The first real philosopher I ever read was Bertrand Russell. And I didn’t read him for his philosophy; I read his classic atheist treatise Why I am Not a Christian. I was still in high school, and a budding materialist. But something about the tone of his book didn’t sit right with me. I recently got another taste of it after reading Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great. There is so much ammunition at hand when one takes on religion, it seems to become irresistable to the religious antagonist not to pick up stones and start hurling them in every direction. It was true of Russell, whose philosophical writing was not considered polemical, and it is true of Hitchens.
Skepticism about God–regarding his existence, properties and so forth–is intellectually necessary, in my view. In the absence of direct revelation, I cannot understand faith, and yet it exists everywhere. But I cannot argue that just because so many believe it, it has to be true, since upon examining the details of such faith amongst a wide variety of individuals, first hand, over many many years, I have never detected any rational basis for faith even among the most intelligent adherents. At the base of it all is–I was going to say infantilism–but instead I will leave it at emotionalism.
I cannot rejoice over the inevitable end of meaning entailed by the lack of a god-perspective in the universe. We are end-oriented creatures, with a conscious awareness of time. Our teleological prejudice litters our language. It is inescapable. We cannot merely be, we must persistently strive toward. And what is the reward of all that striving? Merely being. It’s a joyous circle or a vortex of doom.
Religion is the ultimate world-creating activity. Its aim is to stitch all of the little threads that dangle off of us into one tidy tapestry of truth. Science cannot replace it, and though I respect my “Realist” and atheist brethren for their attachment to scientific truth (reality), I can’t be comforted by it. What difference does it make to me whether a rock is a billion years old or a hundred years old? Science must be admired, respected and encouraged. But constitutive answers are not exhaustive.
So I won’t be gloating over the death of God. Would the world be a better place without religion? Not with humans in it. It is impossible. We create worlds. That’s what we do. I don’t know why.