism runs the risk of simply being rejection of a certain belief and nothing more. The freedom is as strong as yet another lure and it does not provide the guidance one would naturally assume is required for creatures who have only now shed such an easy categorical belief! There may well be strong individuals who can thereafter forge their own paths, but the bandwagon effect of something considered so revolutionary will have ensured that there are also weaker ones in the masses. They now find themselves with nothing to fall back upon- do they simply decide to rely on only what is perceived and established? Then what better fall-back than science! But this does not satiate their desire for guidance for it can do no more than refine its models. This is where such desires bring about corruption, where the entire process of human thinking runs the risk of becoming hindered by a different kind of extremism than what religion usually gives rise to.

That being the primary motivation for keeping something truly worthy of consideration at bay, I cannot agree even then, for if the choice was between the 'greater good' and the truth I would pick the latter. And so we consider the fundamental question- does God exist?

I cannot say that any of the 'God's existence would make him immoral' arguments have any weight at all. Morality is so ambiguous that it's not worth considering at all.
So let us assume that the classical definition of God that describe Him as a being with omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence gives us three disjoint properties (or at least that benevolence is disjoint from the other two, though of course, if this wasn't the case a contradiction might appear). Given how benevolence is a dead-end, if we can disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being analytically, the almighty God will be disproved and any other 'approximate God' will become redundant and not worthy of worship given that we cannot foresee bounds on our own potential.

To this end consider a case of omniscience vs omnipotence. Surely an omniscient God would know the atomic composition of any element in question, and surely an omnipotent one will be able to create any that he pleases. In the case of the same being, consider the question, 'Can God create an element whose composition he does not know?'. The question is a valid one if God had only one or the other of omnipotence and omniscience (unlike classical contradictory questions like that of the heavy stone), but when the two are taken together any answer will indicate the lack of one. So this absolute almighty God does not exist. And the proof can disengage itself from moral considerations entirely.

Of course, benevolence might be imposing conditions upon the other two properties (though with regard to examples like mine above one is hard pressed to see exactly how!), in which case the earlier objection still holds- why bother with a being whose state is not beyond our own reach? Such half-Gods may be worthy of a certain amount of respect, but it is there that the ethical considerations come into play- were the Greek Gods truly moral? Were the Hindu ones? By their purported actions at least they seemed to be driven by the same desires and irrationalities that drive man and beast. Thus the closest we can come to are creatures that suffer the same 'sentient condition' as man and beast and the true God simply does not exist.