‘Is God real’ arguments distract us from truth
Commentary by Janet Marugg | FāVS News
Did you ever notice that the only thing that comes from an argument for a god’s existence is a counter argument against a god’s existence? Guess what counter arguments produce? Yep. A counter to the counter. And so on until you’re countered in like a Nighthawk in that Edward Hopper diner high on your own supply with nobody to talk to. This is not to say that arguments aren’t entertaining. They are.
Who doesn’t love St. Anselm of Canterbury’s argument: “God is that which nothing greater can be conceived?” It’s catchy as a bumper sticker. But besides the circular fallacy, Anselm’s biblical god circa 1078 C.E. is not the boast people think it is. I can, for instance, conceive a god greater than Anselm’s biblical god.
I can envision a god that doesn’t create a place of evil and suffering for nonconsensual sentient beings with only a supernaturally “dictated” cryptic story from 6000 B.C.E. to sometime first century as a guide for proper suffering. I can also conceive of a god who simply forgives the inferior beings he/she/it created without a cringy blood sacrifice.
I can conceive lots of greater gods, but that is the point. When it comes to gods we are forced to play in the playground of imagination. All arguments for the existence of supernatural beings are for entertainment purposes only because we simply have no supernatural data or way to obtain supernatural data. And if we did, what is the proper way to interpret supernatural data?
The idea that Anselm’s god judges us on the evaluations we make when he left us nothing to go on but faulty, evidence-free arguments, claims, hypothesis, unproven and probably unprovable, without anything conclusive, demonstrable or repeatable to go on, is reasonably rejectable.
In the religion of my birth, St. Anselm’s god is a powerful supernatural being who deceives us. Is it reasonable to believe a known deceiver? Because I can conceive of a god who thinks people should not outsource their thoughts, beliefs and personal morality to “divine dictation” from a known deceiver. A greater god thinks that humans should develop a personal ethic and morality. History is swollen with atrocities committed by people who outsourced their personal morality and acted on bad interpretations of St. Anselm’s god. Besides, outsourcing personal morality makes for lazy thinking and immature ethical development. Not greater at all.
St. Anselm, like others from his time and place, neglected to conceive that supremacy spoils fast. Being supreme, by definition, allows for no further growth or expansion. In an ever-expanding universe, eternal supremacy is unnatural and invites extinction. Remember Zeus? How about Ra? We should abandon the illusion of eternal supremacy for the reality of universal expansion and simply keep doing better. A greater god would want to keep doing better, too.
I can’t help it, this wanting to do better. I am a worker-overer of things, because I want to believe the most true things as I can in my life. Still, some readers will think that I just don’t know the Bible’s best lines (I do, and they are lovely), that I haven’t tingled with the “truth” of their supernatural entity’s “divine” dictation. I have. I also tingle reading selections of the Upanishads, Buddhist Tripitaka, Tao Te Ching, Bhagavata Gita, the Bardo Thodol and the Quran. The Bible does not own feel-good tingles.
Besides, the first rule for truth seekers is this: feelings are insufficient evidence as to whether something is true or not. Humans tingle over words and the ideas they represent all the time, and a person can always be sincere and still be sincerely wrong.
Here’s what happens to me: a well-intended reader will bear email testimony that their god is so loving he lets me be wrong. To which I might ask, “Is this the same loving god who threatens me with eternal suffering if I get it wrong?”
Or maybe I’ll drop a little Thomas Paine, because why not? “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists of holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
But I remain silent. I do not reply. The question for me is this: do I consent to enter into a data-challenged supernatural god argument? Do I donate my time for a religious apologist to practice defending the evidence-free and fallacy-ridden undefendable? Isn’t that contributing to the delinquency of a human mind? Here I think Nietzsche was right, arguing is for the weak and the constant assertion of faith indicates fear and feeding fear doesn’t sound very moral to me.
Who knows? Perhaps there is a greater god wanting to hang out with those of us who insist on his/her/its doing better, being clearer, improving Team Human interaction, delivering repeatable results, and such. Maybe there is a god approving of people that support his/her/its professional development on that eternal godly quest to be St. Anselm’s impossible dream. Maybe skeptics are the ones who pass the worthiness test for a god’s eternal companionship. At the very least, a greater god would welcome an end to lame arguments for the existence of gods.
The views expressed in this opinion column are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of FāVS News. FāVS News values diverse perspectives and thoughtful analysis on matters of faith and spirituality.
Thanks, Janet, for reminding me of why I almost flunked freshman philosophy which befuddled me with proofs of the existence of God and everything else. Thanks also for conjuring up Hopper’s “Nighthawks.” I’ve always felt right at home in this painting.
No one can “argue” or “logic” their way to the supernatural and no one should try to argue or logic anyone else to belief.
Faith is beyond that. All who seek shall find. Godspeed on your journey.
One way around the never-ending argument is to change the terms of the discussion. Why allow the “for god” apologist to dictate the definition of god in supernatural language? Or insist on an anthropomorphic being version of god? There are other legitimate ways of imaging god and describing the characteristics of the Ultimate Reality to which the word god points.
In addition, not all adequate forms of proof are revealed by the five senses or some other type of logical positivist thinking. Different disciplines make different truth claims and the proof of those claims are circumscribed by the terms of the discipline. The truth claim made in mathematics requires a mathematical proof consistent and coherent with that discipline. That is different than truth claims and proofs in biology, psychology, philosophy, human relationships, etc.
The word supreme doesn’t necessarily require a static or unchanging element. Supreme can also mean ultimate, consummate, foremost, preeminent, culminating. Maybe being ultimately relatable and affected and moved, all of which include growth and expansion, are part of defining the Reality of god.
My point is: the terms of debate in 2025 do not need to be constrained by ancient concepts and archaic definitions. The person or entity who sets the terms and parameters of the debate has already built in a systemic advantage for their position. A legitimate discussion should not require the parties to surrender to someone else’s arbitrary terms.
Good to see you on here Jody!