Debate on Religion

Here’s an interesting debate between an atheist and a conservative talk show host. I have to say it’s hard not to be biased in favor of the atheist. After all, debates are for rational discussion – and while the believer did try his darndest to rationalize his faith, everyone knows it’s simply impossible… that’s why it’s called faith bub.

Now after acknowledging the advantage the atheist had over the believer, I still have to say that the atheist still wins the debate. He didn’t really have to exert himself too much, yet he still was able to utterly destroy any argument the believer had.

Despite the fact that the setting seems to be on uneven ground – this debate certainly is good for raising awareness on how ridiculous structured religion can get. The reason why I’m at odds with my (and any other) “faith” isn’t because it proposes the existence of a supreme being, but because of the arrogance it tends to exude when presenting the idea. To claim anything definitive about something they clearly do not understand, and worse, to govern worlds by it is really preposterous.

One of the more potent arguments, which sums up a great part of my personal belief is this:

Who is to say that the only thing that could give rise to the universe is a personal God? Even if we accepted that our universe simply had to be designed by a designer, this would not suggest that this designer is the God of Abraham, or that He approves of Judaism or Christianity. If intelligently designed, our universe could be running as a simulation on an alien supercomputer. Or it could be the work of an evil God, or two such gods playing tug-of-war with a larger cosmos.

If God created the universe, what created God? To say that God is uncreated simply begs the question. Why can’t I say that the cosmos is uncreated?

The first paragraph especially drives the point home that a “personal God” is a really tall order. I’ve tried coming up with a microcosm for an analogy (a lousy one at that), but here’s how I see it at the moment.

We know that as humans, we can already create things. Lets say we create some amazing medicine – and this medicine in fact works as we designed… but obviously there are other caveats that may come into play which we are not aware of (allergic reactions, side-effects, etc). We may even have the knowledge and power to fix these… if only we were aware of it… or if we had actually cared.

The fact that we can create such amazing things as humans and still miss those little details strongly suggests the possibility that “God,” although extremely intelligent, need not be omnipresent in each of our lives… and certainly not omni-benevolent, not “perfect” as people would claim.

You may think it would be unreasonable to equate God’s “being” to our own. ¹ Hell, I won’t even take a cheap shot at the whole “image and likeness thing” but the question is why is it so unreasonable? Because viewing the “creator” in such a limited way makes everything sound absurd? What if it truly is? What if the beauty of life is how we as humans can attempt to put meaning in it.

The fact that there’s even a concept of “uncreatedness” (whether it be God, or a singularity) already makes the whole thing absurd to some extent – because you’re already admitting something that is beyond any type of comprehension. Still for the sake of arguing, lets assume this to be the case.

---

As for my personal belief, for all it’s worth, it’s not as personal as the scripture says, but not as absurd as the atheists claim it to be. And it also explains the whole gamut of meaningful human experience (both good and bad).

Call it lunacy if you will, but I would like to believe in a somewhat personal God. Not as hardcore as knowing every strand of your hair type closeness, but still close enough to put some meaning in our relationship with Him.

I think the bible got it right when they describe God as “Father” (or more appropriately a parent). Parents are not necessarily good or evil, but there’s a very high degree of certainty that they want the best for us – and that they try, to the best of their abilities, to give what’s best for us.

Now take the world… His “children” if you will. A parent can already have a handful with one child. Imagine handling a whole world (fine, even universe if you will). He is “God,” so his powers of surveillance must be pretty vast – still, He can’t possibly keep an eye on everyone. And as far as balance/good and evil goes, we know that most of the time, if you get what you want, someone else probably didn’t.

If you apply that logic to your very own children, its very similar to a parent’s “sacrifice.” Just because God let one of his children live and the other die, it doesn’t mean he loved any of them less – He simply had to make a choice. If he could give everyone what they wanted he probably would – but just like with any other parent, something’s gotta give.

This, for me, puts God in a very reasonable light. Enough to respect Him, fear what he is capable of doing, give thanks to Him, and question His actions. It’s even enough to be close to Him. Plus, every bad and good thing that happens in life suddenly makes more sense.

---

However, I also sometimes question as to what order of being our God is in the cosmological hierarchy. Parents know their children very well, they can only go so far… and what about our kids’ kids, what about the company they keep, the pets they have, the other organisms involved in their everyday lives?

It would be great that humankind was directly under the direct supervision of the entity who created everything… but I have a feeling that we’re just one insignificant rung in the cosmological ladder – if ever its true that we do have a personal God, chances are he isn’t the head honcho.

To finish this lengthy post, I’ll end with [possibly] the thesis of the atheists argument.

If humanity can’t survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn’t, even remotely, suggest that God exists.

Actually the thesis was more in the lines of “Useful delusions are not the same thing as true beliefs.”

If you ask me, I’d say believe in what makes you a better person. Whether or not there is a God, it really shouldn’t matter. I don’t think that a belief in the afterlife would make this life more or less meaningful that what we make of it right here, right now.

So if you think that worshipping rocks can keep you from moral decay, then you’re even better off than any religion that believes that women should submit unconditionally to their men.