- Religion and Philosophy»
- Atheism & Agnosticism
God: Supernatural or synonym to human conscience?
The concept of a supernatural being is probably as old as the human race. Of course, its interpretation has been different through time and varies on locations, which is, at least in my opinion, the evidence that none of them are true at their particular/independent forms.
Today, we have two major religions- Christianity and Islam- and several others, each one having their own subdivisions. All religions have something in common: the aspect of mysticism. Christianity and Islam combine mythological aspects with philosophical thoughts, so it is easy to conclude that people who follow these faiths believe in the supernatural. But when you examine the behavior of the religious and you get to understand their spirituality, you may notice that what they really believe in is in an existing trait: their inner conscience.
When you read things like “God is the answer”, “Jesus is your best friend”, “Jesus will never fail you”... can we really believe that there is an independent being out there that will always stand for us? The logical answer is no. We want to believe so, therefore in our infantile attempt to make this wish a reality, we want to stick to the idea, saying it countless times to see if we can manage to believe it without any doubt. There is no mystical being called Jesus out there; the figure of Jesus is a symbolic one, which represents the inner conscience. Anyone can deceive us, and we can deceive anyone but we cannot deceive our conscience or be deceived by it. We are so afraid to realize that we are only ones we have to fully trust ourselves that we create symbolic beings that are not there (because the randomness of life certifies their non-existence) to make us feel “protected”.
How did the Universe start? Why is our nature (apparently) so perfect? Who made the laws of physics? These questions are used by some religious people to sound like this is evidence that there had to be an intelligent, supernatural and conscious creator, but in reality nothing in science points out to it. First, because our nature is not perfect. Some organisms are born with anomalies, including humans. Accidents happen all the time- and they are not necessarily all caused by humans. The cosmos is full of random events. Not being able to fully comprehend many aspects in it is, in fact, evidence that not everything is “structured”. And even if it was, we lack the necessary thing to certify the existence of a conscious, independent supernatural being: evidence (sightings, photos or images that can be examined by scientists, etc.)
Christians tend to say that our experience with God is individual and personal. That’s the first mistake when trying to defend its existence in a scientific basis; you cannot use personal observations and opinions as evidence. Imagine a scientist saying “I have full evidence of the existence of God because this man over here told me he was blind and out of nowhere he can see again”. That’s not an evidence- even if it happened overnight and there was no medical intervention. Certainly, it is something strange and may (just may) point out to God, if it exists- but it is NO REAL EVIDENCE. Where are the photos, or images, of “something” curing him? Any X-ray that may indicate something happened “supernaturally”? No, there isn’t. Therefore, there is no evidence. Some religious people even dare to give “God” the credit of curing someone who was actually saved by surgeons and medical staff who studied hard to become doctors, which for some us non-believers may look as a severe disrespect to the them because we sometimes forget to thank them and decide to give all the credit to the mystical being that so far has not made any attempt to reveal itself to us.
What is, in reality, God? If we want to claim the existence of God, we may want to redefine what it means. A supernatural mystical, independent and mostly magical interdimensional being who behaves like a human? Of course not. The absurdity of this notion of God is evidence of how impossible this “god” is. The Christian and Islamic gods (apparently they are the same, but it is interpreted differently among them, to the point of being at war even within their religions trying to impose their views) are way too human, at least according to their sacred books. Mythological gods generally “complement” humans in terms of what they want to be- beings who can control everything. Humans have an inherent desire to impose, control, and have power over others. Because humans have limitations, the “gods” they invent cover everything they cannot do. If a huge number of people agree with a religion, it becomes a “false truth”- they believe it is true but it isn’t really true.
Let’s try to understand Christianity. The Bible offers some vague “theory” of how Earth formed, which symbolically may be used to “summarize” what really happened, in a very quick way- ignoring all the physics and chemistry behind the true “creation”. Then it involves on the apparent history of Israel, how it was “granted” (how they killed thousands, if not millions and conquered nearby) lands because God promised them; the language used in the Old Testament is not really what we could respect- incest, genocide, infanticide, rape, and possibly even pederasty involved; a “God” who is bloodthirsty, merciless, unfair to the bone, intolerant, jealous to “stone gods” he knew did not exist, yet it bothered him that some humans chose them; mythology also abounds- including talking snakes, rocks that respond to words, sticks that transform into snakes, snake figures that cure people, men who survive furnaces and hungry, starving lions, men who transform into beasts, talking trees, and so on. Later a girl (apparently a minor) is pregnant from “magic”, gives birth, then the son lives 33 years, resurrects people, died and resurrected yet he is nowhere to be found, literally talking. A misogynistic man comes after that, and then the final book mentions some scary stuff inappropriate for kids. This is a quick summary of the sacred book of Christianity, which surely also have some good parts like some of the psalms, proverbs and parables- yet is not really a great book, if we refer about its content. The book has been used for thousands of years, making it even obsolete and yet some people think it “applies” today. How does it apply? Treating women as servants to men, condemning homosexual people, and judging sinners and threatening them with eternal fire? The literal content of the Bible has been used as “reasons” to justify intolerance, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and not long ago, being against the Bible led people to be burned alive, most like today’s Islamic countries that do not tolerate “blasphemy”. Science was not able to advance for almost half a millennium because of religious intolerance, sponsored by the literal interpretations of the Bible. What we consider the Christian religion has not been really what has moved humanity forward- only after we realized that we cannot marry state affairs and religion we have been able to move on with science, social issues, human rights and systems that have seemed to work much better than theocracies. We can see the Arab world today, and the only thing that has saved them from total stagnation is the discovery of oil in their land, which is less and less valuable as time passes.
This, in summary, is the description of the Christian god- the one according to the mythological aspect of the religion. Such a god makes no sense to logic and reason, so we can discard, safely, this god. What about describing God in a much more complex way- one that might make much more sense? Let’s go back to Christianity: Christians today are much more gentler than centuries ago, although we still have some fanatics with the potential of becoming dangerous. But most Christians today are docile and believe what they do because of indoctrination and not because they are forced to (mandatory belief). Their description of God is confusing, because they combine two different aspects into one: God the creator, and God the almighty who knows it all. The first one can “match” the aspect of the universe and the cosmos, and the second one matches the inner human conscience.
When people pray, they are really talking to their inner conscience- they are having a moment of meditation in which they look into themselves, and check what things they are doing right and what things they are doing wrong, and think of ideas to become better. The use of the word “God” can be switched to “me”, and that’s what prayer mostly is, in reality. Jesus, or Mohammed, or any other important religious figure is symbolic to the inner conscience. In Christianity, Jesus is the ultimate human, the person who everybody must seek to look like, therefore, praying to Jesus is the same as praying to the potential you: the you that will not make wrong decisions and will be, basically, perfect.
God the creator is a symbolism to the cosmos. We don’t know yet how the universe came to be. The Big Bang theory only explains how the universe expands, but not how it formed, what made up the singularity that banged into the present universe. Several theories are available, including a supernatural being that suddenly put the singularity there. None of the theories have been able to be confirmed by science, but some make more sense than others given the mysteries that surround the cosmos. The entire process of the Big Bang expansion can be explained by science, so it does not need a creator after the Big Bang, and it may not be needed at all (that means, no creator is really needed before the Big Bang). If the multiversal theory was true, which seems to be the more logical of the theories, then God = multiverse. Because black holes could send energy to other dimensions which will be completely parallel, unique universes, and our universe could be just one of them, that means each black hole in our universe “gives birth” to other universes, and the connections would be infinite. If the multiverse is infinite, lacks space, time or any other type of dimension and only serves as a “background screen” to the infinite number of universes in it, then God and the multiverse will be exactly the same thing. So calling the multiverse “God” would be accurate. Of course, we would lack evidence that the multiverse has a conscience, so thinking that the multiverse creates universes will still be assuming.
Why do we humanize the concept of God as I just explained? Why do we call the cosmos and the inner conscience “God” and we give them human traits, assign some mythology to them and make up religions that fight between themselves to decide which one is true? The only known truth is that God cannot be defined in a simple way.