Thousands of philosophers, mystics, scientists, and thinkers; brainstorming since thousands of years, still stand divided on three sides of the spectrum as atheists, agnostics, and theists!
Members of all the three camps present strong and passionate arguments, and the debates end in stalemates all the time as there are numerous issues pertaining to God’s existence that these people simply cannot agree upon! Experts have no consensus on this matter!
To witness the never-ending debate, just take a look at the numerous academic websites and blogs, books, journals/papers, videos and podcasts that are still being widely published on this issue!
And the fact that serious and complex academic debates are still occurring all the time across the world, despite the tens of thousands of minds over thousands of years been already devoted into cracking this puzzle, implies that the existence of God is:
(i) An unclear/ambiguous issue, and
(ii) An unsolvable puzzle because of its inherently subjective nature.
Ambiguous: because scholars don’t debate the existence of the Moon or the existence of the atom or the existence of the electrons or the existence of the dinosaurs; but they are still debating the existence of God! This glaring lack of consensus over a solution, despite millions of brilliant man-hours gone into it, implies that the matter of God’s existence is still an unsolved open problem, and if it is unsolved despite so much of great efforts, implies that the issue itself is ambiguous/unclear to begin with, that is, it has an inherent element of unsolvability/irresolvability in it. Academics aren’t idiots that they will debate and discuss issues that are clear and have already been solved and settled!
I have delved into this in much more detail in the article linked to my fifth post here on this blog. I have discussed whether it’s plausible that the lack of consensus of experts could be due to factors like insufficient/deficient intelligence of the experts, and their insincerity/ulterior motives/vested interests. I have argued in much detail why insincerity and/or dumbness of scholars can’t be the reason(s) behind the deadlock on God. I have also discussed what could be the plausible reasons behind the inherent ambiguity of this matter. Do give it a read!
Subjective: because of its ambiguity that makes it prone to differing conclusions by analysts having differing mindsets/predispositions/inclinations. A metaphysicalist mindset versus a naturalist/ physicalist mindset is the best example. Those who have a metaphysicalist mindset happily jump to appeal to the metaphysical mystery behind the so called Devil’s (Bermuda) Triangle while the naturalists easily dismiss all such metaphysical mysterious elements associated with it.
How were the pyramids of Egypt exactly built? Metaphysicalists appeal to various supernatural/metaphysical causes while naturalists paint different physical pictures to explain it.
Spooky sightings are attributed to ghosts/spirits/jinns/supernatural elements by those who have a metaphysicalist mindset while they are dismissed as hallucinations or illusions or purely mental phenomena by the naturalists. While some behavioural patterns are attributed to psychiatric illnesses/disorders by naturalists, they are readily labelled as ghost/spirit/jinn possession by those who are metaphysically inclined.
Likewise, someone with a metaphysicalist mindset can accept God as a conscious, intelligent, powerful, personal, creator and legislator of the universe. Someone with a naturalistic mindset cannot accept such a God. It’s foolish to try to convince such a person to believe in such a God without first changing the person’s mindset. Someone with a metaphysicalist mindset will have many reasons to believe in God but his/her reasons may not be enough for someone else, certainly not enough for a naturalist!
Similarly, what satisfies a person of the social sciences may not satisfy a person of the natural sciences. A case in point is this debate between Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The personal emotional needs and socio-political compulsions on ground are enough to drive Ayaan (a social sciences person) to Christianity but not Dawkins (a natural sciences guy). Emotional- socio-political necessity is enough as evidence for Ayaan but not for Dawkins. Based upon necessity, what Ayaan chooses is a religion (Christianity) and with the religion comes God and other metaphysical beliefs as a package and she willingly chooses to accept these beliefs as a necessary part of her choice of Christianity as her religion based upon emotional, social, and political reasons.
Thus the ‘truth’ of the matter of God is subjective as it depends on the mindset of the analyst. Hence my truth may not be the truth for/of others!
Some more conflicting pairs of mindsets
Mind versus Matter: On one hand we have the idealists who consider the mind to be the fundamental basis of reality. Consciousness is more fundamental and real than matter, they say. According to them, the mind/consciousness has a non- physical basis separate from and beyond the material/physical world. On the other hand we have the materialists who consider matter to be the primary/fundamental basis of reality. The mind/ consciousness to them is just a byproduct of the physical processes in the brain.
A prior idealist bent of mind has more potential to lead to God as the ultimate mind behind all that exists. While a materialist mindset is more prone to atheism as its position on the issue of God!
Rationalism versus Empiricism: That’s Descartes versus Bacon for you! Both are susceptible to theism and atheism alike. One could be a rationalist theist like Descartes or a rationalist atheist like Bertrand Russell; an empiricist theist like Newton, or an empiricist atheist like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins!
Some other pairs of mindsets diametrically opposed to each other include:
Holistic versus Reductionist.
Inclusivist versus Exclusivist.
Utilitarian/Pragmatic versus Idealistic.
Utilitarian versus Aesthetic.
Modernist versus Traditionalist.
Rationalist versus Literalist.
Liberal versus Hardline.
Iconoclastic versus Conformist.
Disruptive versus Conservative.
Revisionist/conspiracy theorist versus Established narrativist. Examples of revisionist narratives include the claims that the Taj Mahal was actually a Hindu temple1, and that Netaji (Subhas Chandra Bose) is still alive!2
Although not all of the above are relevant to the discussion on God. Nevertheless, I’ve listed them just to give as many examples as possible to demonstrate the sheer diversity of outlooks ingrained in man.
An objection: I have argued above that the derivation of truth of God is dependent upon mindset. Hence, one could argue that the real cause behind the differences of opinions and the failure to arrive at a consensus isn’t an inherent ambiguity and subjectivity of the issue but the seekers’ own differing mindsets/perspectives/preferences that interject subjectivity into this issue, that is, the matter of God isn’t inherently subjective, rather it is inherently objective; the subjectivity is introduced from the outside by the subjects themselves!
The response: The fact that mindsets/perspectives/preferences play/can play a role in reaching or extracting the truth of this matter, proves the malleability and subjectivity of the matter. Otherwise, if there was no malleability then despite differing mindsets and tastes, scholars would have reached the same conclusions.
2+2=4 is equally true to people of all mindsets and tastes! If a tough problem on calculus is given to a student of mathematics who doesn’t even know the topic; after he is taught, the answer he will reach will be the same as all other experts of the subject. Different mathematicians will not arrive at different answers! The issue of God on the other hand is malleable to begin with, consequently it is susceptible to differing conclusions by scholars of different mindsets.
Subjectivity implies that faith in God is a ‘matter of choice’
“God is an opinion and belief is a matter of choice of opinions, the question is why do you want or not want God to be there.”3 (Peter Hitchens, ex-atheist, now Christian, brother of the late Christopher Hitchens (one of the so called ‘four horsemen of new atheism’))
People choose their truths subjectively. And it’s fine. Even in science people sometimes choose to believe something to be true, e.g.; the ‘strings’ of String Theory. Many physicists swear by it although the actual physical existence of strings isn’t yet confirmed experimentally. Hence, many physicists dismiss it as merely a philosophical idea!
“………..in the end, faith is nothing more or less than a choice. You either believe there is something beyond the physical world (as I do), or you don’t. You either believe you are more than the sum of your material parts (as I do), or you don’t. You either believe in the existence of a soul (as I do), or you don’t. No one can prove or disprove these things,……….”4 (Reza Aslan, best-selling author of several books on religion including ‘No God but God’)
People want to know and have faith in something ‘absolute’. Those with a metaphysicalist bent of mind choose that ‘absolute’ entity to be God. Those with a materialist/naturalist bent of mind choose that ‘absolute’ entity to be the universe itself, or a multiverse, or a fundamental field, etc. I’ve discussed these choices in great detail in my fourth article on this blog.
Besides being based upon some evidence, choice of subjective truths are also based upon practical reasons like:
(i) Mindsets. Already discussed above.
(ii) Tastes/preferences.
(iii) Convenience, utility, contemporary relevance and future prospects.
Tastes/Preferences: For example, a person who prefers more freedom with less certainty versus someone who prefers less freedom with more certainty. As in, those who choose to follow a theistic religion like Islam do so because they:
Want more certainty than freedom.
Also want to have something after death. The idea of this life being the only life that completely ends with death troubles them.
And they have a metaphysical bent of mind. Hence have no issues with accepting God as an immaterial-transcendental yet personal- conscious-intelligent-powerful creator and legislator of the universe.
And they go by the established historical narrative of Muhammad and his life, that helps them to spot/recognise the miraculous/ advanced features of the Quran and Muhammad. And these advanced features are then explained through the framework/ theory of Islam. (See my sixth article)
One the contrary, those who choose atheistic worldviews:
Desire more freedom than certainty.
Also, they aren’t troubled by a nihilistic view of the world. It doesn’t trouble them as much to accept the idea that everything ends forever with death!
And they have a naturalist/materialist bent of mind.
And they go by revisionist versions or not so established alternative narratives of Muhammad’s life in particular and Islamic history in general. Thus they see no miraculous features of the Quran and Muhammad. Thus they have no need to take the Islamic theory to explain anything.
They manage to find naturalistic, physical, anthropological explanations for everything. (See my fourth article)
But, both sides ultimately appeal to, and are based upon, some unestablished narratives:
Naturalists explain away the apparently miraculous phenomena of the Quran and Muhammad through some revisionist historical accounts that cannot actually be proven or established. While Muslims explain it by appealing to God whose existence is inconclusive to begin with!
Choosing one over the other is just a matter of personal tastes and preferences, like someone prefers mutton biryani to chicken biryani! And mindset also plays a prior role in determining the tastes of a person, like if a person is vegan, he will never go on to pick chicken or mutton biryani from a counter. Only a meat eater will choose between chicken and mutton biryani.
Like I chose to follow Islam simply because:
I have a metaphysical bent of mind.
I like certainty more than freedom.
I don’t want death to end everything.
And, I’m not a revisionist, hence the established Islamic historical narrative on Muhammad led me to ‘recognise’ the ‘advanced’ or ‘miraculous’ nature of Muhammad and the Quran. Thereafter, Islam as a theistic theory helped me to explain these ‘miraculous’ features (the advanced features and the explanatory scope/ usefulness criteria of truth of theories (see my sixth blog piece for more on these two criteria of truth)).
Convenience, utility, contemporary relevance and future prospects: Where it’s convenient or fashionable to be an atheist, many would choose to be an atheist. Where it’s convenient to be a Muslim, many would choose to be a Muslim, just to be in sync with the surrounding culture and its people.
It’s a case of pragmatism driving one’s choice of beliefs. Like a person who prefers non-veg biryani but chooses to have veg biryani at a place where non-veg food is unavailable!
Many people reject religion simply because they find it at odds with modernity, antiquated and retrograde. They find it to be irrelevant to the modern world and also see no future in it, thereby raising their children as godless heathens. Relevance and future scope is thus another important criterion that drives many people’s choice of religion or irreligion!
I chose Islam again as I find it very much useful, relevant, and having great future scope. Useful and relevant since it fulfills my social-emotional-spiritual needs like:
It provides me a sense of identity and belongingness to a close knit community of like (metaphysicalist) minded people. Belonging to a powerful religious community that has so profoundly impacted the whole wide world; erected and shaped great civilizations and cultures. Talk about Indonesia, Malaysia, Lahore, Peshawar, Kabul, Samarqand, Iran (Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz), Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, Jordan, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, Jeddah, Oman, Turkey, Egypt, and Morocco!!
Gives me a deep, intense, soothing, and tranquilizing method of prayer/meditation/communication with the Absolute Reality (God) in the form of namaz/salaah/salaat (the Islamic form of ritual prayer). It’s so powerful that it heals me from the traumas of daily life! It rejuvenates, reorients, and nourishes my soul, my mind, and my body! It’s a wellness package that I couldn’t completely abandon even when I was an agnostic!
Getting an absolute emotional and spiritual anchor in God. And more such indispensable utilities, that too fall under the usefulness criterion of the truth of theories. (See my sixth article)
It’s also about being true to the religion and its people that have shaped me and made me who I am today. It’s about not betraying and rebelling against the institution that has played a significant and indelible role in building the personality that I have today!
To conclude and summarize
Thousands of academics and experts have been and are still debating the question of God’s existence. Academics don’t debate and discuss issues that are clear and solved. Thus the God problem is still unsolved.
It being unsolved despite millions of brilliant hours invested in it implies the issue is inherently ambiguous and the ambiguity is irresolvable.
Irresolvable ambiguity implies subjectivity, because its ambiguity renders it prone to disagreements based upon the mindsets of the experts. If something is susceptible to differing mindsets of its analysts then the thing itself is ambiguous and subjective.
Subjective things are a matter of choice. And choice is again based upon:
Mindsets (vegetarian versus non-vegetarian).
Tastes/preferences (chicken biryani versus mutton biryani for a non vegetarian person. Paneer biryani versus mushroom biryani for a vegetarian).
Convenience-utility-contemporary relevance and future scope (availability of chicken versus veg biryani; if chicken biryani is unavailable even a meat eater will have to pick veg biryani despite his dislike for it!).
Belief in God and following a religion is similarly a matter of choice, not of compulsion. People choose to believe or disbelieve based upon their:
Mindsets (metaphysicalist versus naturalist; idealist versus materialist; etc.).
Tastes/preferences (certainty versus freedom, craving for a life after death/eternal life versus being okay with nihilism, etc.).
Convenience-utility-contemporary relevance and future scope (if it’s convenient/trendy to be an atheist, many would choose to be an atheist. Others might just hold on to religion pragmatically because of its emotional- social-spiritual benefits, etc.).
Being a matter of choice, faith cannot be thrust upon anyone. It cannot be a matter of compulsion. Hence the Quran’s assertion that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256).
Closing remarks
Those who want/choose to believe in God and hence follow a theistic religion can find many reasons and arguments to do so, that is, have a reasonable/ rational faith in God and an associated religion. There can be many reasons and arguments but NOT a single indisputable proof which is impossible in ambiguous and subjective issues like God. Thereby, what’s satisfactory and convincing enough for me might not be enough for others! I can and do have my own ‘reasons’ to believe in God but not a single ‘proof’. Faith in God can thus be reasonably justified but not indisputably ‘proven’.
Hence the whole business around trying to prove/convince people that God exists/doesn’t exist is stupid! Anyone who claims that he can ‘prove’ that God exists/doesn’t exist cannot be taken seriously. What can and should be done instead is ‘sharing’ why I believe/ don’t believe that God exists! ‘Sharing’ instead of ‘convincing/ proving’ will drastically reduce the faith inspired hate and venom from this discourse and make the world a more peaceful place to live in!
God is an assumption based on the vast creation which are impossible for humans not only to create or visit, but also to see even everything.
Science has given us a glimpse of the universe and a few concepts of how the universe was created, how big it is.
If we go through socio-religious concepts that thousands of so called messengers, demigods, son of gods had given us, we will get confused.
Rather that old socio-religious concepts, we can choose scientific knowledge. We will have a clearer idea of an omnipotent energy encompassing the universe and beyond.