by Star 
When it comes to justifying the necessity of God and religion
in human society, a basic ancient argument is often used. People
tend to believe that only religion can justify morality and ethics,
and that therefore we need religion to create social harmony in
which people would care for each other because of their religious
belief.
Some other thinkers go further, and believe that the only way
to control the greedy nature of human beings is through religion.
Still others believe that not only do we need religion for this
life, but also for our salvation and eternal life after death.
I can’t argue about life after death, because I can’t
prove that it exists. However, I can argue that as far as this
life is concerned, we don’t need God and religion in any
aspect of life on Earth. Also, we shouldn’t be worried about
a next life now, as we never have been before we came into this
life.
Here is the argument: Let’s say God is dead, meaning there
is no God as supreme being who is omnipotent and omniscient. Or
there is no God who created the universe and no God in charge
of everything in the universe. Therefore, there won’t be
a heaven and hell in which people will be rewarded or punished
after death for whatever they have done.
Right or wrong, let’s assume that this life is everything
and that there is nothing more. Now we can conclude that since
there is no punishment, we can do whatever we like. We can commit
any kind of crime without being worried about life after death.
Also, nobody will do good because, after all, there is no reward
for doing good. Consequently, crime will be the only human action.
But is this really a sound argument? Why should we kill each
other when, with the help of technology, we can produce enough
food for all? Why should we pursue wars and fight each other over
land and space when we are able to control the population growth?
However, having the ability to do something does not mean that
we necessarily do it. But why not? This argument could be sound
if we did not have the evolutionary advantages, such as our brain
and intelligence. This argument could be accepted if we were limited
in our ability to control things like pregnancy, food production,
medicine, communication, etc. As you know, we are capable of controlling
our environment and behaviour. Despite having all these human
capabilities, we still kill each other and crime is an everyday
phenomenon in human society. As a result, the above argument is
obsolete.
The other argument regarding the death of God is that if there
is no God and no rewards or punishment after death, then one has
to believe that this life is everything and one cannot expect
to be rewarded for killing those who simply don’t believe
in one’s religion. In this case, there won’t be any
crusades, jihads, or fetvahs in which human bloodshed is necessary.
Also, there won’t be any suicide bomber who kills innocent
people because he believes that by so doing he will, by that afternoon,
be in the hands of God in Heaven with virgins and angels around
him promising eternal life.
Moreover, there won’t be any excuse for evil-minded Nazis
to set up ovens for humans. If it is the case that God is dead,
then Abraham wouldn’t be asked to shed blood for his sacrifice,
Isaac, Ishmael, or a ram; it doesn’t matter who. If this
is the only life that we can have, then we shouldn’t take
it for granted.
We are obliged to love, and condemned to be loved. If this life
is our only chance to experience the universe, then we shouldn’t
waste it by making bombs and weapons to destroy it. The only rational
logic left is that we should see humanity as one body in which
we are all related to each other beyond our skin colour, nationality,
language and physical differences. This is a sound argument which
makes sense to me.
God may be dead or alive; it doesn’t matter, as far as
it concerns human life on Earth.
by Star |