The Invisible God

Anyone who knows me is well aware I’m not religious, and I never will be. At the same time, I’m not rampantly irreligious either, have read the Bible several times (and numerous other religious texts), and I think there is something potentially positive in faith. Believing in something is, to put it succinctly, not a bad thing.

Today I commented on a news article about the Taliban murdering a pregnant woman who was accused of an affair. Deplorable in every way, but hardly surprising. I remarked in the comment section of that article that the world was full of ignorant people who used belief in an invisible god to excuse their actions. (I paraphrase the comment her for clarity and brevity.) A reply to my comment from a Christian (an admission in their post), took me somewhat to task for my “blaming god for the disobedience of men.” I hesitated about whether to reply to that, but did, because it struck me how irrelevant communication is when we make assumptions about speakers we don’t know. Their assumption was that I was “blaming God,” when what I was actually doing was observing a fact: some ignorant people use faith as an excuse to commit atrocious acts. My observation, to anyone who really focuses on it, has nothing to do with a Christian or Islamic god, but was exactly what it appeared to be – a remark about how people twist faith to suit their own nefarious purposes. Not believing in god as defined by any religion I’ve come across, but not denying people the right to believe, I replied to clarify that it was a mistake, basically, to assume I was blaming a god, when I was merely making an observation. Hopefully, the person won’t take offence at that, though I added the observation it was a mistake to assume anything about me as a commentator, based upon what I had written, in the hope the message sinks in, the message being that rational expression, stripped of emotional and religious context, is not defining expression in the normal sense. It is just observation.

Observation is what makes me certain there is something deeply wrong in the fabric of Catholicism. I am not smearing the religion or its believers, when I question the Vatican’s destructive stance on homosexuality and children’s rights to live unmolested by people they are told to place their faith in. Now, a Catholic might argue I am painting the entire religion with the remarks I have sometimes made, but they would be colouring my views. Even when I have gone so far as to say, any body of people who condones such behaviour, or excuses it, is equally guilty as those perpetrating it, I am not bashing Catholics. I am, though, stating a fact about anyone who doesn’t speak out against it actively when given the chance. And all of this, has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs about gods.

I think the phrase that offended in my comment off the Taliban post, or at least engendered the belief I must be god-bashing, were the words “invisible god.” It probably prompted the reply-writer to believe I was saying “does not exist,” though I was, in fact, saying, “cannot be seen.” I can’t generally see the air I breathe, either, and could refer to it as the invisible air, which tells you absolutely nothing about my belief system other than I admit to not seeing air. Being as I survive by breathing it, of course, I tend to believe it exists. For those of strong faith, I expect their belief in the invisible god (choose one, or several) has the same fortifying effect, at times, as does my taking a long draw of air. Who am I to harass them for their private beliefs?

But I can, I think, take them to task for making assumptions about my beliefs.

So, what do I actually believe? Well, I can say several things with certainty:

I believe people who rely upon faith over logic are making a mistaken assumption about their responsibility. Even if their is a god, of any form, I am certain that god would rely upon our choices to define our outcomes. God could not, and no evidence suggests in any religious text to state otherwise, be making every decision in the world. If so, then using Christian theology you run into an immediate problem – Christ died for nothing. We could not sin, and do no wrong, if god controlled our actions. Most Christians, I think, would even agree with that idea – that we have choices, and we make them, and the consequences are ours. The problem isn’t religious people who accept personal responsibility, but those who want it both ways, where they can be absolved without ever facing consequences of chosen actions, on some principle that it was god’s plan. God wouldn’t have a plan mankind could understand, if there was indeed a plan, and the arrogance necessary to think we could grasp the plan of a true creator being is deeply offensive to anyone of real, thoughtful faith. Logic dictates that we are autonomous beings, and that we interact for better or worse, and that we are responsible for outcomes. Let faith support without interfering with logic, and the world would be a better place.

I also believe though, that logic is not some panacea. By itself, logic is cold and hard, and leads to horrific and shameful acts. The Taliban, for example, is applying logic to kill women, to maintain a patriarchal hold on the region. Much the same way, the Vatican reshapes history to suit its lies about the priesthood regularly. That makes logic, like a handgun, a very dangerous tool. That is why I ascribe to the belief that logic, must be guided by some moral preconditions, whether religious or humanist. You cannot simply have logic exist in a vacuum, because logic has no way to value human lives, or even human conditions. It is a process-specific functional method of analysis, and nothing more. Yet, while I support the contention a moral framework is required to exercise logic safely, I do not, and never will, suggest religion provides one. Religion is, at its heart, a scam. Note that I am not saying god is a scam, or people of faith are foolish. I am talking about religion in two senses specifically. The first is the sense of religion as an organised system, which is not morally reliable simply because all systems suffer controller corruption. As soon as a priesthood and its attendant hierarchy become extant, all religion falters on the fundamental point of control. The second sense of religion I am talking about is the ritualistic sense, which is, after all, the whole core of religion. (To those who want to take offence, enjoy this aside: the vast majority of people claiming religion are lying to themselves, because religion requires ritual. If you are not practicing, you are not, strictly, religious, regardless of your faith.) Ritual cannot provide moral context, because it is a traditional and inflexible adherence to set rules, most of those rules created centuries ago. Moral structure is defined, as well, not by value-systems. Value-systems are constructs that nihilists created to excuse the need of morality. As to where we find moral systems, that I leave to much smarter people.

If I was to consolidate my beliefs about the invisible god, I would say this to people of faith: Do not rely upon the existence of god to excuse your decisions, because if you are wrong about there being a god you are an atrocity, and if you are right, you are a heretic at best, and probably worse. Rather, live a life that is focused on human compassion, try to understand the world as it is rather than as some fantasy believes it to be, and strive to make it better. Those goals, held close, will ensure that if there is a god, no offence is given. It is better not to believe in god, and live a commendable life, than to live a lie while claiming faith.