Logic and Religion

Copyright 2006 Bart Stewart

Among the heavier philosophical subjects, the ultimate classic may still be the question of the existence of a God. Science continues to explain more and more of the deeper secrets of the universe without resorting to a God hypothesis. But of course, God being God, He could always be that one step beyond.

The cosmic scale of this God question probably precludes it from ever having an answer that would satisfy an objective person. The thoroughly finite human mind is only going to be able to do just so much with this concept of the infinite, which is what God is held to be, by definition. Still, there are some points in the debate on God and religion that could be raised more often than they are.

First off, religious believers will say that the fantastically complex worlds within worlds of nature and the universe could not have happened without a guiding force in control of it all. They describe the great order inherent in one phenomenon or another, as proof of a God. How could it all have just happened, by itself?

The most straightforward answer, rarely heard, is that ours is the only universe we know of, and thus we have nothing to compare it to. Therefore, we cannot say with such confidence that it could not have developed on its own, through knowable physical processes, in a random fashion. Perhaps if the time-frame for the formation of the universe was the few thousands of years allowed by religious teachings, then yes, that would be another matter. But no scientist of any consequence thinks that the universe is less than many billions of years old. Most would say around fourteen billion years old. Over that vast span of time our universe could have evolved, and according to an enormous body of scientific data, it most likely did so.

Miracle stories are always in circulation, but are almost never subjected to any kind of rigorous scientific scrutiny. And the modern miracles never seem as impressive as those of the ancient writings, back when God was quite vocal, and wonders were seen everywhere. Of course some of the ancient accounts contain enough information to raise questions, too, such as Noah’s flood. We are told that the volume of water in this event was sufficient to raise a ship to the peak of Mount Ararat. If so, where did that much water go? The Bible says it “receded.” To where?

The fact that every religion is claiming miracles also poses an intellectual quandary. Miracles are being dispensed at the same time by a supernatural Buddha, Allah, Jesus, Krishna, and about a million Hindu and tribal gods with conflicting dogmas. That is, unless there is some other explanation. It is odd, too, how only certain medical conditions are open for miracles, while others are not. Cancer is a strange disease that can abruptly reverse itself in rare cases. If the person is religious in such a case, a new miracle is added to the list. If it was an agnostic that suddenly recuperates, it is just said -- he beat the odds that time! Severed limbs are not miraculously regenerated, it seems. And it is fair to ask, why not? This is an omnipotent God we are talking about, after all. Why are amputees not subject to a miraculous restoration?

If a miracle is defined as something that seems inexplicable to human beings, then, yes, miracles happen. They just don’t prove the existence of a God.

Science continues to marginalize the role of God. But the intellectual case against the Deity is largely lost on the public, at least in most of the world. God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved, but vast majorities of the public continue to profess an unwavering belief. Usually people explain their belief, when they explain it at all, not in intellectual terms, but rather as a feeling. It is something they feel in their hearts. They simply feel that there is a God. Examining why people feel the way they do about their religion is a fascinating exploration in itself.

Religions often stress that belief must come from the heart, from a free will choice. But one has to consider the pressure, from childhood onward, to conform to the family’s and the community’s faith. If you are born Jewish, growing up in a good Jewish family in a Jewish community, you go to synagogue. Period. If you are born to Catholics, you go to church. Many people have their religion because it was what they were “raised to be.” In an interfaith marriage the couple usually will decide what the children will be “raised to be.” There is really never a period of objective, independent, reasoned decision about it. That being the case, how genuine is the belief of such an individual? This state of affairs seems at odds with Christian teachings especially, in which the voluntary and sincere nature of one’s belief in the dogma is all that determines whether or not one’s consciousness is to be unspeakably tortured throughout all of eternity.

The constant promotion of God by religious adherents is part of the explanation for the prevalence of religion. And the various community pressures to be religious are part of the picture, too. But salesmanship alone cannot be the whole story. There must be a larger reason why people are so receptive to religion.

Debates on religion are usually centered on one or two of the major religions, with the result that we often neglect an important point; that is, the universal nature of the religious impulse in human beings. Few practices non-essential to physical survival are to be found among literally all the peoples of the world, past and present. Dancing, and singing (or chanting), would be other such phenomena that every culture has, and those often have a religious component. Even the officially atheistic regime of the Soviet Union took on all the trappings and rituals of a religion, down to declaring their leader, Lenin, a superhuman after his death. They said Lenin’s brain was found to be much larger than a normal brain, and was possessed of strange structures not found in ordinary brains.

In considering the universality of religion in humanity, we may get to the root of the matter. Just why is it that this notion of a superior being is so important to almost everybody? The answer may be that everyone alive, and everyone who has ever lived, has had a deeply emotional, personal experience with a godlike, all-powerful being. Yes, that is correct. That is exactly the reality of the experience of human babies, in relation to their parents or guardians.

Think of that towering entity that appeared by the cradle, spoke to us, cleaned us, lifted us, fed us, and strode across the new world with us. Is there a psychologist on earth, or a poet, who can fully describe the experience of the growing infant mind? Probably not without some religious imagery. And likewise, the phraseology of the world’s religions are loaded with parental and birth metaphors. The two are completely intertwined. A religious life is likely cultivated from one’s earliest days of consciousness. Then, as we grow out of childhood, and life becomes more demanding, we yearn for the security that was once so magically provided. We reach out for that higher power. At our innermost level of thinking, and feeling, we are certain that once it was there.

The religions of the world are saturated in parental imagery. In fact, many of the most primal religions are just straightforward ancestor worship. Then there are those of the pagans’ Mother Earth. There is Mary, Mother of God, and Our Father, which art in Heaven. These and countless other religious fixtures point to a deep memory of parental care as being the root of the universal human impulse to seek after a higher power.

In archeological sites throughout Europe and in the Mediterranean, there have been found thousands of religious idols of a pregnant female. This Mother Goddess was once the focus of adoration of an immense prehistoric religion, now forgotten but to archeologists. The parental deities are to be found throughout tribal religions, just as they are in the most mainstream religions of the modern “first world.” It is something that is very nearly universal among human beings, whether today or in the very distant past. Yet, we hesitate to make the obvious connection.

In fact, this may well be the explanation of the universal human obsession with superior beings. Bear in mind, in the earliest days of life, when a human mind is first developing, a “superior being” is not only an unambiguous fact; it is something all-sustaining and crucial to survival. And the emotional content of the infant’s attachments to his adult nurturer must surely be awesome.

One might say you had to be there, to fully appreciate it.

If a deeply lodged memory of parental care is truly the root of the religious impulse, it is interesting to note that we likely did not inherit this from our primate ancestors. At least, there is no evidence to suggest that any existing primates have a counterpart to human religion, although they certainly nurture their young. There is evidence that the Neanderthals practiced rituals as they buried their dead, but that is the most primitive level at which any trace of religious behavior can be found. If our closer relatives in the primate world have no religious leanings, it may only be due to the fact that their simpler brains lack some of the components with which we are “blessed.”

Where does this leave us? Are we left with a world largely made up of people who spend their lives chasing after a phantom “God” that is only the product of infantile memories? Is it a world where super religions help build and sustain civilization, while at the same time extracting a grievous toll in terms of fanaticism, divisiveness, war, anti-intellectualism, and sexual repression? What about the Karl Marx line that religion is the “opiate” of the masses?

An even-handed evaluation of the scene suggests that religion need not be fanatical, divisive, or repressive, but that it has the potential to be all of those destructive things, even to a catastrophic degree. It just depends on the psychological make-up of the people involved. The vast majority of human beings are religious to some degree, and the fanatic fringe only makes up a small percentage of that population. So, one can have a religious life and still be fully mentally healthy. Though some would say with at least some loss of intellectual integrity, due to an unquestioning embrace of concepts that are shaky at best.

Religion is primarily an emotional experience, not an intellectual one. But then, emotions are not a worthless byproduct of existence. We are not machines, and our emotional lives have immense value; they should be maintained in good health. Religion is not so much a toxic opiate of the masses, as it is an anesthetic. Its purpose is to provide some comfort to people who are hurting, and who have outgrown the nurturing of their parents.

It is interesting to note how much energy most organized religions devote to regulating sexual behavior. The sex life is a comfort, too, and thus may be somewhat in competition with religion.

Religion first appeared in prehistoric times, as a way of holding tribes together. Later, more sophisticated versions held nations together. Political power has always been a component of religion. Religion can enhance civilization, or it can be abused, to become just one more political power play for some leadership. Tragically, even today it is controversial to simply acknowledge that religious political power can be abused. And this is apart from the issue of cults.

The controversy and emotionalism surrounding questions of religion and God make them almost unapproachable for honest intellectual debate in the public domain. Can you imagine a presidential candidate touching on some of the ideas raised in this article? It could not happen. And that is unfortunate, because there is some common ground between the religious and nonreligious communities, and plenty of common aspirations.

Belief goes on. And so does science. And somewhere, or nowhere, God Himself remains silent.